Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
hunterkiller2001

US presence in the Middle East.

74 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

hunterkiller2001

The reason? The UN had not sanctioned the invasion of Iraq, only the freeing of Kuwait.

So.. What if we pushed the nazi's all back into germany, and left it at that?

The UN screwed the US during the Persian Gulf war, if we had gone in, and removed saddam from power like the US wanted, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

The UN would have dragged on and on until we would have been hit. 911 filters into this and the way Americans act. The UN has no balls...and is ineffective

*Hugs Babs* You hit the nail on the head. The UN tries to control the actions of nations around the world. But what they can't comprehend is that there are Leaders out there, like saddam, who will break every rule as quietly as possible.

On March 18, 1988 Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people. Violating a UN sanction that did not allow Iraq to posses chemical weapons..

Yet the UN just brushed it off like it never happened?

Now, what.. Iran with nukes? (is it Iran?) The UN has met on this, the country in question refuses to give up it's program... and you know what? The UN won't do a damn thing, because thier gonna forget that a country won't recognize it's power.

The war was to bring peace to a troubled world. It isn't that no one cared about the rights of the Iraqis...rather..it is that no one had the balls to do anything about it until Dubya

The United Nations will forever be know as T.B.W. laugh.gif

Edited by hunterkiller2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stamford

On March 18, 1988 Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people. Violating a UN sanction that did not allow Iraq to posses chemical weapons..

Yet the UN just brushed it off like it never happened?

Because Iraq at the time was an ally of the West's and more importatly the US, which meant that, as long as they only masacred their own people or Iranians, nobody really gave a toss.

So.. What if we pushed the nazi's all back into germany, and left it at that?

I have no idea what you mean.

'UN' help is nothing more than forcing UN countries to help out a little, regardless of whether or not the UN was/is involved, the US would have supplied the majority of troops.

The US is desperate for UN support in Iraq; the nation is unstable and the US's troops are stretched to the limit, if reports I read today are to be believed; according to The Independent 6,500 former soldiers are being called up to be shipped out to either Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not the action of a country that is finding the occupation as easy as first thought.

Not to mention that the UN's presence helps to justify what is becoming a political nightmare for Bush, whose popularity is suffering; once again this statement is based on an article in The Indie, so apologies if this in inacurate.

excuse me, i never said that it wasn't a justification, i quite clearly said it wasn't the main reason (ie justification).

Better hang onto this one, as the others have pretty much been blown out of the water as justifications for the War.

That's a get-out clause to you Stamford because it never happened to you!

...actually you're not qualified to talk about 911 from the Americans' standpoint.

Excuse me, but when my Country goes on a crusade with yours and does it in the name of '911' I am qualified; a tradegy such as 911 was felt across the World and please don't foget that it wasn't just Americans who died on that day.

As I said earlier, I supported the overthrow of the Taliban and the routing of Al Queda from Afghanistan; these were people who were directly involved in 911 and deserved all they got.

And, as I have said before, what the hell does Iraq have to do with 911?

When the end result is an even more unstable region, which is breeding terrorists at an increased rate, then once again I have evey right to criticise the bastardisation of that particular tragedy in order for it to give the US and UK blanket rights to do what they please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

And, as I have said before, what the hell does Iraq have to do with 911?

There are none so blind as those who will not see..........

Everything, Stammy, everything!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon

Everything, Stammy, everything!

huh.gif Mind elaberating? grin2.gifthumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

cool.gif

And, as I have said before, what the hell does Iraq have to do with 911?

There are none so blind as those who will not see..........

Everything, Stammy, everything!

Mind elaberating? huh.gif  grin2.gif  thumbsup.gif

Saddam had a stockpile of WMDs. Al Queda wants nukes and other WMDs. Iraq is a supporter of terrorism. Saddam held the UN and the US in contempt and tried to assassinate a US president.

If A = B and B = C then A = C. If Alqueda wants to hurt America and Saddam wants to hurt America then Alqueda would most likely get WMDs from Saddam.

It is all part of the Bush doctrine Talon. We are not just going after the terrorists responsible for 9/11. We are going after the sponsers of Terrorism, the supporters of Terrorism, the funders of Terrorism and those who give aid and comfort to the Terrorists.

We simply could not sit around and wait for Saddam to supply an enemy of ours who has declared war on us. Remember Zarkowi? Saddam gave him aid and comfort. High ranking Iraqi officials met with high ranking Al Queda members as early as 1996. So there you go. cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Novo
cool.gif

And, as I have said before, what the hell does Iraq have to do with 911?

There are none so blind as those who will not see..........

Everything, Stammy, everything!

Mind elaberating? huh.gif  grin2.gif  thumbsup.gif

Saddam had a stockpile of WMDs. Al Queda wants nukes and other WMDs. Iraq is a supporter of terrorism. Saddam held the UN and the US in contempt and tried to assassinate a US president.

If A = B and B = C then A = C. If Alqueda wants to hurt America and Saddam wants to hurt America then Alqueda would most likely get WMDs from Saddam.

It is all part of the Bush doctrine Talon. We are not just going after the terrorists responsible for 9/11. We are going after the sponsers of Terrorism, the supporters of Terrorism, the funders of Terrorism and those who give aid and comfort to the Terrorists.

We simply could not sit around and wait for Saddam to supply an enemy of ours who has declared war on us. Remember Zarkowi? Saddam gave him aid and comfort. High ranking Iraqi officials met with high ranking Al Queda members as early as 1996. So there you go. cool.gif

and bush met with bin ladens children, he even invited them to his ranch and they were there the day of the attacks. Your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
We are going after the sponsers of Terrorism, the supporters of Terrorism, the funders of Terrorism and those who give aid and comfort to the Terrorists.

That sounds good joc.

I am a bit uncertain about something though...since we put Saddam in power by helping him overthrow Kassim in 1963(and supported the battles that followed), where does that put us? Didn't we aid Saddam on more than one occasion?

And in the 80's we aided Saddam again against Iran. Reagan was informed of their use of chemical weapons against Iran, but continued to offer supplies and intelligence...President Reagan and Vice President George Bush personally delivered military advice to Saddam Hussein, both directly and through intermediaries: Washington Post Article

For nearly 30 years we(The US government) gave aid and comfort to Saddam. That kind of puts us in a sticky position huh? Is D.C. on the list to be liberated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naveed

and bush met with bin ladens children, he even invited them to his ranch and they were there the day of the attacks. Your point?

You actually believe that dumbass Michael Moore and his liberal bs? With as much crap as he puts out about how America is going downhill, he deserves to be deported back to Canada, where he originally came from. Imo, if someone from a foreign country moves to the states, whether they were children at the time or not, they do not have a right to slander it. Plus the only reason it's going downhill is because of weasels like him, who strictly abide by their liberalism. If we had less people like him, the war in Iraq would not be frowned upon, and the world would be a much more agreeable place. I swear he's the political version of Erik-Beckjord.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/#ContinueArticle

http://www.moorewatch.com/

Edited by Naveed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dowdy

If we had less people like him, the war in Iraq would not be frowned upon, and the world would be a much more agreeable place

Also, if we had less politicians that would go to war on false pretences....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

and bush met with bin ladens children, he even invited them to his ranch and they were there the day of the attacks. Your point?

do you even understand what moore was on about?

Osama Bin Ladin is one of 53 children.....the Bin Ladin family owns the largest construction Firm in the Middle East, much like the Saudi Royal Family, they have more to lose from Osamas actions than if they were to support it. Please get a clue and don't start referring to Moore if you want to be taken seriously.

Also, if we had less politicians that would go to war on false pretences....

puhlease, the only thing that could be considered false pretenses would be people claiming the US said that Iraq and Al Queda were responsible for 9/11, and even then, i don't think anyone in the government has said this (any quotes which counter this would be appreciated), WMDs? every major intelligence agency has said he had them, hell, Clinton was pretty damn well convinced they had them (as was the UN and the rest of the West)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stamford

If we had less people like him, the war in Iraq would not be frowned upon, and the world would be a much more agreeable place.

Ah yes, nothing like frowning at war to make the World less agreeable. laugh.gif

puhlease, the only thing that could be considered false pretenses would be people claiming the US said that Iraq and Al Queda were responsible for 9/11, and even then, i don't think anyone in the government has said this (any quotes which counter this would be appreciated),

Well, Bathory, there are plenty of people here who believe Iraq was involved in 911:

QUOTE 

And, as I have said before, what the hell does Iraq have to do with 911?

There are none so blind as those who will not see..........

Everything, Stammy, everything!

The UN would have dragged on and on until we would have been hit. 911 filters into this and the way Americans act.

Someone is influencing people into believing that Iraq was involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

Someone is influencing people into believing that Iraq was involved.

unfortunate isn't it...then again, they probably would be screaming IRAQ/911 Connection regardless

(and remember kids, this is a specific Iraq/911 link, not Iraq/Alqueda)

regardless, when we have Putin telling Bush that they have intelligence that Iraq is planning attacks on the US and US interests, action had to be taken. Bush is stuck between a rock and a hard place, act quickly and draw fire from the left, or not act and risk other large scale attacks and get crucified for not acting (Moore somehow manages to attack Bush on both counts in his film, and people wonder why treating Moore seriously doesn't say much for oneself)

Edited by bathory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

For nearly 30 years we(The US government) gave aid and comfort to Saddam. That kind of puts us in a sticky position huh? Is D.C. on the list to be liberated?

You're twisted Fluffmeister...plain and simple...twisted tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stamford

unfortunate isn't it...then again, they probably would be screaming IRAQ/911 Connection regardless

(and remember kids, this is a specific Iraq/911 link, not Iraq/Alqueda)

I am confused.

Does this mean that you agree that there are no links between Iraq and 911?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stamford

You're twisted Fluffmeister...plain and simple...twisted

Ah, joc , you crack me up!! laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hunterkiller2001

We could all join up, and confront the UN.. we'll be the next Iraq Commission.. We'll explore the evidence, and get paid crap loads of money to lie in our final report. *cough* 9-11 Commission *cough*

The fact of the matter is, we may never know the truth. About anything.

We're getting off topic. Completely.

I've seen enough answers to "Why are we in Iraq"

But what about the rest of the middle east? There's obvious ties between Al-Quieda (Sp?) and Sudan. Will we go there? SHOULD we go there?

what about Iran? It's basically told the UN to "shove it" as far as stopping thier nuke program. Will the UN go into Iran to stop this?

Can we justify possible thousands of Civilian deaths in the middle east, just to protect thousands of American's that may die if another attack comes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stamford

what about Iran? It's basically told the UN to "shove it" as far as stopping thier nuke program. Will the UN go into Iran to stop this?

No, they won't; are you suggesting the Coalition should instead?

As I warned joc on another topic, Iran is a different kettle of fish to Iraq; they have not been weakened by years of sanctions and would not be a pushover if we did invade.

We could all join up, and confront the UN.. we'll be the next Iraq Commission.. We'll explore the evidence, and get paid crap loads of money to lie in our final report. *cough* 9-11 Commission *cough*

Hilarious!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hunterkiller2001

No, they won't; are you suggesting the Coalition should instead?

As I warned joc on another topic, Iran is a different kettle of fish to Iraq; they have not been weakened by years of sanctions and would not be a pushover if we did invade.

Someone needs to. There's only one possible target they could have for Nukes.. and that's Israel.

I know they're not going to be an easy country to fight.. but thats not the point.

Depending on the number/strength of nukes Iran may be developing, if they were to launch a full nuclear attack on anyone, it could seriously hurt the entire world.

Edited by hunterkiller2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stamford

Someone needs to. There's only one possible target they could have for Nukes.. and that's Israel.

I know they're not going to be an easy country to fight.. but thats not the point.

Depending on the number/strength of nukes Iran may be developing, if they were to launch a full nuclear attack on anyone, it could seriously hurt the entire world.

I agree that the idea of Iran with a nuclear capability is not desirable, but would they honestly use them against Israel?

The consequences of a nuclear stike would be very, very bad, because the US would be able to literally wipe Iran of the face of the World if they did and no one would object.

I think that we enter into a war with Iran at our peril nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

But what about the rest of the middle east? There's obvious ties between Al-Quieda (Sp?) and Sudan. Will we go there? SHOULD we go there?

We should go to Sudan....both as a UN humanitarian mission and an overwhelming military presence....we don't need another BlackHawk Down scenario...but the crisis in Sudan is real, it is growing, it isn't going to go away...and millions of displaced and starving people desperately need someone to do something...and I would guess that soon we will be there....because W really does care. thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stamford

We should go to Sudan....both as a UN humanitarian mission and an overwhelming military presence....we don't need another BlackHawk Down scenario...but the crisis in Sudan is real, it is growing, it isn't going to go away...and millions of displaced and starving people desperately need someone to do something

Totally agree, joc thumbsup.gif

and I would guess that soon we will be there....because W really does care.

Still wiping the tears from my eyes on this one though laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny
Can we justify possible thousands of Civilian deaths in the middle east, just to protect thousands of American's that may die if another attack comes?

Sure we can.

It is an us/them issue. Human lives mean much less when the losses happen to "them". It is sad but true...Middle eastern folks make great "thems" because they are very different from us: different religion, different language, different values, different color.

I am in no way saying that I agree with this mentality, it is just something that has become apparent to me.

So yes, we can justify killing however many thousands of people we want in the middle east.

I could go on about this, but I will just leave it at that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

Does this mean that you agree that there are no links between Iraq and 911?

thats been my position for a very long time

read what i wrote

puhlease, the only thing that could be considered false pretenses would be people claiming the US said that Iraq and Al Queda were responsible for 9/11, and even then, i don't think anyone in the government has said this (any quotes which counter this would be appreciated),

For nearly 30 years we(The US government) gave aid and comfort to Saddam. That kind of puts us in a sticky position huh? Is D.C. on the list to be liberated?

by that logic, we should also have to liberate much of the West because it wasn't just the US selling Saddam weapons,, hell, the French took Saddam on tours through their Nuclear Reactors.

We could all join up, and confront the UN.. we'll be the next Iraq Commission.. We'll explore the evidence, and get paid crap loads of money to lie in our final report. *cough* 9-11 Commission *cough*

afaik the 9/11 commision didn't lie, the media however made some nice omissions in regards to their findings.

different color.

ahahah you crack me up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dowdy

puhlease, the only thing that could be considered false pretenses would be people claiming the US said that Iraq and Al Queda were responsible for 9/11, and even then, i don't think anyone in the government has said this (any quotes which counter this would be appreciated), WMDs? every major intelligence agency has said he had them, hell, Clinton was pretty damn well convinced they had them (as was the UN and the rest of the West)

This disproves you argument

Bush should of made his grounds of going to war, that Saddam was committing crimes against humanity. Not all this weapons BS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naveed

That fails miserably, since the evidence is now appearing that Saddam and Iraq did have WMDs, and materials to produce them. http://216.26.163.62/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html

Also note, the article you posted was about a year old, this one however is from last month.

One more thing, I just dug this article up on Reuters. It's about a rocket attack, as well as some Iraqi missles containing nerve gas, from Saddams Era, that the Polish have found.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...93&section=news

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5579297

Edited by Naveed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.