Why the Iraq war was morally right

Not if you are talking about the USA. Germany declared war on the US first, and then the US followed. This was at the end of 1941, long after Poland was invaded.

 

I think that in 1988 Saddam Hussein was still being armed and funded by the US ... so by your logic it was obvious that President Reagan might also support Alqaeda ....

hmmmmm now there's a thought

 

We talked a bit about the possible Saddam/Al qaeda connection in my Global Issues class today. When my teacher asked what the class thought, I'd say about maybe 18 out of 20 believe there was a connection of some kind. The teacher found it interesting then threw out that as long as he's known, Saddam has GREATLY disliked Al qaeda for their fudamentalist ideals and that there was always quite a bit of tension between the two. I don't know much about it since it was only brought up for a little bit, then we moved on to something else. But I thought I'd throw that out there.....hope it hasn't been said somewhere else in the tread.

 

Exactly, you are against the Americans over there helping helpless people. Therefore I simply sudgested you go over there and fight against the Americans. Much like you do now, only then you would be able to shoot them.

I believe MM gave the perfect example of how librals think. Civilians were being killed before we got there. The "insurgents" would be fighting someone else because everyone else is not muslim. Our soldiers are dieing for a reason. That reason is people that are killing them. If the insurgents would surrender, stop blowing up areas with civilians and soldiers present, we wouldn't have a problem. The sooner this rebellion realizes that we are there trying to rebuild a nation and lives, the sooner the rebuilding can finnish. I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the world nor America will ever be perfect. There will always be evil. The only thing you can do is either watch it and live with it, or fight it.

Under controle? They were running the country. Yes mistakes made not only by us but by the existing government allowed these rebels to gain more controle on munisions.

Sorry, I don't recall me ever saying that I was happy with our country for leaving the Iraqis to defend themselves. That is pointles though in this. We are not leaving them this time. Just as our gradfathers and great grandfathers faught in previous wars, and lives were lost, those left surviving realize the the positive effect in the end. True war is sad and depresing. However, at times it is the only way. We can all say "peace and love" but unles the other party believes it, it wont work. As far as you using the word "we", please stop. I am nothing like you, nor am I like anyone in our government. I have clearly stated that Ido care for the lives of other people. The difference between you and I is I am willing to die for someones right to live if that is what it takes.

Oh, and t othe person who asked me when Iship off. As I have stated previously, I was not allowed into the armed forces because of my medical background. I went there, took my tests, and was held back because of medical reasons. I promise you though, if the threats of "blood running in the strret" are true, I will certainly be defending my family, friends, and fellow Americans while you sit back behind you computer and tell me I am wrong.

 

I would say not made it past 1991. We should have gone into Iraq after the war to free Kuwait and finished off the regime. There was a popular uprising immediatly after the first Gulf War. We should have joined forces with it to remove Saddams' regime there and then. Instead the western allies made a big mistake and allowed Saddam to fuck us around for years. We should have known that someone like Saddam can never be trusted and finished him off.

 

You expect me to go over there and fight American's because I am against the war? Are you stupid?

And you are trying to say that Iraqi civilians had control over the nation before we went in? The Shiite's were slaughtered by Saddam in the early 90's after getting no help from us. They were not in control of the region. And you can't expect them to like us now.

If Bush wanted to march into Iraq looking like a hero he came about 10 years too late. They know we don't give two shits about them over there. I can't blame them for fighting back against foregin occupation. How can anyone? Would we just give up to an invading army and let them do with our country what they please?

And for all these positive effects after wars you are talking about, you seem to have forgotten Vietnam. War isn't positive just because it's war. And just because America has gone to war doesn't mean that we rightfully did so. I feel sorry for the idiots who would support this country with whatever it did, simply because it's America. I am not going to be one of those fools.

 

Yes, but hindsight is 20/20. Had we known the evil monster he would become, then I'm sure he never would have been in charge of Iraq. Yes, he is now our responsibility, and that's why we took him out... get it?

And you also said in your post that we "misunderstood" you. I think the truth is that you were previously for the war, and then changed your mind. If this is the case, just say so. Nobody will think less of you for changing your mind. I say this b/c your past posts were pretty convincing to me that you were for the war. And then all of the sudden you just started posting outbursts of anti war/ anti government stuff. So I'm sure you can see where we are confused. Stop trying to convince everybody that you were against the war all along, when you obviously weren't. If you just say, "Hey, you know what, I changed my mind" then it would be a lot easier on you.

 

The insurgents were IN control before we invaded the country. That's what they don't like about the new Iraq - under Saddam, Iraq was ruled by Sunnis from the "Golden Triangle". So where is the resistance coming from now? The Golden Triangle.

Saddam was armed by Russia, China, and France. In total the US and UK supplied less than 1% of Iraq's arms.

Technically speaking, he never kicked them out, they left in frustration.

Number one, should the French have resisted us in Normandy? Should Japan and Germany launched guerilla wars against our occupation? No, obviously there is more too it that than. Just as there is more to it than "Iraqis" resisting the current occupation - given that the resistance is much stronger in Sunni areas, because Sunnis liked dominating the country under Saddam. Kurds and the Shia feel differently, and seem to want to let the elections happen (although they would be the ones to gain from that). I think it is just too simplistic to pretend that it is just a universal resistance to occupation which is happening here.

 

I believe the death toll just reached about 1,100 the last time I heard. We still haven't lost as many ppl as we did in one day on 9/11. I know ppl have been injured. Hell, I have a friend over there who fell down or something... wasn't even hurt really... and it's recorded as an injury. So you should take the injury numbers with a grain of salt. So where did you get this HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS number? Just curious... I guess you made it up. I'm not sure how many Iraqis have died, but hundreds of thousands? Come on, you need to buy a newspaper or something.

Just remember that the Iraqi gov. were people who were putting live people through wood chippers. Now please, sit there and tell me somthing didn't need to be done. Yes, I agree that it was long over due. Something should have taken place in the early 90's to take Saddam out of power. But we are where we are, and W wasn't in office back then. So why isn't everyone mad at Billy Clinton for not taking some action over there? Howcome nobody condemns him for not having a backbone when it was nessacery? I respect George W. for taking action now, before Saddam got any worse, even if we are a little late.

 

They were fighters. No statistics have been released on the amount of civilian casualties in Fallujah, it has been estimated that as many as 100,000 civilians have dies in this conflict. Then of course we have the several hundred thousand killed by sanctions and the 200,000 + killed in the first gulf war

 

And don't forget the MILLIONS of people who died under Saddam's reign of terror. I think that if Saddam were still in power, that a lot more people would be dead today.

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

The fact is that we're in Iraq soley because of lies and propaganda. I dont care how evil saddam was, I believe in no way that the ends justify the means. And are there even any ends in sight? Okay we got saddam out and turned iraq into our little puppet government, the people are suffering more than they did before and are pretty tired, I'm sure, of being caught up in this shit. Dont even bring up the gassing of the kurds shit because that was ended over ten years ago. Dont tell me about tourture chambers while we had Abu Gharib and Guantanamo Bay. Dont tell me that those people are better off being gunned down and bombed by their 'liberators' than they were leading opressed but relatively safer lives.

Theres now reports of american's dumbing bodies in rivers in the middle of the night by helicopters. This shit has got to stop, so what do we do? Re-elect the monkey that brought it on. Now he's replaceing Asscroft with the douche that told them it was okay to abuse prisoners at abu Gharib.

What we're doin in Iraq has nothing to do with our freedom, justice, or their freedom.

 

I truly love how moonjava and the other little war trolls here continue to inflate the atrocities of saddam in keeping with their obvious sole source of information (Faux News). First it was thousands he killed, then tens, then hundreds of thousands and now millions!

Time to turn off your tvs and do some actual research for a change, rabid ones. You'll find that no babies were in fact thrown from incubators as Chalabi claimed, nor were people fed through woodchippers, etc.

On the other hand, how amazing that none of these Bush apologists make any peep nor indictment against Bush's continued cozy friendship with Karimov of Uzbekistan whose record makes Saddam look like a minor leaguer.

Of course Fox is mentioning that yet so they havent been whipped into the proper emotive frenzy.

 

Actually, I rarely ever tune into Fox news, nor do I watch TV. I do, however, hit a lot of websites and listen to a lot of talk radio. Thanks for the low blow, though. It was a nice try.

 

Ah well, talk radio with its predominantly right wing focus is equally as misinforming, so little improvement there. As for websites, I suspect you allude to Drudge and Slate which are little more than moutpieces for neocon ideological reinforcement. Fact remains you have clearly bought into the paradigm of condemnation without any substantive proof just to insulate your ideological position rather than bother demanding concrete evidence.

To continue believing anything that eminates from the official line of this repeated exposed lying administration is to show oneself little more than a willing dupe.

 

Yes but one thing you don't realize about talk radio is that they will tell you the side of Iraq that no other news station will. They don't just make stuff up. Where do you get your news from? CBS? Dan Rather's brainwashing specials?

 

"Why the Iraq war was morally right"

Actually, morality has left the Iraq war.

 

No java, Im not in the US remember? I get news from a huge variety of sources in several languages actually and largely from independent journalism and direct dealings with foreign service officials.

Maybe one day if you bother leaving the sanitised controlled media environment of the US and live abroad where dont have Washington censoring what it wishes, you might actually awaken to the truth of our decades of bogus warmongering and hypocrisy about "exporting democracy" that you seem to so readily buy into back home.

The perhaps youd see that the "best interests of the iraqi people" is nothing more than an emotive soundbite with no reality behind it. We;re over there killing Iraqi citizens left and right and excusing it as either "collateral damage" (which is okay for those WE kill but those killed during the Iran Iraq war by saddam are "genocide") or by painting them with the dehumanising terms "insurgent" or "terrorist".

 

Excuse me, but who are you to "suspect" what sources someone uses, and then based on that ASSumption, judge them? Get a life.

 

Someone who bothers paying attention to the very sort of sources you warmongering ilk regularly have used and continue to resort to in order to maintain your grasp on ideologically inspired lies and ever increasingly inflated propaganda.

Far more viable a judgement than any youve made to date based on long debunked allegation and politically inspired false intelligence from Chalabi and Allawi and their cohorts.