My generation learned you must make a case, and excuse me, I am not convinced. That is my problem, I cannot go to the public and say, 'these are the reasons', because I don't believe in them.
In MY generation, one must realize that the world changed about two years ago. That's my problem, I won't go into public and explain to everyone why it happened again, even it means pre-emptive war.
Well, are you trying to say that it's okay for the Palestinians to hit civilian targets while it is wrong fro everyone else?
No, just that the 'blood money' has been discussed here quite a lot and suffice to say that if we went to war with everyone that gave blood money we'd be committing suicide.
In MY generation, one must realize that the world changed about two years ago. That's my problem, I won't go into public and explain to everyone why it happened again, even it means pre-emptive war.
So for you the Iraqi war is also tied to 911? I´m amazed every time that arguments surfaces.
Nothing indicates that Saddam was involved in anything that could cause another terrorist attack on US.
When US is giving money to Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan for use of the land for bases it is giving blood money themselves. Even if the goal isn´t to assist the goverments in their war against their own people the result is exatly this.
So for you the Iraqi war is also tied to 911? I´m amazed every time that arguments surfaces.
Nothing indicates that Saddam was involved in anything that could cause another terrorist attack on US.
Yes that's what the pundits of war would like you to believe. I think that's one of the reasons we have so many uninformed people running around thinking we attacked Iraq because of 911.
In my generation the world has changed many times with major events. It still doesn't alter the facts of right or wrong.
Nothing indicates that Saddam was involved in anything that could cause another terrorist attack on US.
Sure, and there was nothing to indicate that Hitler was going to overrun Poland or that he had over 6million Jews and other minorities exterminated.
But to return to my earlier statement, the Iraq war was indirectly connected. 911 happened and then the US gov started targeting any country linking themselves to terrorism, Saddam linked himself to terrorism. Connection.
I would think Europeans would have a better grasp of this concept, no event in history is unrelated, no matter the time span or distance. What happened 1000 years ago still haunts us, what happens now will haunt the world for 1000 years. So if someone makes a relationship that to you seems unlikely, more than likely it is related even indirectly.
Sure, and there was nothing to indicate that Hitler was going to overrun Poland or that he had over 6million Jews and other minorities exterminated.
That connection is so far out. Nothing indicates France is about to attack US so thats a good reason to hit against them too? In late 30s we all chosenot to see what was coming. In this case we chose to see what was not there.
The only link between Saddam and terrorism is that he supposely sent checks to the families of dead suicide bombers (and I still wait to hear any reports about someone ever recieving such a check). He didn´t fund, sponsor or plan terrorist attacks. Like so many in the middle east he jumped the popular wagon and only started talking about the palestinian case when he saw it as a way to gain popularity. Bombs in strapped onto young peoples bodies didn´t get popular because Saddam supported it. Saddam gained (some) popularity when he supported the bombs. Not one bomb have been set of because of Saddam.
Know what? Saddam was happy with the US position to Iraq. As long as there was a low intensity war going on against Iraq he had his excuse to suppress his population (straight out of 1984 AND the cold war). Saddam knew the moment he did something against US he would be dead. People always take him for a fanatic. He was not. Hes was power hungry and smart enough to know how to obtain and keep it. The moment he saw the pictures from WTC he knew he had lost his power.
Saddam would never have done anything against US interests (except try to shoot down a few F-16s once in a while). He was just too happy in his palaces.
(except try to shoot down a few F-16s once in a while).
Yes, but by the ceasefire agreement from the 1st Gulf War that was more than enough cause for the US to go back. It was an act of agression, an act of War. During the Cold War standoff all sides were very reluctant to fire in any circumstance, knowing full well the consequence. I blame Clinton's imcompentency on foreign matters for letting things get out of hand.
I'll just interject with the scenario I had in my head about how Hussein would have (will?) use WMDs or any other weapons against the US: sell them to someone who will do the dirty work for you. Anders is right that he would not do the deed himself. The "pensions" for suicide bomber families shows his MO well enough. We have no idea if this did, is or will happen even now.
Yes, but by the ceasefire agreement from the 1st Gulf War that was more than enough cause for the US to go back. It was an act of agression, an act of War. During the Cold War standoff all sides were very reluctant to fire in any circumstance, knowing full well the consequence. I blame Clinton's imcompentency on foreign matters for letting things get out of hand.
Ahh yes that may be. But that has excatly zero to do with terrorism.
I'll just interject with the scenario I had in my head about how Hussein would have (will?) use WMDs or any other weapons against the US: sell them to someone who will do the dirty work for you. Anders is right that he would not do the deed himself. The "pensions" for suicide bomber families shows his MO well enough. We have no idea if this did, is or will happen even now.
As I said Saddam could not be happier with the status quo just before 911. Why on earth should he do anything to risk his power in Iraq. The money he could make on selling WoMD to terrorists was nothing compared to the risk he would take for supporting terorrists. Remember again: He wasn´t a loony nut but a brutal dictator that gave top priority to power.
<edit> and just cause is still a part of the argument, yes?
I would hate this to turn into another "hunt the rabbit"-thread where the focus is shifting all the time as we jump from argument to argument without adressing the critisism against them
Therefor: You haven´t responded to my arguments against the terrorism basis for the war but is moving on to another area. I take it you won´t hold up that arguemnt in this thread?
About the cease fire. It is generally agreed among jurists dealing with UN and international affairs that when new SC resolutions are written about a situation between two or more states they preceed old agreements. So when the SC did NOT give US carte Blance to go to war there is no legal ground to do on basis of a >10 year old cease fire.
And I say he was a looney nut, what shooting at US jet fighters shortly after a ceasefire is a sane thing to do.
he got what he wanted: Keep up the impression of a never ending war (which give him greater powers over his people) but low intense enough not to be ousted by US. It worked for ten years. Please note what he really did was to lock on radars to the planes, not shoot at them. Enough for US to shoot up a few rafars once in a while but not enough to launce a full scale invation.
You don't think he could launder weapons to terrorists? The receipts wouldn't have shown they came from Iraq. I think he'd love the idea. Before this run-up to war, he probably figured that without "smoking gun" proof, the US was handcuffed to do anything. Always was true before.
Comments
My generation learned you must make a case, and excuse me, I am not convinced. That is my problem, I cannot go to the public and say, 'these are the reasons', because I don't believe in them.
In MY generation, one must realize that the world changed about two years ago. That's my problem, I won't go into public and explain to everyone why it happened again, even it means pre-emptive war.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Well, are you trying to say that it's okay for the Palestinians to hit civilian targets while it is wrong fro everyone else?
No, just that the 'blood money' has been discussed here quite a lot and suffice to say that if we went to war with everyone that gave blood money we'd be committing suicide.
"Stay on target, stay on target"
-red leader during the trench run "Star Wars"
Originally posted by SDW2001
In MY generation, one must realize that the world changed about two years ago. That's my problem, I won't go into public and explain to everyone why it happened again, even it means pre-emptive war.
So for you the Iraqi war is also tied to 911? I´m amazed every time that arguments surfaces.
Nothing indicates that Saddam was involved in anything that could cause another terrorist attack on US.
Originally posted by Anders
So for you the Iraqi war is also tied to 911? I´m amazed every time that arguments surfaces.
Nothing indicates that Saddam was involved in anything that could cause another terrorist attack on US.
Yes that's what the pundits of war would like you to believe. I think that's one of the reasons we have so many uninformed people running around thinking we attacked Iraq because of 911.
In my generation the world has changed many times with major events. It still doesn't alter the facts of right or wrong.
Nothing indicates that Saddam was involved in anything that could cause another terrorist attack on US.
Sure, and there was nothing to indicate that Hitler was going to overrun Poland or that he had over 6million Jews and other minorities exterminated.
But to return to my earlier statement, the Iraq war was indirectly connected. 911 happened and then the US gov started targeting any country linking themselves to terrorism, Saddam linked himself to terrorism. Connection.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Sure, and there was nothing to indicate that Hitler was going to overrun Poland or that he had over 6million Jews and other minorities exterminated.
That connection is so far out. Nothing indicates France is about to attack US so thats a good reason to hit against them too? In late 30s we all chosenot to see what was coming. In this case we chose to see what was not there.
The only link between Saddam and terrorism is that he supposely sent checks to the families of dead suicide bombers (and I still wait to hear any reports about someone ever recieving such a check). He didn´t fund, sponsor or plan terrorist attacks. Like so many in the middle east he jumped the popular wagon and only started talking about the palestinian case when he saw it as a way to gain popularity. Bombs in strapped onto young peoples bodies didn´t get popular because Saddam supported it. Saddam gained (some) popularity when he supported the bombs. Not one bomb have been set of because of Saddam.
Know what? Saddam was happy with the US position to Iraq. As long as there was a low intensity war going on against Iraq he had his excuse to suppress his population (straight out of 1984 AND the cold war). Saddam knew the moment he did something against US he would be dead. People always take him for a fanatic. He was not. Hes was power hungry and smart enough to know how to obtain and keep it. The moment he saw the pictures from WTC he knew he had lost his power.
Saddam would never have done anything against US interests (except try to shoot down a few F-16s once in a while). He was just too happy in his palaces.
(except try to shoot down a few F-16s once in a while).
Yes, but by the ceasefire agreement from the 1st Gulf War that was more than enough cause for the US to go back. It was an act of agression, an act of War. During the Cold War standoff all sides were very reluctant to fire in any circumstance, knowing full well the consequence. I blame Clinton's imcompentency on foreign matters for letting things get out of hand.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Yes, but by the ceasefire agreement from the 1st Gulf War that was more than enough cause for the US to go back. It was an act of agression, an act of War. During the Cold War standoff all sides were very reluctant to fire in any circumstance, knowing full well the consequence. I blame Clinton's imcompentency on foreign matters for letting things get out of hand.
Ahh yes that may be. But that has excatly zero to do with terrorism.
Ahh yes that may be. But that has excatly zero to do with terrorism
But it is still Just Cause.
<edit> and just cause is still a part of the argument, yes?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I'll just interject with the scenario I had in my head about how Hussein would have (will?) use WMDs or any other weapons against the US: sell them to someone who will do the dirty work for you. Anders is right that he would not do the deed himself. The "pensions" for suicide bomber families shows his MO well enough. We have no idea if this did, is or will happen even now.
As I said Saddam could not be happier with the status quo just before 911. Why on earth should he do anything to risk his power in Iraq. The money he could make on selling WoMD to terrorists was nothing compared to the risk he would take for supporting terorrists. Remember again: He wasn´t a loony nut but a brutal dictator that gave top priority to power.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Originally posted by Anders
But it is still Just Cause.
<edit> and just cause is still a part of the argument, yes?
I would hate this to turn into another "hunt the rabbit"-thread where the focus is shifting all the time as we jump from argument to argument without adressing the critisism against them
Therefor: You haven´t responded to my arguments against the terrorism basis for the war but is moving on to another area. I take it you won´t hold up that arguemnt in this thread?
About the cease fire. It is generally agreed among jurists dealing with UN and international affairs that when new SC resolutions are written about a situation between two or more states they preceed old agreements. So when the SC did NOT give US carte Blance to go to war there is no legal ground to do on basis of a >10 year old cease fire.
Originally posted by LiquidR
And I say he was a looney nut, what shooting at US jet fighters shortly after a ceasefire is a sane thing to do.
he got what he wanted: Keep up the impression of a never ending war (which give him greater powers over his people) but low intense enough not to be ousted by US. It worked for ten years. Please note what he really did was to lock on radars to the planes, not shoot at them. Enough for US to shoot up a few rafars once in a while but not enough to launce a full scale invation.
As I said smart but brutal.
You concede, Saddam did make the offer to Palestinian suicide bombers that their families would get a substantial amount of money. _TRUE!
I concede, Saddam may never had actually sent the money. _TRUE!
Given, Palestinian suicide bombers did not limit themselves to military targets, hence making them terrorists.
Hence, Saddams offer, genuine or not, still links himself to terrorism.
Point.
PS. I thought this was ground I already covered
PPS. No, Israel is not the US, but is a US ally.