Wmd

[Cidien]

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.j...loc=NW_1-T

And that's why they kicked out the weapons inspectors several times. Case and point. Even if they didn't have them when we invaded... he broke the agreements and should have been removed from power anyways. Only problem is we waited so long.

[gubi-gubi]

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.j...loc=NW_1-T

And that's why they kicked out the weapons inspectors several times. Case and point. Even if they didn't have them when we invaded... he broke the agreements and should have been removed from power anyways. Only problem is we waited so long.

Still doesn't explain the full agenda for the war. If he didn't necessarly have them then why not go somewhere like North Korea where they DO have them? Why Iraq? When is the war in North Korea comming?

[Schultz]

Because North Korea isn't as much of a threat they may have them but North korea doesn't have the economical backing as the likes of Iraq. Majority of the time North Korea does "stunts" to get Humanitarian efforts from other countries if it stops doing its nuclear agenda.

[Cidien]

Still doesn't explain the full agenda for the war. If he didn't necessarly have them then why not go somewhere like North Korea where they DO have them? Why Iraq? When is the war in North Korea comming?

Schultz has a good point but I also agree with this a bit. NK's leader make me... uneasy. The dude seems genuinely mentally unstable sometimes.

[gubi-gubi]

Schultz has a good point but I also agree with this a bit. NK's leader make me... uneasy. The dude seems genuinely mentally unstable sometimes.

And alot of the pros that people give for the war like democracy etc are desperately needed in places like North Korea.

[Schultz]

And alot of the pros that people give for the war like democracy etc are desperately needed in places like North Korea.

Yea but at least in North Korea the leader isn't killing Cities and towns for chemical testing like saddam would. Basically North Korea is more "stable" from a leadership role then Iraq is. Plus another big thing. North Korea is on the Border of China and i don't think they want anyone invading North Korea.

[gubi-gubi]

Yea but at least in North Korea the leader isn't killing Cities and towns for chemical testing like saddam would.

No but anyone who tries to leave is publicly killed and the public are constanly told that South Korea is poor and dieing and evil and that they are doing so well. The country has no food (which 5% died in famine in 1990) as all the money goes on weapons... I fail to see the difference.

[Schultz]

And there's your reason. North Korea threaten's with Nuclear weapons etc. So that they can get economical relief from foreign countries that don't want that. Unlike Iraq which try's to get weapons to actually use them and potentially could use them.

[Blight]

I think the main point being missed on NK vs. Iraq is that we were trying to keep Iraq from developing them, and NK already has them. It was prevention Sadam Hussein from moving into a very threatening position (even at the cost of being mostly inaccurate). Besides, I don't think it is possible to have an open war with a Nuclear power country with out killing our world.

[Schultz]

I think the main point being missed on NK vs. Iraq is that we were trying to keep Iraq from developing them, and NK already has them. It was prevention Sadam Hussein from moving into a very threatening position (even at the cost of being mostly inaccurate). Besides, I don't think it is possible to have an open war with a Nuclear power country with out killing our world.

Not really because WMD is not just Nuclear weapons. That is just one version of them. You have chemical weapons also. Which Iraq had in the past. And if you read that article. They did work on after the Security Council's Sanctions and that they DID conceal information from UN inspector's. So Iraq did have. Also they did chemical attacks on its *own* people. But yet so many people still think that it was wrong to remove him from power. Which should of been done all the way back in the 90's.

[Elcoholic]

Not really because WMD is not just Nuclear weapons. That is just one version of them. You have chemical weapons also. Which Iraq had in the past. And if you read that article. They did work on after the Security Council's Sanctions and that they DID conceal information from UN inspector's. So Iraq did have. Also they did chemical attacks on its *own* people. But yet so many people still think that it was wrong to remove him from power. Which should of been done all the way back in the 90's.

Sigh, the reason so many people (dare I say the vast majority of the WORLDS population) think it was wrong to remove him is because the US decided to do it on its own without UN consent. That it was a country that was ZERO threat to the US. Everybody agrees Saddam was a bad man but also almost everybody agrees no 1 country has the right to invade another country. Its just that the US is the biggest military power so there's not much anybody can do about it. Bush knows this and that shows his lack of respect for other country's. Imagine Italy invading Iraq on its own (to get some oil for example). You can bet that there would be a UN force there to stop them.

And yes they had WMD's but its so convenient to forget who was initially responsible for them having it. That's right, it was the US who suplied them in the war against Iran.

How can people forget so soon how this war started? No Un consent. The first reason was Iraq had WMD's. Then it was because they helped Al Quaida. And now its to free the Iraq people and force democracy on them.

And I don't know if the US news is still covering this but Afghanistan is one huge dissaster. More than half the population is still dependant of heroine production (nothing has been done to prevent this since the war started). 100% of heroine in europe comes from afghanistan. The vast majority of the land is still in control of the warlords and they would cause havoc if something would be done against the heroine trade. There are daily terrorist attacks there and in a large part of the country all the allied troops do is dig into their base because its to dangerous for them to go outside. There has been masive coverage of it on our news the past 2 months because we just signed up for a 2 year tour in the most dangerous province over there (Uruzgan).

Nothing has really changed for the better. There's more hate against the Us in the middle east now then there has ever been and more terrorists available to give their life. Its a dissaster.

[gubi-gubi]

force democracy on them.

I don't think you can 'force' democracy. Everywhere needs and should have it. Sadam needed to be stopped and Iraq needs democracy but it's the way they went about it that's wrong.

[Blight]

Not really because WMD is not just Nuclear weapons. That is just one version of them. You have chemical weapons also. Which Iraq had in the past. And if you read that article. They did work on after the Security Council's Sanctions and that they DID conceal information from UN inspector's. So Iraq did have. Also they did chemical attacks on its *own* people. But yet so many people still think that it was wrong to remove him from power. Which should of been done all the way back in the 90's.

I know almost all of that. I was and still am in favor of giving that that bastard a long vacation in a cell. And I know the main reason that we assumed that there were WMD's was because he was constantly an ass about letting UN inspectors in. He was constantly delaying them, and if he is delaying them, what is he trying to hide. The lines aren?t hard to draw there. And I know how he gassed his own villages. And even if the WMD threat turns out to be total BS, then we still took a very evil man out of power.

I don't think you can 'force' democracy. Everywhere needs and should have it. Sadam needed to be stopped and Iraq needs democracy but it's the way they went about it that's wrong.

I agree. But if you are pressed under foot will you ever get the chance to try it out?

And you know, peace is fucking awesome. It is so great that every one seems to want it, but only for themselves. People are constantly saying it isn't any of the US's business, that it isn?t any business but the people of Iraq. Well how lovely. You will let their people starve from the sanctions that you put on their country because of their leader, but won't do anything that actually hurts him, because you would have to get off your ass and risk YOUR precious peace. I hate hypocrites. I hate how know matter what good there is in it, so many people are think that fighting is an absolute wrong.

Once we leave, and Iraq governs itself (and this needs to happen pretty damn soon), I think people?s opinions of the whole situation will change, at least in reference to this being a solely aggressive action. The whole issue of our intentions being misleading, and weather or not UMD?s where that reason is one that needs to be addressed, but if people can?t see that good, no, great things are happening right now, it?s because they?ve closed their eyes.

[Homeless Joe]

whether a country "needs" democracy or not is irrelavent. it is not America's place to go around and impose it's views on other countries. the main problem i have with the war, besides being lied too, is that we went in without the un. we basically said, fuck you un i'm gonna do what i want, try and stop me. it's pretty arrogant and hypocritical. it pretty much made the un look worthless and help to deepen some people's hatred for us. the un was set up in part to prevent this sort of thing, and we have helped them militarily in the past. but when we don't agree with the world's decision, we just go and do it anyways?

[Homeless Joe]

Nothing has really changed for the better. There's more hate against the Us in the middle east now then there has ever been and more terrorists available to give their life. Its a dissaster.

i've seen little to no coverage on afghanistan. maybe it's there and i'm not seeing it, but i know it's not plastered all over the place for the public to get angry about. this war has done nothing but create more enemies. how stupid is it to fight a war against an ideal? how can you do that with military might? you beat the people into submission and what does that solve? nothing. the idea remains. we have done nothing but exactly what the terrorist say we do. we have backed up their claims and lent them strength and truth. truth the whole world can see.