You take a very odd point of view on this subject. One could
argue that the invasion of Iraq was an illegitimate war, but I have
yet to see one attempt a whitewashing of Saddams regime as a core
argument for its illegitimacy. Even the Arabs themselves (unless
you happen to be in the Sunni minority in Iraq) do not take this
angle.
I mean there are plenty of other better angles to criticize the war
on, that it was launched primarily because of oil, or that the UN
was ignored or not allowed a large enough role, that the Americans
did not factor in Iraqi culture before the implemented a post
Saddam Iraq. I do not understand this insistence on Saddam.
Arrr... but your whole argument is mainly on saddam. Throughout
your reply, u never mention a word on any authrocities he made
after the first gulf war to the present iraq war, yet iraq is still
attacked again. Can you comment on the statement ?
Secondly u never mention a word on the double standard to north
korea. In this reply, WMD seems to be your main concern, but North
korea HAVE WMD, They TEST it, they DECLARE it and US did not attack
it like wat they do to Iraq. Is WMD such a concern ? If tat is the
case why not do the same thing to north korea the same thing to do
to Iraq ? All your argument just write "doubts" tat iraq have WMD
despite rigourous check by UN who declare them with no weopons of
mass destruction. The last checks before the war is throughlt clean
and the inspectors do find them cooperating acceptably. THey even
ask american to do their check which they refuse and just keep
claiming they have WMD.
Also, you said that he ruled with an iron fist but it is still
better than now where everyone just dies and there is no peace
I
wonder how that statement can even go down with the reality of his
regime. The difference is this: while there was no chaos under
Saddam, his regime was pretty much responsible for the murder and
elimination of thousands of people for the narrowest of reasons.
Those murdered under him had no recourse, choice or defense against
whatever he dished out against them. Im sure if you were on his
hitlist, you might view the iron fist quite a lot
differently.
And wat is the reason why american murdered hundred of thousands
of people in Iraq why they invade Iraq ? As said before, there is a
war, it is due to centuries of border conflict. But u seemed to
ignore the reason but the end result where people died. Does US do
any better ? They also killed most people, involve in most wars,
carry the most number of WMD and the only nation to use an atomic
bomb. These people r killed for the narrowest of reasons as well.
Those tat r with him r friends, against him r enemies
If by peace you mean theres no chaos or fighting and the
thousands of targeted people peacefully accept their fate under the
iron fist for the sake of some peace
thats some screwy
logic.
Lets face it. If a country is in chaos, u need a leader tat
ruled with an iron hand for some time until peace return and all
grieviences forgotten before u can afford to give it democracy. If
u look at history, most countries tat prospered well have a history
where there is a leader tat ruled with an iron hand
In saying this you show an astounding lack of knowledge of the
Iraqi disarmament crisis that led up to the war. The real crux of
the issue was that Saddam never allowed the UN to properly verify
his proclamations of having no WMDs, hence giving Mr. Bush all the
excuses he needed to start a war. Had he not played turkey with the
inspectors he would have avoid Bushs attempts to start the
invasion in the first place (or at least take the moral high
ground)
I think u r the one tat lack tat knowledge of iraqi disarmament
just before the invasion. Han blix, the weapon inspector is
personally attacked by cush administration etc because his report
prove contrary to their falsified records. In the end he is proven
right. NO WMD r found. Weapon inspectors from UN declare them to be
WMD free. Bush had admitted their intelligence was flawed, and now
u still wanna argue tat it is saddam fault for not being believe,
and tat iraq deserves to be attack not because of faulty
intelligence by US by because iraq, well, has just told the truth.
The past years saddam is bitter and not let weopon have full access
such as his palace, tat is true. But the last few months before the
attack they have been very cooperative and where does it lead ?
Nowhere. Talking about lack of cooperation, is tat a reason for an
invasion ? Myanmar, Fiji, Thailand, North Korea, many countries in
Africa all have not cooperate with US as well. SO shouldnt we
attack them all ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix
Blix's statements about the Iraq
WMD program came to contradict the claims of the Bush
administration, [6] and attracted a great deal of criticism from
supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8
February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of
dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in
order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of
Saddam Hussein.
And AFAIK, you need to reread the WMD commission report. There
is more then one explanation for the lack of WMDs found, as opposed
to them being totally absent. The truth of the matter is that the
issue was never concluded because everybody (even the UN) was under
the impression that Saddam was very well in possession of WMDs
before the invasion (the UN opposed the invasion for diplomacy, but
never though that WMDs were absent).
Cannot find means cannot find. Without evidence, all the
possible reasons r worthless and mere speculations. They r as valid
as suggesting UFO took them away one fine day. Even Bush himself
admit he had err in intelligence, and now u r suggesting he is
right all along ?
Things are going well (compared to now)? You ARE kidding. If you
bothered to check a bit on the quality of life before Iraq was
attacked, you would realize that they suffered from no lack issues
that stemmed directly from Saddams regime. His persistent efforts
to hamper UN efforts to finish the WMD process prolonged sanctions
that collapsed the economy and turned life into a mess for the
commoner. While his people lived in poverty and starved his regime
didnt hold off the murder of thousands of people not in line with
him. His officials and family lived in luxury. Lets not even go
into what his sons did with the ordinary womenfolk of his nation.
No, his atrocities did not stop even after the first Gulf War, it
just got a lot of the oomph taken out of it
go ask any Kurd or
Shia.
Comon, there r many countries tat lived in poverty while their
leaders r rich. Even Indo or Myanmar or Vietnam or china or India
or phillipines and heck, u can even consider Singapore whose
leaders r rich while their peasants r suffering. Is Iraq even
better off financially now compared to the past ? They r still
poor, they r still jobless and now they do not even have peace and
have great distrust with their neighbours who r from a different
clan. U also claims tat his autrocities did not. Please
specifically mention wat autrocities r u talking about.
The greatest pro that the war caused is that it took the
resources and power from one tyrant who was abusing it at the cost
of it's people and redistributed it to the people of Iraq. Your
over focus on the current instability strikes me as myopic and
simplistic, missing the big picture.
U mean the money is taken from Iraq to America better than Iraq
people to Iraq people ? Tat is indeed myopic and simplistic. Now
they could possible go into civil war and nobody harvest any oil
for many decades to come. Even Bush admit tat their strategy in
Iraq is failing and they have to rethink and rethink and rethink
and hopefully find a solution to it.
