<p>mekrob, the reason why you haven't heard anything is because if you did, it would be the MSM (main stream media) admitting that the Great Satan Amerikkka actually got rid of a horrible dictatorship and was about to hold free and democratic elections. But we all know that isn't possible. All our troops really do in Iraq is get killed, torture those poor folk, and bomb maternity wards. Elections are a myth, and therefore we haven't heard anything about the candidates or issues.</p>
<p>The only thing I don't understand is that supposedly Hussein had rape rooms, massacres, ethic cleansings, etc way before a war on Iraq was considered. What was the reason for the wait? Aren't people skeptical of the reasoning because of it?</p>
<p>The harsh reality behind any human action is that the action is done because it benefits the doer. The US is not exactly a charity organization. They obviously started the war because it was to their advantage to do so. But how would US benefit from it? I guess I can understand some benefits like kicksparking the slowly declining economy and for oil, but is there enough oil to offset the huge war costs and worth sacrificing our men and other innocent Iraqis?</p>
<p>You guys make it sound like the US started the war to (quoting the President) "free the Iraqi people". There must be some ulterior motive? I can't believe that it is really the case. Hmm..</p>
<p>No. We didn't start the war to free the people. If that happens in the process, its just an added bonus. We went to war for one reason alone: to protect ourselves. I don't care what anyone says. Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. He refused to comply with UN inspections for a decade. Had he ever gotten his hands on a nuke, it would surely have ended up in the hands of terrorist groups that would use it to attack the US. If you don't think that Hussein was a threat to us, i'm sorry, you're an idiot.</p>
<p>But I never thought that Hussein was a good friend of ours, so i'm sorry too, because i'm not an idiot.</p>
<p>Ah I see, I forgot about the threat from Hussein himself....... that indeed is a major point i guess... but that point is probably debatable (about the nuke)........?</p>
<p>Do you think North Korea is next? After all, if Saddam can develop nukes, North Korea surely can too. Me being Korean, I don't exactly want any more wars whatsoever on my home peninsula.</p>
<p>Then Hussein's excuse will probably be something like "well, you guys have nukes, so do most other powerful countries; says who I can't have them"</p>
<p>Well, he did sign an armstice that he wouldn't arm...</p>
<p>"Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. " Prove it.
No evidence of ANY weapons yet, it's been over a year and a half.
"He refused to comply with UN inspections for a decade."
Back this up, you need to give examples of how he failed to comply.
"Had he ever gotten his hands on a nuke, it would surely have ended up in the hands of terrorist groups that would use it to attack the US"
He wouldn't have been able to get his hands on a Nuke because his government cant afford one. You don't know his intentions either, you are assuming.</p>
<p>You are 100% **<strong><em>, you assume everything and don't back it up with anything. You are *</em></strong>*, and you are a fat reject.</p>
<p>im_bored, please explain why there will never be peace in Iraq. Are they lesser people who do not understand and are therefore incapable of living together peacefully?</p>
<p>"Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. " Prove it.
No evidence of ANY weapons yet, it's been over a year and a half.</p>
<p>Saddam has used weapons in the past. There are many defecting Iraqi higher ups who reported that he could aquire such capability in a short amount of time.</p>
<p>"He refused to comply with UN inspections for a decade."
Back this up, you need to give examples of how he failed to comply.</p>
<p>In his Jan. 2003, report, UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix stated that Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it.</p>
<p>December, 1998:</p>
<p>The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn his actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance. When Saddam still failed to comply, the United States prepared to act militarily. It was only then, at the last possible moment, that Iraq backed down.</p>
<p>Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party, and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past; </p>
<p>Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program, tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents, and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions; </p>
<p>Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents, but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors; indeed, Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection; </p>
<p>Iraq abused its final chance. The UNSCOM report concludes that the Commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program; </p>
<p>In short, even if the inspectors could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. </p>
<p>"Had he ever gotten his hands on a nuke, it would surely have ended up in the hands of terrorist groups that would use it to attack the US"
He wouldn't have been able to get his hands on a Nuke because his government cant afford one.</p>
<p>You can get a lot with millions and millions of dollars... Saddam was not poor at all. He was making millions off oil for food.</p>
<p>Mediocetes, at an earlier hour, I shall reply to your other points, but I simply cannot let this one go uncorrected:</p>
<p>"Would help rebuild relations with the Muslim community"</p>
<p>"This one pi$$ed me off more than any other. Take ONE FU CKING look at a picture of the world trade center on the morning of 9-11 and tell me why WE need to rebuild relations with the "Muslim community". It's as if you think they can't help the horrible things they've done and it's our job to help them. Oh, wait, we are helping them, by getting rid of Saddam, the Ba'athists and the Taliban to name a few groups, but that's not good enough for you. What you REALLY think is that we, as a nation, should collectively bow down in front of them and ask for the privilage of licking the soles of their feet."</p>
<p>On September 11th, there was a great tragedy. A small number of individuals executed a very evil plot. Of course, all they really did was the same thing that America has done in Iraq and in many other countries: in the quest to advance good and to eliminate evil, they attacked a target without regard for human casualties. Yes, it was awful and terrible. BUT the people who did it were a few people who happen to be Muslim. Somehow that means that all Muslims, the whole Muslim community are our enemies? That we should recreate the Japanese internment camps? Or shall we just kill all Muslims all over the globe??? By the way, the act they engaged in was different from that of Timothy McVeigh (sp?) only in that the Sept 11 attacks were better planned. Well, Timothy McVeigh was a white boy... Guess that means we should kill all whites if a white person engaged in such a horrible act of terror!</p>
<p>And the Muslims don't need us to get rid of Saddam or anyone else. If they need our help, they are perfectly capable of asking. What they need is us to get out of their homes and let them live in peace. It doesn't do a lot of good to 100,000 dead people that Saddam is no longer the leader--does it now? It doesn't do a lot of good to people without electricity for a year that TV programs are not so censored--does it now? It doesn't do a lot of good to children who walk to school every day in fear of being killed by a bomb that they theoretically can now learn a wider wange of political ideas--does it now? Are they really better off than they were 2 years ago? I think not.</p>
<p>also, it might be irrevelent.., I want to add that the World Trade Center was not a fair target for an attack. If there HAD TO BE an attack, it should not have been a civilian building. This cannot be justified. However, a military target like the Pentagon (although an attack there is still horrible) would be more "appropriate" for a target than a civilian one. I suppose there are no such things as "fair targets to terrorism" but the WTC was a horrible target.</p>
<p>I must comment on the closemindedness of the people here. You don't need to curse and call names to get your point across. That goes for people on both sides of the argument.</p>
<p>peaceplease, youre not getting it. the fact is, the goal of these people is not to "advance good," it is to subjugate the entire muslim world, and to do so by terrorizing innocents. the US military has made every effort TO THE POINT OF TAKING UNNECESSARY CASUALTIES to prevent innocent lives from being lost. the assault on fallujah is the perfect case in point.</p>
<p>further, the iraqis DID ask us to get rid of saddam after the Gulf War, and after encouraging a shiite and kurdish rebellion, we deserted them, allowing saddam to gun them down in mass numbers with helicopter gunships. </p>
<p>and lets not smooth over the gory details of the previous regime. true, the security sux in a number of provinces in iraq right now, but saddam was responsible for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CIVILIAN DEATHS. not only that, he USED NERVE GAS ON HIS OWN CITIZENS, had RAPE SQUADS, SECRET POLICE, STARVED HIS OWN PEOPLE BY REDIRECTING OIL-FOR-FOOD MONEY INTO HIS OWN PALACES, and generally brutally terrorized the entire nation for YEARS. to compare his baathist state to the poor security situation is RIDICULOUS.</p>
<p>oh and btw, this isnt something youd hear often on the news, but the power situation is mostly from the decrepit condition of the utilities from years of neglect by saddam</p>
<p>I suppose that USA,that gr8 champion of human rights ,believes that they dont extend to the inmates of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay</p>
<p>The USA is a champion of human rights...the USA does not routinely kill its own citizens...the USA does not deny freedom to its own citizens...</p>
<p>I'm so ****ed off at people who keep referring to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib...why do you feel so compelled to protect the rights of terrorists???</p>
<p>These people have no regard for human life, no regard for anything but their stupid religious cause...i really don't care what happens to them...we can shoot them on a regular basis...it would be for the best...</p>
<p>People who we are obliged to give rights to are people who will protect our rights in return...If the US is at war with France, there are two civilized armies in uniform with proper ID battling...if we capture a French soldier, he is a prisoner of war entitled to all rights under the Geneva Convention because we know that France, in return, will treat our troops like prisoners of war and, in time, everything will be back to normal...when you're dealing with terrorists...they don't deserve any rights...they hide behind buildings and fire rockets at our troops...they rig cars with explosives and kill innocent people...they're not waging a war...they don't deserve any rights. </p>
<p>Its just liberals spinning all this crap...they don't support the war so they advocate little stupid causes...theres a lot of rats and squirrels dying in Iraq...aren't THEY people too?</p>
<p>War doesnt mean that u disrespect humanity altogether.</p>
<p>That was the fault of bad leadership and individualism, not bad USA. You see the case is being handled now.</p>
<p>What abt Guantanamo Bay???</p>
<p>bigjake, take one step back and think of the reasons why these people hate the United States in the first place. There is a reason. They are members our species. Culturally and religiously they are different; however, in the 46 chromosomes of theirs, they contain a virtually identical genetic set (identical enough to call us one species). Like us, they feel the same innate instinct for life. Who wants to die? Nobody. US is not a champion of human rights. Nobody in the world is.</p>
<p>Why does US care about Iraqi people? What about all the dictatorships in Africa and other undeveloped countries? Their citizens are being treated the exact same a the Iraqi's under Saddam. Where are the US and the UN on this issue? US has no regard for these people and im sure bigjake you have no regard for these people either. This world's politics are so ****ed up. Of course, African countries don't have oil; so US doesn't really care much about them.</p>
<p>And uh... rats and squirrels are people?? To quote bigjake "If you think that rats and squirrels are people, then i'm sorry, you're an idiot"</p>
<p>that's what I was talking about...either way when some like that happens noone stepped up to say this was wrong and the problem got worse.</p>
<p>Id like to add to jrcho88 post,why does USA not restore democracy in its close ally Pakistan ?</p>
<p>first, the argument that "well why doesnt the US fix country X too" is a false one. you cannot determine the legitimacy of a specific argument based on a different proposed one. pakistan has had a number of democratic reforms recently, the human rights situation isnt all that bad, and they are not a threat to the US. either way, it does not matter as it relates to iraq.</p>
<p>the fact is that, though there are other nations that are as bad as iraq was, it does not imply that we NEED to help them because we helped the iraqis. there was another motivating factor with iraq- they were considered by everyone, including the opponents of the war at the time, to have weapons and are still known to have been political enemies of the US. the point that the UN is asleep at the wheel with sudan, etc. is valid, however, because that IS the UN's job. of course, they didnt do their job in iraq as it relates to human rights and oil-for-food, or as it relates to enforcing their own resolutions, and theyre not doing the job now. shocking.</p>
<p>also to compare abu ghraib with saddams torture dens is ridiculous. i personally think what was done at abu ghraib was disgusting, but it does not even compare to the sick vicious activities directed and commited by saddam, and was done by a small group of sickos. further, to compare guantanamo with abu ghraib and saddam's practices is even MORE ridiculous. the inmates at guantanamo are given many freedoms, fed regularly, allow exercise and free practice of religion, etc etc. theres absolutely no parallel between them.</p>