Pretty easy to forget that Iraq started THAT War, just as they're starting THIS one. I feel bad for her people but as long as they support Saddam they're not going to have comfortable lives.

I may not support the US going alone after Iraq, but I sure as heck support doing whatever it takes to de-fang Saddam (preferably by decease'ing him), and the pictures on that site are a main reason why. Perhaps you should also put up the pictures of the Iranians and Iraqi Kurds that Saddam GASSED... that's a really pretty one. Or maybe you should show all the victems of Daylight raids over Germany during WWII and use that to put forward the idea that we should have left Hitler alone eh? I know... from now on we'll just leave every dictator alone to do whatever they want... maybe we should sell them some A-bombs, that'd save them the time of making em themselves and make some money for us at the same time.

Selective memory is a horrible thing.

I'd just like to step in here and mention that many of them don't have a choice [img]smile.gif[/img]

Timber Loftis, I posted on the now closed original of this in GD, but namecalling is over the line. Even if you remove a letter or two. I won't repeat it all here, but please remember that if you get that agitated by someone or something here, it may be time to back out of the thread.

Yes it is... really a terrible thing.

First of all... how are they starting this one? They started the other one I agree to that, but how are they starting this one? They agreed to all of Bushes demands, let the UN search for weapons and they have not come up with squat! yet, but still you want to attack... even before the search is done?!? The minute they find something you have my support but until then you got no reason to attack...

And if I remember correctly Iraq used weapons and supplies they got from the US in the Iran/Iraq war... most of the weapons they have are weapons the US already sold to them... so hey! maybe they get a discaount on that A-bomb if they promise to be good...

Maybe you should remember who supported Saddam when he was a good old dog and let you take his oil...

And Timber Loftis, Sorry but reality can be offensive sometimes...

[ 01-24-2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Jorath Calar ]

[ 01-24-2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Magik, you are truly merciless, man :D

</font>[/QUOTE]Eh... Magik. Jonath talked about weapons during the Iran/Iraq war - not the Gulf War. Actually the USA sold weapons to both sides during the I/I-war. (something Saddam was none to happy about)

But you are correct that the majoriety of Iraqi weapon today come other scources than USA.

Eh... Magik. Jonath talked about weapons during the Iran/Iraq war - not the Gulf War. Actually the USA sold weapons to both sides during the I/I-war. (something Saddam was none to happy about)

But you are correct that the majoriety of Iraqi weapon today come other scources than USA.[/QUOTE

<font color=orange>I never saw any of our weapons used against use in 90/91! The only western supplied weapons I know of that Saddam had were French Mirages. As far us supplying weapons to both sides in the I/I war, I still don't know that we supplied any significant weapons to Iraq, since they used Soviet weapons systems. Most of our involvement was supplying Iraq intelligence and training. And of course Iran got some spare parts for our hostages in Lebenon.

As far as some of the stuff the pictures showed; all that could have easily been avoided if Saddam had spent his UN oil money on food and medical supplies as opposed to re-building his army! Saddam could care less about his people though.

I might point out that those that are against any war could care less about the Iraq people too!</font>

[ 01-24-2003, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

I'd just like to step in here and mention that many of them don't have a choice [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]Yes of course, but I don't think there's a way to get Saddam and his supporters without risking innocent (on both sides). It's a very crappy situation, but just because there's no painless solution doesn't mean we should just throw up our arms and say "oh well". Something needs to be done, I hope it can be done peacefully, but it needs doing one way or another.

</font>[/QUOTE]All I would add to Magik's post is that US actions during that point in time were to insure a Balance of Power in the region. The idea of Fundamentalist Iran in control of such a large portion of the Middle East was not something that Western powers wanted to deal with (not just US would have lost in that scenario). Iraq was the only country large enough to resist Iran east of the Red Sea... and they were supported to make sure they didn't lose. To judge those actions as negative without understanding the dynamics of the period is... shortsighted.