Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Qoji Saddam also had a UN resolution telling him to submit to inspectors, which he never did do. |
So if a bunch of other countries are telling you to let some guys in so that they can see if you have the only weapons that you could possibly have which would allow you to bluff others into not attacking you, would you really want to?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Qoji On Sept 11 2001 the US was attacked by a terrorist network. Although Saddam didn't align himself with them, my educated guess would tell me that Saddam would take an 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' stance with them and turn a blind eye to their activities in his country and perhaps even help them out a little while not appearing to. |
Actually, Saddam was the only thing keeping Iraq from falling apart. A recent series of articles details how civil war is about to occur(planned by the AQ), and that now Kurds are busting into the northern area of Iraq and taking the homes of Arabs, who in turn flee out of fear of the Kurds. While Saddam might have proven to be one of the more unstable leaders ever, he kept his country running and together, not to mention didn't seem to suffer from much terrorism, and as such it would be quite plausible that he at least was allies with the AQ in such a manner that they wouldn't target his country. However, the AQ's main goal has been to draw America into the Middle East countries, which in turn would result in an increase of dislike/hatred toward America/Americans.
Look at my signature, too. I find it a tad funny
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Qoji When you put all that together, I don't blame the US or UK for what they did. Enough was enough, and the UN just kept dragging their feet. |
So you're saying that you're all for a country attacking another for no real reason? America is NOT the world's police, and the UK had information which supported that Iraq didn't have the WMD that they supposedly did BEFORE the invasion of Iraq. What does this all lead up to? Iraq was invaded for some reason other than what was given, and currently is suffering from a decimated infrastructure(again), Civil War is about to occur, people are being terrorized and murdered(not to mention put in prisons by American soldiers for no reason), and American soldiers are planning on setting up outside of Baghdad and will leave everything in the hands of the Iraqi police(who keep getting blown up and massacred).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Qoji I've seen it...guess it's because I'm not in the US 
War is a failing of humanity, but I must say the bulk of this particular failure rests with Saddam and his thugs.
The US and UK went out of their way to avoid killing civilians, it was hardly random. |
Actually, the US and the UK have been using such weaponry as cluster bombs, in areas where civilians exist, and that in turn has resulted in a large amount of civilian deaths even when cluster bombs in that area are not allowed(Geneva Convention) due to the inability to discern between a civilian and military target. Also, before walking into Baghdad America conducted random bombing on the city, as was stated by a US soldier in charge of one of those cannon thingies(article from a year and fifty billion monkeys ago stated this..and no, I can't find it, yahoo seems to dump their older stuff).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Qoji You can't lay all the blame on the US, or even half of it. Very little, IMHO.
I place most of the blame on the dictator and his thugs who weren't the slightest bit interested in evolving, enlightening, or rectifying fuck-ups, rather being interested in money, power, and doing whatever it took to hold on to it. |
...So you don't think that US is to blame for anything that they have done in their unwarranted assault on another country?