matmat8 wrote:Im saying Saddam took over the country after the gulf war because US let him. Same for the 20 previous years, did i mention he wasn't there before, no. When it got out of control they went to war and they did the same mistake.
You're saying the wrong thing though. Because Saddam had power before, during and after the Gulf War. He didn't ever leave power. The United States Military was prepared to take down Saddam, but the United Nations, the French, State and the Left (who opposed driving Saddam out of Kuwait) cried "WE WERE JUST LIBERATING KUWAIT! NOT REMOVING SADDAM!" so Herbert Walker caved. Marking himself as a failure of a President. An Iraqi resistance was engineered but again, State squashed it's support (after Herbert Walker vowed to support it) because they love the status quo.
Transfer to power? Stop watching the news. There is no transfer of power. US is setting up a government they want, that seems appropriate to them, not Iraqi's, at least not the major part of them.
I'm not watching the news, I want to find out what's going on in Iraq. There are numerous local elections, a temporary government has been setup that will preside until elections later this year and the larger elections next year. It's the same setup as in Afghanistan, where 80+% of the country is looking forward to voting this fall for a President and then a parliment next year. Hamid Karzai is likely to win because he has 62% support, but that doesn't make it "undemocratic." Of course the coalition had to set up the government, there was no system to set one up unless they restored Saddam to power. State wanted the Baa'thsts back in power to have a government we'd like. But the Bush Administration has gone against that in both Afghanistan and Iraq and is going to allow the people to vote. A victory that goes beyond our interests.
The groups i mentionned are not terrorists they are just civilians with different religions. Don't know the names in english.
They aren't fighting at all. It's the terrorist thugs that are fighting.
You had to fight this war? Why this country, all of sudden US is helping everybody out.
Yes, we have to fight this war. Otherwise we will lose. Iraq isn't a war, it's a battlefield.
And if you want reasons I will cop out and copy from a MSN chat with PJ a few minutes ago: because Saddam possessed WMD, had ties to terrorism including al Qaeda, murdered a million of his own people, in the past invaded two seperate nations, continued to violate the cease fire by firing on our planes, etc. etc.
How about Korea? Oh, maybe it's not a dictatorship.
Korea will be coming. I doubt we will be going in there during the Bush administration. It is a few years off. It will likely be a bloody war. And tens of millions will die if they do not give up their nuclear arms. If China does not turn against North Korea the Pacific will become nuclearized and no one will care about the Middle East.
How about Africa with all the dictators elected with 99% of the votes.
How about all the genocides?
The United Nations is loathe to care about the genocides, no one cares about Africa really. However, I believe that we will need to regulate up in there eventually, but there are priorities. First, we must handle the threats to our nation and the world. Then, we can move onto those who are threats only to their own people.
war is nevezr "logical" to me.
You must win the war before you can have peace.
This war was never justified.
It was always justified.
It was opposed by the UN and alot of countries
The United Nations opposed intervention in the Balkins.
France and Russia would have NEVER supported this war.
The opposition of the UN and those countries just shows how weak and ineffective they really are. That they won't enforce their own resolutions.
Plus they never found any WMD
Whoops, they did. Whoops, EVERYONE in the world including those countries that opposed the war and the UN said Saddam had them. They just "disappeared" to places like Syria, Iran and the desert. Lest everyone forget the Iraqi's buried their ENTIRE AIR FORCE in the desert and it wouldn't have been found had the wind not blown the sand off the tip of a wing.
PLUS tell me how or when in the world did Saddam threaten the USA.
You mean other than the times he directly did it?
If Bush went to war because he felt bad about the people that are being killed and tortured in Iraq, then there are 100's of other countries worst..
There aren't hundreds of countries worse. Maybe ten (and half of them sit on the United Nations Human Rights Council...like Libya, the chair and Cuba...) but of course you're being an idiot and trying to make it one reason.
There wasn't ONE reason to remove Saddam. There were tens of reasons. If not millions (those killed at Saddams hands).
Would you rather Saddam still be in power?
(J/K) 