Iraq Soccer team against Bush propaganda.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that the people of Iraq would be better off if Hussein, and his sons, and staff were still in power? Please try to give a definite yes or no.

What difference does it make to us? Saddam wan't a threat to us.

The Iraqi people should have overthrown him themselves.

Why are we killing them to save them and losing American lives as well?

IMO only blind partians continue to justify this fiasco.

revel wrote:

You know brandon that sounds real nice. But what good is the future to someone who is killed before ever seeing it? How is this magical future supposed to happen? Who is really going to benefit in this future?

Everyone agrees, Saddam was a bad man and it is better that he is gone. But that is all that can be said that is any good.

Apparently the original poster doesn't agree to that at all.

Your logic seems to be:

1. People died in the war.
2. Therefore, the war should not have been fought.

This specific logic you have stated could be used to argue that no war should ever have been fought. Unless you actually do believe that, then it follows that your logic is incorrect.

Everyone agrees, Saddam was a bad man and it is better that he is gone. But that is all that can be said that is any good.

Apparently the original poster doesn't agree to that at all.

Your logic seems to be:

1. People died in the war.
2. Therefore, the war should not have been fought.

This specific logic you have stated could be used to argue that no war should ever have been fought. Unless you actually do believe that, then it follows that your logic is incorrect.

Usually in a just war there is something at end of it that made it worth all the cost of lives. (I hate saying that; for some reason it don't sit well) This war didn't work out that way at all.

For one thing, at the outset; no one trust the Bush administration in the first place, they proved us right with abuses that was allowed to flourish with the prisons and haliburturn. (however you spell that)

For another; we had a bigger problem at the time that trumped worrying about Saddam who was for most part; contained at the time and could have waited.

For another; it wasn't planned out well for things that might not have gone the way the thought it would. In other words, they thought everyone would be so overjoyed to have gotten rid of such an evil man that they would greet them with flowers and the like. It didn't happen and they didn't plan for things not turing out like they thought.

Which is why Iraq is in the horrible shape it is now. Sure, they are rid of Saddam and his bad boys. But look what they are living in now. It is like they traded one hell for another and how is that better?

The hell they are in now, is the work of the insurgents, not the Americans. We are trying to eliminate the insurgents and rebuild the country.

Quote:

The hell they are in now, is the work of the insurgents, not the Americans. We are trying to eliminate the insurgents and rebuild the country.

It don't matter who brings the hell if you are in hell. Iraq is a failure and that is all bush is about so he is a failure. He was warned by some who said that all the warring factions in Iraq would have to be dealt if you get rid of saddam hussien. His own daddy knew it and that is why he didn't do it. But Bush listens to a higher authority; who that authority is only anybody's guess because it sure ain't God. God woudln't have made such a mess of things.

You appear not to have noticed my central point. One single WMD smuggled into the US and used could kill a monumental number of people, perhaps even a million in some scenarios. Note that this could be the result of one single use of one single weapon. This simply could not be risked. Bush understood this and acted to protect us from a possible fatal attack down the road.

We are now involved in a quagmire with no exit strategy.

If we packed up and left today, Iraq would be left in a situation just as bad or worse as when Saddam was in power.

BTW Anyone who continues to compare WWII to Iraq doesn't deserve a direct reponse.

The Iraqis future is as bleak as it ever was.

Funny how people can downplay war deaths when sitting behind the safety opf his keyboard. Pretty pathetic really.

Quote:

You appear not to have noticed my central point. One single WMD smuggled into the US and used could kill a monumental number of people, perhaps even a million in some scenarios. Note that this could be the result of one single use of one single weapon. This simply could not be risked. Bush understood this and acted to protect us from a possible fatal attack down the road.

Gee, that's the thing, yaknow? He really didn't.

After all, there is no real good scenario for us at the moment.

Either:

A. There were WMD in Iraq, and Saddam managed to smuggle them out before we invaded.

or

B. There were NO WMD in Iraq, and we have only exacerbated the problem of Terrorism and anti-US sentiment by going there and precipitating the deaths of over 10k civilians.

Either way, the U.S. is no better off than it was before the war re: national security.

Our borders are streched pretty thin right now. Let me ask you, how many cars do you think get searched coming in from Mexico every day, percentage-wise? Do you really believe that you are safe, if a determined agent wanted to get a device on U.S. soil?

Cycloptichorn

You appear not to have noticed my central point. One single WMD smuggled into the US and used could kill a monumental number of people, perhaps even a million in some scenarios. Note that this could be the result of one single use of one single weapon. This simply could not be risked. Bush understood this and acted to protect us from a possible fatal attack down the road.

At the moment of the invasion of Iraq, the totality of the history suggested that there was a significant likelihood that Hussein had not complied with terms of his surrender a dozen years earlier by destroying these weapons and programs...

The bottom line is that if you have 10 evil madmen developing superweapons, you may, from time to time, have to disarm a particular madman, rather than let him continue to arm himself, even though he may merely transfer the weapon to someone else.

Quote:

You appear not to have noticed my central point. One single WMD smuggled into the US and used could kill a monumental number of people, perhaps even a million in some scenarios. Note that this could be the result of one single use of one single weapon. This simply could not be risked. Bush understood this and acted to protect us from a possible fatal attack down the road.

At the moment of the invasion of Iraq, the totality of the history suggested that there was a significant likelihood that Hussein had not complied with terms of his surrender a dozen years earlier by destroying these weapons and programs...

Brandon your line of reasoning is uncharacteristically irrational.

First. there is very little evidence that any non-nuclear weapon could kill millions of people. The non-political experts are all saying that Chemical and Biological weapons are area control weapons and, while they may have additional psychological fear value, they are not much more deadly than conventional explosives. Every example where chemical and biological weapons have been used has confirmed this.

This is clearly political propaganda that you are putting forth as a reasoned argument.

Second, before the attack on Iraq everyone knew that there was no serious nuclear (or is that nucular) program in Iraq. The UN inspectors said that and intelligence (that was not being pressured by Bush) concurred.

Iraq's "Petrochemical Three," the secret nuclear program conducted under the authority of its Atomic Energy Commission with links to the Defense Ministry and the Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization, received massive infusions of money and resources. Like the Manhattan Project that built the first atomic bombs in the United States, Iraq's program simultaneously pursued a number of different technical avenues to the bomb. Not knowing which efforts would succeed, Iraq poured billions of dollars into its multifaceted quest.

The real question was chemical and biological weapons which are not the threat that the Bush propaganda machine (and you) are saying.

Third, there are two countries on Bush's list of "evil" that do have credible nuclear programs. There is real evidence that Iran and N. Korea are now speeding up their nuclear programs in response to the war in Iraq. Bush is at a loss of what to do since he knows, as they do, that we are in no position to launch another war with the inevitable occupation to follow.

For you to suggest that the attack on Iraq potentially saved millions of lives is nothing short of hysteria-driven partisan propaganda.

Quote:

The bottom line is that if you have 10 evil madmen developing superweapons, you may, from time to time, have to disarm a particular madman, rather than let him continue to arm himself, even though he may merely transfer the weapon to someone else.

I think the Saddam that exists in reality and the supervillan, madman Saddam that you envisage are two different people completely.

I'm not trying to say he has any redeeming features. But this comic-bookish, supervillian outlook on the world that you put forward has little basis in reality.

Cycloptichorn

By your reasoning, Brandon, we would best ensure the lives of every American by exterminating all other human life on the globe before it becomes a threat.

After all, there are many, many countries out there that pose a threat to the U.S.; why, at any time they could decide to launch an attack on us. So why suffer their existence? To do so would be a betrayal of the American people.

Cycloptichorn

This is true. But it was certainly possible to deny him the ability to pursue a WMD program, without invading the entire country.

Want evidence? We did it for the last ten years or so, and it worked just fine.

Cycloptichorn