RaymanInPA

OK - was this wrong or right?

I say right because at the end of the day the removal of Saddam is one-less dictator in the world to worry about + ask the Iraqi people.

I ain't saying Bush had 100% pure intentions and I definately ain't saying that Oil wasn't a factor. But the bottom line is that the end-result was justified.

Rayman in PA.

Ranjini

GWB lied to the American nation and played on their fears after 9/11. He made out that Saddam was a threat to the US because he had WMDs. Where are those WMDs? Why did he lie?? He and the other oil barons in the US cabinet had their personal agenda as far as oil. Period.
That Saddam Hussein is no more is wonderful for the Iraqis and the rest of the world. But that was only a secondary factor as far as reasons for the war IMHO. We can all see for ourselves what the Americans think about all this at the next Presidential election. That will be the litmus test...

Pulaski

I agree whole heartedly. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, including the use of chemical weapons. How can anybody not see that he had to go?

nathan barley

While the invasion was justified in a "I know you won't take no for an answer George and Tony, so get it over with" manner, and Saddam and his party obviously had to go, I had several problems with it.

• Firstly, did the administration forget to take their Ritalin, what happened to Osama? Al Qaeda is still very much alive and kicking, with a new fervor. Iraq is not 9/11, nor Al Qaeda.
• The humanitarian angle is bullshit, if it was humanitarian, we'd have invaded in 1991.
• The invasion comes 12 years too late. The coalition stood idly by and watched the Shi'ites, who had been encouraged to uprise and rebel at the end of GW1, be slaughtered in their thousands.
• The mass grave that was discovered during GW2 was a burial ground from that uprising.
• When Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds, guess who'd sold them to them? Clue: The receipt is at the Pentagon.
• The lack of credible verified proof that Iraq still has viable (Bio/Chem weapons degrade rapidly over time) WMD's.
• The fact they havent found any yet. I remember Colin Powell giving a presentation to the UN detailing the locations of several WMD factories. In a country that probably has satallite surveilance up the wazoo it's hard to believe, if they were moved, that it wasn't seen.
• Blatant attempt to provide the US with a stable, controlable source of oil in the region.
• Too many lies told and spin placed to justify it in the eyes of the mainstream media and general public.

Why aren't we invading:
Saudi Arabia; members of it's government, or people linked to it's government were highlighted as having gave financial and personnel assistance to a number of the Al Qaeda hijackers from 9/11. 15 of the hijackers were Saudi. The US government censored the parts of the 9/11 report that condemned the Saudis, because oil and the security of it's supply comes first.

North Korea; Kim Jong Il has imprisoned, killed or tortured untold thousands of N. Koreans in what is easily the most opressive dictatorship in the world today, and has kidnapped S. Korean and Japanese citizens. He also openly flaunts his defiance of international nuclear treaties, and military strength. His country may be half starving to death, but the N.K army stands at over a million heads and would be an incredibly difficult task for even the fully deployed US infantry to deal with. N.K is the wild card that has been bizzarely ignored, and which may have serious ramifications for global security in the future.

Liberia; they had a dictator up until today, why didn't we invade there. No oil, but plenty of diamonds, and a likely urban bloodbath.

Woo, too long, that's what typing when I'm tired does for me.
I'm not against the war persee, I hope some freedom does finally come to the citizens of Iraq, and quickly. I can just identify its sore points and question marks fairly objectively.

Patrick

Why aren't the americans now systematically taking out all the other dictators who kill and persecute their own people? Why was Saddam the one that needed to go and not the others? There is no doubt he needed to go (probably 13 years ago would of been better - even before that, after he used chemical weapons on his own people) but the end doesn't justify the means for several reasons.

1. He illegally invaded another country without the backing of NATO or UN nations.

2. He lied to Congress, the american people, the UN and World to get his way.

3. He has never explained why he lied and what his real agenda is, he, like you, beleives history will vindicate him because he did something good (deposed Saddam) while doing something bad (lying and whatever else he is doing that we don't know about)

4. American troops are an invading force in a foreign country, operation Enduring Freedom is a name given to it to appease the american people, in reality it is operation Occupying Force and the Iraq's are neither thankful or happy about it. Why would they be, they have no power in there own country, they are being governed by Washington, they are not reaping any of the benefits of the rebuilding as the contracts have all gone to US (mostly Texas and GWB campaign contributers) based companies.

5. Who made america the world court, who gave GWB the right to walk into other countries and dictate how they should be governed and by which laws?

6. If GWB is going to play Judge why isn't he removing other dictators with equally bad human rights records.




FYI I fought in the first Gulf War and my brother fought in this one. My other brother fought in the Falkland, my father in Aden and both Grandfathers in WW2. There is no cowardice in my family, when our country called we answered.

What this country doesn't need is stupid immigrants who beleive exactly what they are told and follow the radical retoric of a man I wouldn't put in charge of the french fries at McDonalds. You beleive the hype, beleive the crap the government spouts and follow the hoards of others who blindly follow. You will be telling me next that the Jessica Lynch rescue wasn't staged - Don't beleive the Hype Ray, don't beleive the hype!

America needs more people asking why or where will this go next? What will this radical government do next. If (like some say) the war was all smoke and mirrors to take our minds of the economy then it is a terrible price to pay.

Patrick

Now choose two or three sentences out my whole post and use them out of context to make a point that is redundant or infantile.

doctor scrumpy

Why is mugabe allowed to butcher and rape the former Rhodesia ? Oh yes I forgot, no oil & black african tribesmen are allowed to do what they want, or even better feted as world heroes...mandela convicted terrorist who should have been hung for murder in the 60s.

Stick to stealing xmas trees, possessing coke & dui george !

Does anyone actually believe that bush is anything more than a puppet figurehead for rumsfeld & the rest of the lunatics running the asylum ?

Patrick

Ray obviously does

Duncs

Mixed views actually. Good riddance to Saddam but why only his regime and what about Mugabe etc?

As a Brit i supported it publicly on the media, as far as the UK was concerned but that was based upon the UK national interest being served by being a close ally of the USA rather than any special reasons al la Saddam.

As a USA resident however i would be less supportive. I am no peacenick but the cost is what puts me off. $600billion in reconstruction! thats not even the cost of the war which is a conservative estimate of another $150billion so thats $750billion of US tax payers money not to mention the 300 odd dead and rising. There is no way the oil will repay that figure its a loss maker as far as i can see. Why should the USA have to deal with the worlds problems? and why pay for it. The US national debt is the highest ever and it is starting to squeeze credit already. Mortgage rates are going to go up, repayments will climb wiping out the tax rebate for most families, so consumption will drop hurting industrial and service output, the dollar will devalue and it needs to to take some of the surplus production or else more jobs will go. Lower dollar means higher prices on imports so inflation climbs hurting real income still more, consumption drops etc etc. its pretty basic macro economics i reckon(still too tough for George W obviously). I just pray that come next Nov W gets put on the massive unemployment line he has created. If this dmage goes on another 4 years the debts will be so big that we will all be paying for it our taxes for the next 20 years.

At the end of the day its about the money for me and right or wrong on Saddam my selfish concern for my future prosperity is ultimately what makes my decision.

regards,

Duncan

(ps. of course if I owned large amounts of stock in Halliburton where some of that $600 is going to i might see it different)

RaymanInPA

Originally posted by nathan barley:

"Firstly, did the administration forget to take their Ritalin, what happened to Osama? Al Qaeda is still very much alive and kicking, with a new fervor.

I think the whole mixing up of Saddam and Al-Queda is very disturbing and should have been avoided. I know people (otherwise level-headed) who seriously believe Saddam was behind 09/11!!!

Originally posted by Dr.Scrumpy:

"Why is mugabe allowed to butcher and rape the former Rhodesia ? Oh yes I forgot, no oil

Dr.Scrumpy - without a doubt the oil justified the decision to go in, because the invasion could have paid for itself (the fact that its looking like it won't is a different issue). However at the end of the day the way I look at it is that one less Saddam is as good as one less Mugabe.

For me it comes down to I may not like Bush that much, but I sure as hell deteste Saddam, so if the former gets rid of the latter, so be it + good riddance.



Originally posted by Patrick:

"I wouldn't put in charge of the french fries at McDonalds."

Patrick man, seriously you've got to focus less on the whole freedom fries thing and more on the issues like people dying due to war.

[i]"FYI I fought in the first Gulf War and my brother fought in this one"[i]

Strange, how some one who now claims to be a Gulf War vet just a couple of threads ago forgot that Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 (http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...5&pagenumber=2)

robclews

87% of the worlds leaders agreed with Bush, the war did not start on the desire of one individual, but as a result of many nations intelligence, including France and Germany who did not support the invasion. As in the UK, those that oppose the leadership are using the issue of missing weapons of mass destruction as a stick to beat the present party in power.

Sadly the thousands of Kurds slaughtered by Saddam with the use of chemical weapons did not have the opportunity to voice their opinion of the invasion, nor did the many thousands that disappeared because they disagreed with Saddam’s policies. The barrels of unknown chemicals shipped to Annapolis testing grounds in Maryland may or may not produce more significant results. The fighter jets buried and hidden from the UN inspectors that he didn’t have, shows the ability of Saddam to lie and manipulate.

There are enough issues in the country to judge the ability of a leader without adding the action of the war, which is still supported by the vast majority. It will be many years yet before we know exactly what he had in his arsenal, and possibly we will never know, it’s very possible that many weapons will go undiscovered.

I do not support Bush nor do I condone him, I don’t know enough about the US political scene to be arrogant enough to comment on his ability as a president. Its easy to condemn a leader, but unless you see some credible opposition and policies how can anyone say things would be better.

Ranjini

I'm desperately looking for one thing that this regime has done for the country since Bush became into power, before I cast my vote at the next Presidential elections. The threat from Al Quaeda is ever present. The economy ? The only thing worth recording is that Saddam Hussein is gone. Not a very impressive track record. Would I vote Bush back into power based on that? That's something the American people will decide in the not too distant future...

Manc

The oil justified the decision to go in??
what kind of talk is that?

Sure the Iraqi's are now better off, but saddam should have used his brains, threw open the doors to the country last October, invited any inspector in they pleased and he would still be in power. He knew what would happen if he dicked about with the USA and he is ultimately going to pay for that with his life.

On the other side of the coin it does smack of bullying from the USA. As someone else mentioned The UN is 50% made up of tinpot dictators, when are we going to liberate those people from their oppressive regimes? well we're not are we.
Halliburton had copies of Iraq's oilfields and pipelines 3 years ago.
Halliburton is being granted contracts for the majority on rebuilding Iraqi rfeineries, pipelines and oilwells.
Dick Cheney is being paid a $1 million retainer by Halliburton.

It stinks guys.

This shouldn't be a conservative / liberal issue either as Blair the socialist stood side by side with Bush the conservative.

Bush lied. or at least mislead the people at best, but after the patriotic fervor of 9/11 if you criticise the government or president you are an unpatriotic pinko lefty traitor and George Bush is playing on this to hopefully sweep this scandal under the carpet.
55 US servicemen have died since Dubya said war finished on May 1st.
Ask their parents what they think of the situation.

Of course Saddam had WMD, Rumsfeld knew it, he sold them.



This is a big scandal peoples. Amurricuns need to wake up and realise they have been duped to some extent.

Patrick

You really are a complete loser, you either don't read other peoples posts or have so little respect for others you ignore there argument completly. The only thing you seem able to do is take single sentences out of peoples posts, use them completly out of context to make an innane point.

Your supposed to be an analyst, shouldn't you look at the whole picture and make assumptions based on all the given information. Instead you take the bits you like and focus on that and ignore anything you don't like or can't use against people, you are beyond doubt the most irrational poster on here.

I didn't forget Iraq invaded Kuwait, my point wasn't that Saddam wasn't bad news for his neighbors but Bush was bad news for the world. Saddam never invaded a country 4,500 miles from his borders, or even threatened any country he wasn't bordered with. He was not a threat to world peace. Bush has invaded two countries in 2 years, Saddam invaded 2 countries in 40 years - you do the math.

Patrick

robclews

I agree with you regarding the economy etc, but do you think any other party will eliminate the threat of Al Quaeda, unfortunately it's there now and always will be.

Rob

Patrick

I think this is a point missed by americans, especially the media. They keep pronouncing we are fighting "a war on terrorism" not realising terrorism a weapon of war and not an actually enemy. An enemy using terrorism cannot be fought by conventional methods.

The terrorists are winning this war against america because the news reports "war on terror" and the stupid (yet highly inefficent) terror alert system make people frightened, handing the terrorist victory.

Instead of educating the american people to be vigilant the media and government is restricting peoples freedoms in the name of homeland security. Even in the height of the IRA attacks on the UK mainland the government still maintained that people need not carry ID. Freedom is a God given right, it is governments that restrict your freedom. If Ray is quite happy that his freedoms are restricted then so be it but I will not be the silent majority!

Patrick