So?...

[fukuda 351]

I was against it and I haven't changed my mind.

Let's put the things in perspective... No one denies that Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator (as all his neighbors were and still are), but he achieved to unite all the country, grow the economy, create a secular country, put working healthcare and education (yes, he did), and rise the country as one of the (if not the) most advanced arab countries, but then they entered in the Gulf War and well... lost. Since that, there were regular bombardments with Tomahawk Missiles all over the country and strict economical measures that ruined the country. That attacks and measures were highly criticised at their time.. and then the US government comes with blatantly false arguments about WMD to start an illegal war.

Not only they ruined the only half-decent arab country that existed, but they also were going to cause an enormous ruckus in the region... And putting a democratic government in that region??? It wouldn't (and it won't) last more than 2 weeks without the armed assistance of the coalition troops!

To us it was clear that it was only going to cause death and more death, that's why we were and still are against it.

Remember, the hell is paved with good intentions.

[belfastuniguy 18]

he achieved to unite all the countryquote>

Yeah he did under the threat of fear and violence. Spain has a region that wants to autonomous. I don't see the Spanish government murdering them with poisonous chemicals like Saddam did with the Kurds or destroy their the region they have lived in for centuries like he did with the marsh Arabs. People in the UK marched against the war, I didn't see the British government send in the army and round up thousands before excuting them and dumping them in mass graves like Saddam did in the Basra region

Please spare me the rose-tinted view of Iraq under Saddam, no such exists.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Lets see, so far more than 4 thousand Us soldiers have died in the Iraq War. It's believed to be around 655,000 people total. Are more than 600 thousand deaths worth removing some dumb dictator? Appearantly for Cheney. It's not like he has to send his daughter over to Iraq where she could be killed by an IED.

I really don't see how this war can possibly be justified with common sense and reason.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Wow...well figures a sensitive issue such as this explodes into 2 pages in so little of time.

Everyone knows Iraq and Saddam had WMD's, no informed person would deny that. The false pretenses were that there were WMD's that needed to be dismantled. However, nothing has been found. But then again, Saddam knew the US would invade, so who's to say he didn't just have them sent away or hidden? Really there is no declared war in Iraq, the invasion process took what...a week? Occupation is the difficult part, especially eradication of the insurgencies, which contrary to popular belief were not just created 5 years ago, but have been around so long that no one is even counting the years!

Its typical that the media focuses so much on only the bad (I suppose the bad catches the most viewers?). Curiously enough, the media has found a way to convince people that there were no WMD's, and that this war is for oil only.

And, as my closing statement; Are people really this surprised by Cheney's response?

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Its typical that the media focuses so much on only the badquote>

Or maybe it's just that there really is no good news at all... what could possibly be good about any war?

[belfastuniguy 18]

what could possibly be good about any war?quote>

You do need to think a bit more before saying things like that......Wonder what good WW2 did for European Jews/homosexuals/eastern Europeans and indeed Europe as a whole?? The war was not pleasant but lead to the liberation of Europe which in turn led to the creation of the EU and UN.

Don't apply the problems with recent wars with all wars in history.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

he achieved to unite all the countryquote>

Yeah he did under the threat of fear and violence. Spain has a region that wants to autonomous. I don't see the Spanish government murdering them with poisonous chemicals like Saddam did with the Kurds or destroy their the region they have lived in for centuries like he did with the marsh Arabs. People in the UK marched against the war, I didn't see the British government send in the army and round up thousands before excuting them and dumping them in mass graves like Saddam did in the Basra region

Please spare me the rose-tinted view of Iraq under Saddam, no such exists.quote>

Don't misread my post, I'm not only giving one biased side of the discussion, I said "in perspective" this meant that the genocide and othe rparts were also counted in it, bit i didn't wrote them because everyone knows it.

What is rose-tainted is believing that you can invade a country by force, say to the people that you're doing it for their good and impose a government by force...

War is always the last option and not the first in diplomacy. The rational method to achieve a democratic government is never ever impose it by force, no one will accept it and it will fail becoming the situation way worse than before. You should instigate that feeling in the population, make them taste and learn freedom and democracy, act in a subversive way and start a revolution, it will be bloody, yes, but the government will last and it will be less bloody than an open pointless war. People has no interest in democracy if they don't even know what it is!!

[bobinator 0]

Cheney is one weird S.O.B. It was a waste from the beginning. Like other people have been saying, is 600,000 worth removing a dictator who had done some weird stuff, but nothing to really threaten the U.S. The huge sums of money being poured into the 'war' effort could be used in so many other good ways. Throwing it into Iraq is a total waste.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[gabry85 2]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Its typical that the media focuses so much on only the badquote>

Or maybe it's just that there really is no good news at all... what could possibly be good about any war?quote>

Well, actually media did their best to support Bush's war in 2003. Fox headed the "campaign".

[Micah 16]

Has anyone liked Cheney? Seriously, this was no surprise that he would say that. He's stubborn like that. No Democrats and few Republicans like him. In fact, my Republican relatives were hoping Bush would have pick someone else for VP during the 2004 elections. Now, if Bush said it, I seriously think it would be another issue.

I don't see this as a major issue, though. Just another moment of Cheney making an ass of himself. 

We can't change the past, no matter how screwed up it was. We can't be like most marriages in America and break apart from our commitments. We have a mission to accomplish. In the beginning of the war, there was hell, just how there were deep struggles in many of the other major wars such as WW1. But now, in my opinion, the war is beginning to lighten up. The only thing that is truly unsettling me is whether or not the Iraqi government will take the stand.

Lastly, I think there is another way of looking at Cheney's comments. Most of the media is liberal and some even tilt their polls for their own agendas and Cheney may have been pissed off (as he always is) about the question and decided to put the poll in the interviewer's face. I'm not saying its fact... simply food for thought.

[belfastuniguy 18]

The rational method to achieve a democratic government is never ever impose it by force, no one will accept it and it will fail becoming the situation way worse than before. You should instigate that feeling in the population, make them taste and learn freedom and democracy, act in a subversive way and start a revolution, it will be bloody, yes, but the government will last and it will be less bloody than an open pointless war. People has no interest in democracy if they don't even know what it is!!quote>

Interesting. By what you are saying we should be supporting all those round the world calling for autonomy and freedom from oppression? In effect you could argue with that above point we should be 'subversively' provoking rebellion in southern Russia, Burma, the Basque region, Tibet, Sri Lanka and countless other places. Indeed that arguement could have also been applied to Irish Republican terrorists in Northern Ireland.

Sometimes rebellion is not successful and lead to immense oppression by the government after the protests. Indeed we just have to look to Tibet and Burma as the most recent examples.

What is rose-tainted is believing that you can invade a country by forcequote>

I never stated a rose-tinted view of the war, if you had bothered to read my previous posts you would have seen that I said the war has turned into a complete mess. No where have I stated a rose-tinted view. I was referring to your view of Iraqi society. Maybe the Sunni population have great health and education but the Shia;s in the south and Kurds in the north weren't exactly Saddams best friends and they were made to suffer as was anyone that showed a hint of opposition. The entire nation of Iraq was not experienced this glorious lifestyle you suggested. Hence my rose-tinted point..

Wow, the warmongers are out in force todayquote>

Seeing as I said I supported the war I'll take it that was directed at me and others. Yes I did support the war, that makes me a warmonger??? I'm not calling for the west to invade every country we don't approve of.

People have their views on whether they supported or not, each is entitled to have it. War is never the best option, but for some situations it becomes necessary.

[Callbat 8]

Originally posted by: panthersimcity4

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove

Its typical that the media focuses so much on only the badquote>

Or maybe it's just that there really is no good news at all... what could possibly be good about any war?quote>

Its the only news that makes a quick buck.

[TheSixCents 0]

My God.

I was listening to "Wait Wait Dont Tell Me" on NPR Yesterday and one of the contestants said he went to Iraq and had the goverment there make a Petagram and summon him.

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Interesting. By what you are saying we should be supporting all those round the world calling for autonomy and freedom from oppression? In effect you could argue with that above point we should be 'subversively' provoking rebellion in southern Russia, Burma, the Basque region, Tibet, Sri Lanka and countless other places. Indeed that arguement could have also been applied to Irish Republican terrorists in Northern Ireland.quote>

Heh, I said "democracy" not "autonomy" nor "opression" each case must be clearly studied before doing anything, as any case is different.

In any case, even a violent rebellion must be avoided if we can, We can try to do rebellions like the Orange Uprising. Yes, theoretically, russia in general, not only southern, should uproar to have something like a democracy, but we should also consider the risks of a weakened Russia in this severely problematic political and global instant, prudence and planning are always our best cards. Same with Burma and entire China (not only Tibet) should fight (peacefully if possible) for democracy at the good moment. Violence and war are always the last resource, and killing civiles and innocents is just wrong (related to your comment about terrorists). Basques are free and have a democracy, so it's not a good example...

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Sometimes rebellion is not successful and lead to immense oppression by the government after the protests. Indeed we just have to look to Tibet and Burma as the most recent examples.quote>

I know, but there's no progress without risk, it's sad, I know

[belfastuniguy 18]

I do support your view, I would love to see many places round the world enjoy freedom and democracy. Though I just had to give another side to the view. I'd also be concerned that should it ever be known that foreign government helped bring about rebellion it could prove disastrous for that country both domestically and internationally. However, I do agree with support freedom and democracy movements which have valid cause, like Burma

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

he achieved to unite all the countryquote>

Yeah he did under the threat of fear and violence....quote>

...and we have divided the country with the threat of fear and violence.

It's not rose-tinted (the redness comes from blood), but the US-UK vision is decidedly bloodier.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Oh please .....we are the terrorising the Iraqi population?? Are you actually serious?

British and American forces have died trying to prevent insurgents from murdering the Iraqi people. In fact if you had a proper understanding of the situation you would know that in the south where UK forces have been operating the life of the people there has improved. Nothing is perfect but it is better than what it was. Also in Baghdad insurgent attacks are on the decrease and life has returned to areas once blighted by insurgency. You should also be made aware that the vast majority of violence is Iraqi-on-Iraqi an not perpetrated by the current armies.

The coalition forces are doing the best they can to stop it and help the people. The situation is not yet perfect but is improving. Yet again we have people commented without being fully aware of the facts and thus substitute that with bull***.

[Frankie_Grove 32]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy Oh please .....we are the terrorising the Iraqi population?? Are you actually serious?

British and American forces have died trying to prevent insurgents from murdering the Iraqi people. In fact if you had a proper understanding of the situation you would know that in the south where UK forces have been operating the life of the people there has improved. Nothing is perfect but it is better than what it was. Also in Baghdad insurgent attacks are on the decrease and life has returned to areas once blighted by insurgency. You should also be made aware that the vast majority of violence is Iraqi-on-Iraqi an not perpetrated by the current armies.

The coalition forces are doing the best they can to stop it and help the people. The situation is not yet perfect but is improving. Yet again we have people commented without being fully aware of the facts and thus substitute that with bull***.quote>

You and I don't usually have coinciding views, but you've hit the nail on the head with this one, and I can't argue with that.

Violence is decreasing, and the Iraqi people are no longer as supportive to the insurgencies as they once were, as now they have somewhat experienced life without their influence. It is far from perfect, but victories, no matter how small, are important. At the very least, a troop presence has made it more difficult for insurgents to operate.

[deadwoods 542]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Take a look on Halliburton's profitsquote>

aahhhhh.....well seeing as oil prices have undergo a massive increase in value then of course the profits are going to increase, just as they have for every oil corporation around the world and led to a second oil boom in Calgary, Canada. High oil prices are the primary reason for an increase in oil profits.

controlled by the United Statequote>

You want to tell that to the millions of Iraqis that voted it into power?? I doubt they would take that too well tbh

Yes coalition forces help provide security but you can hardly just state the entire Iraq government is controlled by the USA.quote>

Halliburton through its subsidiaries have done spectacularly well out of Iraq, not through oil, but by providing almost every non-combat service in the country, often gaining contracts without tender and have been found on many occasions to be ripping off the taxpayer. So billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money have lined the pockets of Cheney's colleagues; additional profit that is solely due to invading Iraq.

As to securing the oil being one of the goals of the invasion. It's been alluded to by many, including Greenspan. It's common knowledge that the neo-cons (primarily Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc.) wanted a stable, democratic, US-friendly govt in Iraq to support America's interests. This included oil supply controlled by aa US-friendly government, not Saddam. They had their king in waiting and as soon as that nuisance of an invasion was out of the way, they would install their puppet and life would be wonderful. Unfortunately the post-invasion cleanup was bungled and they didn't get the Iraq they wanted.

[marc 13]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

I supported the war and I supported for regime change, though did believe their were weapons, but primarily for regime change. Of course the situation has turned into a complete mess but I still support it and will always support the troops. We now have to focus all effort and support on re-building and leaving a country the government can run easily and one that has all its infrastructure repaired.quote>

Really? Well, why don't you put your money where your mouth is, enlist, and go over and fight to achieve the goal of "reconstructing" the Iraqi state? Sorry, I don't participate in the squabbling here often, but I'm so sick and tired of armchair chickenhawks using our troops (American to me, British to you) to carry out their whimsical, crazy policies.

It's regime change you wanted, is it? In the past, the CIA has done a very good job at covertly killing foreign leaders- we could have done that instead rather than launching a full invasion, right? And if regime change is so important to you, why was Saddam Hussein first on the list? Perhaps changing Pakistan's regime, which aids and harbors Al Qaeda, should have been a bit higher-up on the list after the Afghanistan War? Maybe changing Saudi Arabia's regime, which supports the fanatical Wahhabbist sect of Islam out to destroy western society, would be a little higher on the list of necessary "regime changes?" Saddam Hussein was a deranged, brutal man, but he hated Al Qaeda because they were a threat to his dictatorial, secular state. Don't give us this bull about "regime change"; there were and are worse regimes out there that pose a greater threat to us which need(ed) to be changed first.

Here's a better recipe for "regime change": Let's wean ourselves off of oil and ignore all the neoconservatives and their warmongering goals. With our dependence on oil eliminated, we won't have to stick our fingers into the middle east whenever we need a new fix. With our need to meddle in middle eastern affairs gone, we won't need to finance and subsidize our middle eastern fortress (Israel) as much as we do now. We should eliminate our support for all of the middle east's monarchs, rulers, and dictators and give their people a chance to elect their own leaders. Right now we aren't giving them that chance- maybe that's why they hate us? Once our influence in the middle east is withdrawn, the guts of the fanatical islamist movement will be cut out and its support will wither away. Islamists will no longer be able to use the (often correct) claim that we meddle in their countries' affairs anymore. Any islamists who continue to resort to violence after that point will be that much easier to root out and eliminate, as they won't have the backing of millions of sympathetic, oppressed muslims angry at their perceived injustice willing to rise to their cause. That sounds like a more realistic "regime change" to me.

And finally, to put a humorous (if possible) spin on the Iraq situation, here are two clips from Bremner, Bird, and Fortune which portray our involvement in the middle east far more accurately than the American media ever will:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptzml1qQvZE

[belfastuniguy 18]

Well firstly I don't have to sign up to the army to be able to state my view. So exactly where the hell do you get off saying so?

I support the anti-whaling protests does that mean I should go and join Greenpeace?? Also I'm not in government so I didn't decide to take the country to war, so its hardly my whimsical policy. I do support the troops through other means I take part in fund-raising and my parents company donate money to charity that helps injured troops as well. In addition, my bother is in the British TA and could be called upon at any time to serve in Iraq. If I wanted to join the army I would, but I don't as I am pursuing an education at university. So maybe you should refrain from bul*** until you're aware of all the facts....ok??

What our troops don't need is people like you assuming the moral high ground and speaking ****.

[marc 13]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy Well firstly I don't have to sign up to the army to be able to state my view. So exactly where the hell do you get off saying so?

I support the anti-whaling protests does that mean I should go and join Greenpeace?? Also I'm not in government so I didn't decide to take the country to war, so its hardly my whimsical policy. I do support the troops through other meansquote>

Supporting a war is a lot more serious than supporting environmental groups and the like. Those advocating war should be the first to be willing to participate in it (fighting it, that is, not orchestrating it).

I take part in fund-raising and my parents company donate money to charity that helps injured troops as well. In addition, my bother is in the British TA and could be called upon at any time to serve in Iraq. If I wanted to join the army I would, but I don't as I am pursuing an education at university. So maybe you should refrain from bul*** until you're aware of all the facts....ok??

quote>

Sure. This is very typical on internet forums- people claim as many military backgrounds/connections as possible to give themselves a sense of legitimacy. The "Flame Warriors" site calls this personality the "centurion." Even if you really do come from a military family, so what? That doesn't give you any advantages.

What our troops don't need is people like you assuming the moral high ground and speaking ****.quote>

You didn't even bother to respond to my points, but that's fine. However, I never claimed to have any moral high ground (if it's even possible to claim that), I just said that your rationale for this war was and still is bogus.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Well I live in a society of free choice and I can support a war without having to join the army. If the United Kingdom was attacked and engaged in a war like WW2 then yeah I would sign up to defend her.

Firstly, you do not know a damn thing about me so where exactly do you get off suggesting I am a liar? I do have a brother in the TA. I'll give you a list of all his training weekends of you wish. It's not my problem if you don't believe me, just deal with it.

My support for the war is personal view that I as an individual have came to, I am capable of deciding things for myself.

In relation to your other points. If you read my previous statements you would have seen that I do support regime change in many countries and that includes the middle east. Pakistan as a country is not harbouring, in fact they have been one of the only countries to work with the United States to find them. Granted they could do more, but at least they are trying.

Israel has a right to exist and until the region is at peace and threats against it have stopped then it will continue to need support from America and Europe and other countries round the world. That's not to say that Israel has clean hands, many things they are doing and have done are not supported by me and I do want to see a settlement reached so the region can begin to move on. I also want democratic and accountable government in the middle east and the introduction of constitutional reform that would allow the monarch to remain as a figure head, much like in European countries.

Just becuase I supported the war for regime change in Iraq does not mean I do not support regime change elsewhere, Had the thread been about 'Regime change around the world' then I would have stated all the above. This thread is specific to Iraq and as such I limited much of my replies to the Iraq issue.

[deadwoods 542]

Which reminds me... Bush made a big song and dance about taking the same anti nerve agent drugs as the troops when there were claims about the drugs being dangerous and untested. Does anyone know if he actually did it?

[Joesocwork 4]

Keep the replies to subject and not to criticising other members for expressing differing viewpoints.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: deadwoods Which reminds me... Bush made a big song and dance about taking the same anti nerve agent drugs as the troops when there were claims about the drugs being dangerous and untested. Does anyone know if he actually did it?quote>

Would explain his term in the white house.

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove Wow...well figures a sensitive issue such as this explodes into 2 pages in so little of time.

Everyone knows Iraq and Saddam had WMD's, no informed person would deny that. The false pretenses were that there were WMD's that needed to be dismantled. However, nothing has been found. But then again, Saddam knew the US would invade, so who's to say he didn't just have them sent away or hidden? quote>

Is this some new military tactic? "They're invading, lets quickly destroy all our weapons!"

[Simfan34 11]

Ugh! Is the FACT that

"In Iraq there are terrorists

terrorists DO NOT want stable gov't

we are the only people fighting these terrorists atm"

in dispute!

I tolerate people's view, and consider myself a liberal conservative, but yeesh! What's going on today?

[Voar Tok 4]

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove Wow...well figures a sensitive issue such as this explodes into 2 pages in so little of time.

Everyone knows Iraq and Saddam had WMD's, no informed person would deny that. The false pretenses were that there were WMD's that needed to be dismantled. However, nothing has been found. But then again, Saddam knew the US would invade, so who's to say he didn't just have them sent away or hidden? quote>

Is this some new military tactic? "They're invading, lets quickly destroy all our weapons!"quote>

Yes.  Saddam had Kurds gassed by the thousands, yet why didn't he have that done to the coalition forces?  Because if he did, he'd prove that he had the very things we said he did, and would royally PO the rest of the UN in the process.