Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Che Guava, Oct 25, 2006.
I'll go on the record
No WMD, now or ever... moving on, it's only been three years.
Is that based on your many, many years' experience as an expert in that field?
Totally arbitrary. I see no difference in my claim, which I admittedly do not believe, and the claim that 600,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of U.S. military action.
Which peer reviewed journal was your's published in again?
The Journal Of We Dont Want To Admit We Have Done Wrong Ever Quarterly iirc
Den y do u expet Bush to find dem?
Just because more than one dope believes it doesn't make it true.
Not democracy it will never workt he King is the Rightly ruler of Saudia Arabia and no President is going to tell them that they are not unless the US will invade them
Democray will not work in the Middle East
But nyways good Job on getting Rid of Sadam,
But what happened to him haveing the 4th biggest Amry in the world, the libertaion seemed awfully staged.
The war was won with money
Nor does it make it untrue just because you find the number embarassing.
Kurds = most definitlry
Sunni = uh pobably not
Shiite = Well take a guess.
WTF? There are not even 500 million people in the middle east.
Nor does Bush.
Nor does anyone in the administration.
Only the rabid loyalists who can't believe it was a lie would bring this up.
So he wasn't getting angry at Bush as per your original post.
So, do you have any valid reasons to attack this individual, because you don't like his message?
We'll still notice you're attacking the individual,
but surely you'd feel better if the attack was valid,
on however small a level?
And yet they don't seem to be in such a hurry to have him back in power.......
Obviously not, they're dead. The question was about, I assumed, the still living in Iraq.
Better off in what way, and are you talking about a snapshot of this moment in time, a general outlook, or...?
Because being killed by terrorists is preferable to being killed by US forces?
The point of the inspections was just as much to tie down Iraqi resources.
Saddam wanted the damn things. It was assumed he might have them, but if not, try to get them.
If he did have something, he was left playing cat and mouse with the inspectors, but also unable to aquire any new stuff.
That's what someone like Jaques Chirac meant in the run up to the war when he stated that "The inspections are working", i.e. they were preventing Saddam from being naughty, making sure he was no real threat to his surroundings, meaning there was no immediate danger or necessity to go into Iraq. As it turned out that was a correct assesment.
Eventually something might have to be done, but not yet. Which is why no one could understand the inexplicable US hurry to get stuck into Iraq.
What makes the call on this issue especially hard is that Saddam would never ever have admited to NOT having WMDs. The US and Iraqi governments were both in total agreement that Iraq SHOULD have WMDs. The US to motivate the war. Saddam for intimidation. That doesn't make it so, but it sure muddles the waters something fierce.
Improving the lot of the Iraqi Shiites you might claim, though I'd prefer to let them have a say on the matter.
The Kurds I think not. They haven't exactly been hurt by the US invasion, but neither were they particularily subject to Saddam after 1991 either, setting up their own little northern statelet. Leaving Saddam in place for the time being in 2003 wouldn't have bothered them really afais.
Re: the Kurds, I've not really been following the issue, but I believe they've had some success in retaking areas that were dekurdified during Saddam's arabization campaigns. I suppose that could be reckoned an improvement.
Obfuscate and mock: par for the course.
I think what I like about you is that you don't try to hide what you are.
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Separate names with a comma.