Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
Quote:
Originally posted by Animal:
Nobody denies the nature of Saddam's regime. That was never in question.
|
Yet many people still say the war should never have been fought...which would have left the prisoners locked in their cells and subjected to regular torture sessions. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]
Quote:
Originally posted by Animal:
Like Donut said, had Bush an co. stated from the start that this war was about human rights, most everyone would agree but it wasn't about HR it was about WoMD. To change the reasoning behind the war half way through it doesn't, in my eyes, still doesn't justify it.
|
No it wouldn't have. Why? Because there are NO "U.N. Resolutions" authorizing "serious consequences" for human rights violations. The same countries would have still opposed the U.S. and would have offered the very same arguments being echoed here - "what about North Korea, Africa, etc etc".
And it baffles me that many members are now using the argument that "changing our motives still doesn't justify the war". So I suppose we should have just left these people to die a slow, tortured death in Saddam's prisons since we didn't state from Day 1 that we were interested in freeing them. I'm sorry, the logic of that argument completely escapes me.
Quote:
Originally posted by Animal:
The west (I use that term broadly) could have put an end to Saddam during the original gulf war, but decided not to. That decision had consequences, and even though the situation is being solved as we speak (type), the responsibility of those consequences cannot be ignored.
|
The "west" didn't put an end to Saddam in 1991 because we did not have U.N. Authorization to - NOT because we "just decided not to". The Coalition Forces of 1991 were under the authority of the U.N. and the only thing they were "authorized" to do was to repel Saddam's forces from Kuwait. Once they crossed back into Iraq, the U.N. would not allow the Coalition Forces to seek further action against them.
I firmly believe that is one of the main reasons George W. Bush did NOT want the U.N. in charge of this operation. He used the threat of WoMD in an attempt to gain the support of the U.N. After all, they HAD unanimously passed a resolution calling for "serious consequences" if Saddam Hussein did not completely disarm. After 12 years of waiting, it was obvious to some that Saddam was NEVER going to comply with Resolution 1441...and it was equally obvious that the U.N. had neither the strength nor the fortitude to actually enforce it's own resolution. So President Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the rest of the Coalition of the Willing went in on their own and solved the problem once and for all.
Since this thread started with a TRIPLE DOG DARE...I'll offer another one. To those who still seem to oppose the war on general principle, I TRIPLE DOG DARE you to offer proof that the results of the war were not beneficial for the general population of Iraq. Show me proof that the average Iraqi citizen is not better off today than they were this time last week.[/QUOTE]Okay, you triple dog dare me to offer you proof that the Iraqi poplulation is better off without Saddam.
I never once said whether or not Iraq was better off without Saddam. However when the US declares that Saddam is in violation of WoMD resolutions placed upon it by the UN, promptly fingers the UN, invades Iraq and then turns it into a human rights campaign, I have a real problem with the motives behind that.
Sure, the coalition attempted to minimize civilian casualties. Have you ever seen the devastation created by a Cruise Missile? I lived in Northern Alberta (that's Canada, that area north of the US border) when they tested the Cruise Missile and have seen the capabilities first hand. They may be able to pinpoint a flea on a dogs back, but the blast radius will take out a city block. Why don't we start talking about cluster bombs, or even better the Mother Of All Bombs. Exactly why was the MOAB developed? The US didn't have enough firepower to obliterate the world several times over?
I was also under the impression that the UN stopped the original Gulf War until Timber corrected me and informed me that Bush Sr. decided not to continue. So which is it?
So you ask me for proof that the average Iraqi citizen is not better off now than a week ago. I ask you, prove to me that they are better off now. Is mass looting and chaos your idea of freedom? Is draping a US flag over the face of a statue democratic?
I mean no offense, even though this may come across a little on the harsh side, but all I hear is how the US is doing such a good thing, how the US is bringing freedom to the Iraqis, lets praise the US for their actions. Well, you still have North Korea, Syria, South Africa, Uganda, and dozen other "opressed" countries to go. As soon as the US brings freedom to the world, then I will praise them for their actions.
Again, no disrespect intended, but look at it from something other than a US perspective.