More terrorist? Don't think so. That assumes there was less before, but I think the numbers were greater than we knew. The difference is, we smoked them out of their holes and made them visible.Ranger68 said:I agree with the fact that it makes a good and scary headline - that is, that the US administration lied about Iraq.
The problem is, you're just making more terrorists - more people who hate the west. Because they're still blowing up cars and building - just in Iraq, now.
Answer to who on the world stage???Ranger68 said:?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
People should take responsibility for their own actions? How does that apply to the US' illegal invasion of Iraq? Frankly, that sounds like you'd be interested in seeing them answer for their actions on the world stage?
I guess we actually agree.
Is the US actually interested in the "war on terror"? If they were, not creating thousands more would probably be a good way to start. Bombing Baghdad is a bad way to start.
ranger this was not meant for you...harleycharley was the targetlangeweile said:Well it obvious that you and I disagree on this point. People should take responsibility for their own actions. To blame a thing or another person for once own irresponsible behaviour is just to easy of a way out.
FYI
Safe vehicles kill people too.
How about they answer to themselves. Your post is in no way a defense of the US actions.langeweile said:Answer to who on the world stage???
The UN?, don't think so... they need to clean up their own mess, before they can hold anybody responsible.
France? let them answer for the Ivory coast and other African adventures involving the foreign legion.
Russia? After Chechnia? don't think so.
China? Their human rights records leaves a lot to be desired.
who else????
Like Jesus said..the one without fault shall throw the first rock...or like we say in Germany "Wer im glasshaus sitzt sollte nicht mit steinen schmeissen"
Yup you are right. Anyone is innocent until proven guilty.harleycharley said:so you would bear no share of responsibility for the what might result if you hand a gun to a convicted killer? and the US bears no responsibility for giving chemical weapons to Saddam? and Saddam would bear no responsbility for giving WMDs to terrorists (IF he had them, which he didnt)?
i guess we do disagree.
I guess than other nations have to step up to the plate and defend themselves.Ranger68 said:How about they answer to themselves. Your post is in no way a defense of the US actions.
Rather, what's GOING to happen, is that some nation with as little sense as the US is going to decide that since the Americans set the bar, they're going to decide who and when someone's a future threat to their own interests and start something a lot more serious. How about a few Chinese nukes on Taiwan? Hey, it's going to be hard for the US to argue against it when China accuses Taiwan of fomenting terror against its interests!
Or, more immediately, having created a whole new reason for Arabs to hate the west and the US, we'll see a *spate* of terrorist attacks outside the cozy confines of some far-away land where we don't care who they blow up - attacks where we CARE about the people they're killing.
Just watch.
The US is going to have to answer to the judgment of history.
The relevance is in their being so aginst the action. As well as it is relevant when you add the UN into it.lenharper said:In debating US motivations for invading Iraq what possible relevance is there to the assumption that France and Germany may have been profitting from the oil for food deal?
So tell me then almighty Ranger, what was the reason to invade Iraq? It wasn't oil, AlQuaeda or WMD's what was it then?Ranger68 said:Why do you think these terrorists were there in the first place? Does it have anything to do with Arab disenfranchisement? That they hate the US for all the evils of their world? Don't you think that there's now a whole new generation of people who might otherwise just have grown up hating Hussein, but have now redirected their anger against the invading armies? Why do you think these terrorists existed at all??
The US has, demonstratively, effectively united many of the Iraqis who would otherwise have been venting their anger against each other. They have united the country AGAINST AN INVADER, which is what happens every time a sovereign nation is invaded for no good reason.
If you are, indeed, "smoking them out of their holes", you'd expect the number of attacks to eventually fall off. If, on the other hand, you're creating more of them, the attacks will not slacken.
Time will tell.
As for the WMDs, you're clutching at straws, no? Uh, yeah, well, it appears our intelligence was faulty (or we lied), but we're pretty sure they had *programs* for *developing* these weapons we all told you they had. LOL Get off it.
Anyway - WHO CARES?! Who cares whether or not they had links to Al Qaeda?! I certainly haven't brought it up, but it goes nowhere! Al Qaeda CERTAINLY had links to Afghanistan, and the US bombed the crap out of them and destroyed all the training camps and bases. Al Qaeda CERTAINLY had links to Saudi Arabia, and the US has done nothing. What does Al Qaeda have to do with anything? It has CLEARLY not influenced US strategy. That's what they'd like you to believe, but any casual regard for the facts tells you otherwise.
They lied about the reason for going into Iraq. Whether they had stockpiles of chemical and biological agents or not, this had nothing to do with the terrorists. Iraq was NO THREAT to the US. To claim self-defense is a lie.
It's all sophistry. Total bullshit. Your reasoning is so muddy it's obvious you haven't thought much about it.
What's obvious is that the US lied about why they were going into Iraq, and has created a whole new generation of hatred for them. If anyone thought they were going to kill more terrorists than they created, they're going to be in for a shock.
To say that you'd rather have them blow up cars in Iraq is no defense at all, except "might makes right". The value of an Iraqi citizen is clearly less than the value of an American citizen.
God Bless America.
Enjoy your war on terror, bub.
Maybe their judgemetn on the situation was not driven by the truth and more by the need to protect profits? Not a bad motivation I might add, but at least be honest about it.lenharper said:In debating US motivations for invading Iraq what possible relevance is there to the assumption that France and Germany may have been profitting from the oil for food deal?
lenharper said:"The relevance is in their being so aginst the action. As well as it is relevant when you add the UN into it."
Huh? If I decide to do something and someone asks me why I did it I can't say because Joe and Bob are against it. Well, I can, but then I am saying -- well I did this becuase Joe and Bob are against it.
So, to follow your logic, the US invaded Iraq because Germany and France didn't want them to? That's pretty bizarre foriegn policy.