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 -
Reincarnated

3,000 Soldiers For Saddam, Was it worth it?

3,000 Soldiers For Saddam, Was it worth it?  

68 members have voted

  1. 1. 3,000 Soldiers For Saddam, Was it worth it?

    • Yes
      25
    • No
      43


417 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Avinash_Tyagi
Nope, it is because not one of them is sure either if Saddam has WMD or not. We all know now why Germany, France and Kofi Anan was against the invasion for one thing, at least that part was cleared.

But the fact was he didn't have WMDs and wasn't a threat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron
el midge. Sorry But after 3 years of being called all kinds of names for DARING to say I can look at the war from a different perspective that's why I started coming back with the "liberals'

Nearly every time this topic comes up if I dare say that I think Saddam needed to be taken out I get slammed just as you did. I wasn't calling anyone names.

I take it you are talking about where I called you a "slave"? Here are your three posts leading up to that post of mine -

Ah there's the rube. Only when you allow yourself to be controlled. That's why the whining liberals are the biggest losers out there all they do is complain about how they have been stripped of power but do sweet nothing to get that power back.

Nice try but no. See the only thing the liberals have been focused on for the last 4 years is the war in Iraq. There's a lot more going on than that world wide. Its not just about the war. Liberals like to scream about how America focused people can be but for the last 4 years they have become exactly what they criticized. Only thinking about America America America. Meanwhile....some people like to educate themselves about more than just what America is doing. But that makes me a neo con right. Oh and I watch Fox and the O'Reilly Factor right? What a joke you have become.

Right Avinash here's a quarter buy a clue.

"Biggest losers", "buy a clue" "your a joke". I wont defend what or who might have caused you to make these posts, but please don't imply it was me who began the "slamming". It was not.

I can relate to how you feel though. I have taken alot of heat for simply expressing my views. While you describe your views as "differnet" they are really the mainstream view (at least in the case of Saddam). I think those who have views and opinions outside the officail line, are easier targets for name calling and ridicule.

Perhaps this is what both sides feel. That we are being attacked. So I suggest that for a New Years Resolution people refrain from doing this and try to be more open minded and actually listen to what the other side is saying.

I can't even begin to describe the kind of hatred that has been thrown my way from the beginning. I voted for Bush the first time, not because I liked Bush but because I liked and respected Colin Powell. I thought Gore was a nut job. He just freaked me out. I had no way of knowing that the elections would be counted the way they were. The whole Florida fiasco swore me off politics for good. Then 911 and then the war......well this isn't what I was voting for when I voted for Bush. But people act like I caused all these things.

I think your observation that both sides feels if they are being attacks, is very telling. If they can keep us at each others throats, they don't have to worry about us going after theirs. When it comes right down to it, down to the big issues, both parties back the same poilcies. They might bicker and fight amonst themselves to a point. However, from what I see, either party will stand behind the other, before they stand up for the will of the people. Thats why I don't buy into the whole right and left thing. The media is a whole other issue but 97% of the news on television is complete garbage and you arent missing anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
But the fact was he didn't have WMDs and wasn't a threat

YUP, that is a fact now. Good thing we went in and not guessing anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

Please, everyone be civil with each other; this can be a heated debate, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions without being called names.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash_Tyagi
YUP, that is a fact now. Good thing we went in and not guessing anymore.

Nope, not considering thousands died

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
As far as "corruption" the US was complicit in the scandal and allowed it to happen according to the senate subcommitee that investigated it. It was good for Jordan and Turkey and 52% of the kickback money was cleaned through US oil companies so we let it go. Everyone was aware of what was going on and were only forced to act when an Iraqi newspaper brought world attention to it.

As for Saddam, he was a bad guy, no doubt a monster, but there are many of them in the world today and we don't go invading them unless they pose a direct threat to us or a close ally (even in such a case a complete occupation would never be on the table). Iraq was nowhere near that threat level. Bush wanted to finish what his father didn't. It's clear from those who spoke out that were in the military or the administration at the time. He directly ignored intelligence memos that said Huissein had no connection to 9/11 and in certain instances outright asked to be brought such intelligence, knowing full well it had to false or outright fabricated. That's why jumped on the British intelligence, it gave him a shield.

Ah, twisting it around and make it seem like the US is involved in the corruption. Nice try!

Do we have to go all or nothing then? We took out the baddest of the bad for one thing and 17 UN Resolution meant he was a threat. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
capeo
YUP, that is a fact now. Good thing we went in and not guessing anymore.

That was a fact then, Bush just wouldn't hear it. Again, though, what's Saddam's connection to 9/11? That was Bush's original rationale. That is what led us there. That was the intelligence he ASKED to receive though he knew it didn't exist. Then switching up the threat to just an overall danger to the US he tells us in the State on the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy Uranium from somewhere in Africa when the CIA explicitly told him that wasn't true and advised him not to say it. Here's a list of his direct lies to get us into this mess.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations address, September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio address, October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

The manned and unmanned air vehicles that can reach the US really crack me up considering the state of Iraq's economy and armed forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aztec Warrior

This thread bothers me.

If war is bad and people die....then don't start one.

Oh, I forgot....sometimes people become invaded...or .....on occasion...some countries come to the aid of smaller countries!

I am going to be a philanthropist...... Late Latin philanthropia, from Greek philanthrOpia, from philanthrOpos loving people, from phil- + anthrOpos human being

1 : goodwill to fellowmen; especially : active effort to promote human welfare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anubi

And so the good ship Neocon went down, alas

Struck upon the Iraqi rock an almighty gash

Engine awash and sails asunder

No more nations for yea to plunder.

what'd you think of that eh , ok..not that good )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
I can figure plenty out, no need for the cheeky comment...

As I said what happened in the food for oil scandal was illegal and a bad thing, but that can be resolved rather easily without going to war. There were enough people watching the countries finances that nothing big can happend without being found out before too much damage has been done. What happened with annan was something that shouldn't have happened and it should have been dealt with immediately. That illegal activity however doesn't warrant going to war though.

As I have said, he was contained and not a threat. many countries were watching him and abiding by the resolution and the result was that he had a crushed joke of a military and lacked the resources to do much more than sabre rattle.

There was no reason to go to war other than a vendetta from the bush camp.

There may have been a time where it would have been necessary to attack iraq again, but that was not the case. We could have easily destroyed any built up military from the skies(which we are great at) with the support of the majority of the world without having to step foot into the country. We were watching the borders and knew the status of his military; it wasn't a threat, and if it did become a threat we could handle it without making the mistake of coming in and trying to rebuild the entire country which has us in a horrible position.

All speculations then, we did find out WHEN WE WENT IN, while those involved were doing their best to cover it up.

AGAIN, he already had bought those who was suppose to contain him. :rolleyes: You seem not to understand how critical was that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron
We took out the baddest of the bad for one thing and 17 UN Resolution meant he was a threat. :rolleyes:

The "baddest of the bad"??

Don't believe the hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
The "baddest of the bad"??

Don't believe the hype.

Hype??? You mean he was not that bad then? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
capeo
Ah, twisting it around and make it seem like the US is involved in the corruption. Nice try!

Do we have to go all or nothing then? We took out the baddest of the bad for one thing and 17 UN Resolution meant he was a threat. :rolleyes:

I'm not making this stuff up, my friend.

http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/_files/Lev...ntandCharts.pdf

Here's the actual CIA report on WMDs that confirms Saddam's capabilities were crushed after the Gulf War and he was never able get any weapons programs going after 1991. It's lengthy but each section has a key findings area that breaks it down.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
el midgetron
Hype??? You mean he was not that bad then? :wacko:

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashigaru
lol, oh ok but thats my point exactly. Thanks for admitting it.
Admitting what? Are you just babbling now?

Its a shame. You are only a fraction of the mocker truethat is. He manages to make a point every once in a while. You repeatedly admit you don't even understand threads and peoples points.
Babble babble babble :rolleyes:

Yeah, sure thing. You admittidly don't understand the discusion in this thread, you admittidly only came here to mock me, you are gods gift to flame wars and we all owe you a big thanks for your contrabution.
Its funny, you admitted to the same thing in this post. See below.

True, that quote contributes nothing to the thread. Like I said, I WAS contributing before the farmers daughter showed up.
So you admit your posts contributed nothing to the thread and then say you were contributing in The same paragraph.

Ask your mom. Last time you did this you admitted that you were just doing it to be a drama queen. You pretend that you don't understand because you cant argue any real issues.
This is just idiotic.

Good you wont be able to find anyone to "hold it" for you.
How pathetic.

To late. I already used this on you. You called me a "half wit" and I said I had half a wit more than you. You trying to recycle my "wit" only proves you really have none.
Now you're just making up things now? Interesting.

Exactly, so why is it worth 3,000 troops to take out a dictator that had nothing to do with the terrorism threat?
So because we can't now means we never should or will?

I guess thats what happens when you completely lack wit. You say something and later think "oh, I should have said that". Opps.
And you accuse ME of recycling YOUR insults. Edited by Ashigaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anubi

UN resolutions , 17 eh. That is the yardstick that constitutes a threat ? . How many for Israel I wonder .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
I'm not making this stuff up, my friend.

http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/_files/Lev...ntandCharts.pdf

Here's the actual CIA report on WMDs that confirms Saddam's capabilities were crushed after the Gulf War and he was never able get any weapons programs going after 1991. It's lengthy but each section has a key findings area that breaks it down.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html

- Yes, you are misrepresenting the role of the united States on it, the report clearly says the US knew there were cracks on it and failed to fix it. Nothing like they knew it, was ignoring it and want a part of it. And we all saw the whole picture, not just the cracks when we went in.

- Where were all these people then before we went to Iraq, how come no one came up and said, " I have proof and can verify that threre is no WMD", well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
Nope, it is because not one of them is sure either if Saddam has WMD or not. We all know now why Germany, France and Kofi Anan was against the invasion for one thing, at least that part was cleared.

I love how critical everyone is about the US but no one touches the oil for food scandal. Part of why we went in was because France, Germany and the UN lied and used the UN as a manipulative tool. Plus our troops were the troops sent in the last time around.

I love how people act as if we hadn't gone into this war we wouldn't have gotten involved. Who's troops bailed out Kuwait the last time? Why is it that you suggest that if they were going after other countries it wouldn't have been our issue? It's always our issue when our troops are the ones that die. Are people suggesting the deaths in the Persian Gulf war don't count because it wasn't our war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashigaru

People seem to think the US was the only nation to think that Saddam was a threat. I seem to remember other nations being there the day the war started. They just backed out when it was proved the information was not accurate and then started pointing their finger at the US and blaming us for all the problems there.

Edited by Ashigaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
That was a fact then, Bush just wouldn't hear it. Again, though, what's Saddam's connection to 9/11? That was Bush's original rationale. That is what led us there. That was the intelligence he ASKED to receive though he knew it didn't exist. Then switching up the threat to just an overall danger to the US he tells us in the State on the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy Uranium from somewhere in Africa when the CIA explicitly told him that wasn't true and advised him not to say it. Here's a list of his direct lies to get us into this mess.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

- Bush would have listened if only there was ONE who would have stood up and said, THERE IS NO WMD, and presented proof, verify it by bringing the UN weapons inspector in there and then the UN can OFFICIALLY declare that there is indeed no WMD! They had 2 years to do such thing, instead Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out and kept monkeying with everyone. Well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
People seem to think the US was the only nation to think that Saddam was a threat. I seem to remember other nations being there the day the war started. They just backed out when it was proved the information was not accurate and then started pointing their finger at the US and blaming us for all the problems there.

PRECISELY! 17 UN Resolutions for no one trusted Saddam.

Now we know there is no WMD, we went in there and VERIFIED IT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat
I take it you are talking about where I called you a "slave"? Here are your three posts leading up to that post of mine -

"Biggest losers", "buy a clue" "your a joke". I wont defend what or who might have caused you to make these posts, but please don't imply it was me who began the "slamming". It was not.

I can relate to how you feel though. I have taken alot of heat for simply expressing my views. While you describe your views as "differnet" they are really the mainstream view (at least in the case of Saddam). I think those who have views and opinions outside the officail line, are easier targets for name calling and ridicule.

I think your observation that both sides feels if they are being attacks, is very telling. If they can keep us at each others throats, they don't have to worry about us going after theirs. When it comes right down to it, down to the big issues, both parties back the same poilcies. They might bicker and fight amonst themselves to a point. However, from what I see, either party will stand behind the other, before they stand up for the will of the people. Thats why I don't buy into the whole right and left thing. The media is a whole other issue but 97% of the news on television is complete garbage and you arent missing anything.

That is exactly right! I have thought that for years. That this squabbling keeps us distracted. As far as the original posts we were having a legitimate discussion until this got posted:

Anyone who thinks this was was in any way worthwhile is living in a neocon fantasy world

And that's when I replied in kind.

I think we all need to take a breath to consider why the public has spent the last few years at each others throats over something we can't do anything about?

In addition our freedoms are getting stripped away left right and center. In the media, in the polls it might look like Bush is failing. You look at public opinion polls. But SO WHAT?

Bush has managed to turn around nearly all the socialist progress made in the last 10 years and pull this country back to the brink of the 1950's. This country is now viewed as a Christian conservative country by the rest of the world. I imagine that Bush is feeling pretty darn powerful about his achievements, especially watching Saddam swing. So we can keep debating or we can do something.

I think its time for Americans no matter what side of the debate we are on to take our country back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anubi
I love how people act as if we hadn't gone into this war we wouldn't have gotten involved.

So your saying that there would have been a war in iraq regardless if usa hadnt invaded ..just trying to figure it out ... if we hadn't gone into this war .... we wouldn't have gotten involved ....

like there was a war there to begin with for you to be...involved ?

So really, we should be thankful for you to be fighting a war that never was because if it would have happened had you not been there , then had you not been there we would never have fought it, the non USA that is , this war that never was.

Edited by Anubi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
truethat

No what I am saying is the last time Saddam flared up and attacked Kuwait we were sent in. Our troops died in that war as well. But for some reason people seem to think that it doesn't count.

One thing I think we have gained from this war is a reluctance on the part of the world community to accept our help or ask for our assistance in a military endeavor. Prior to the war our troops were like the world Kleenex. Got a mess? Call in the US troops to clean it up and chuck it away.

The argument is being made that Saddam was a threat to other countries, his surrounding countries but not the US. My point is, if the US is called in anyway what difference does it make? At least this time our troops are actually dying for OUR country and not some foreign country that doesn't give a damn about us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash_Tyagi
No what I am saying is the last time Saddam flared up and attacked Kuwait we were sent in. Our troops died in that war as well. But for some reason people seem to think that it doesn't count.

One thing I think we have gained from this war is a reluctance on the part of the world community to accept our help or ask for our assistance in a military endeavor. Prior to the war our troops were like the world Kleenex. Got a mess? Call in the US troops to clean it up and chuck it away.

The argument is being made that Saddam was a threat to other countries, his surrounding countries but not the US. My point is, if the US is called in anyway what difference does it make? At least this time our troops are actually dying for OUR country and not some foreign country that doesn't give a damn about us.

They aren't dying for us, we aren't gaining anything from this war

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.