Thread: Why i think the USA won't Nuke or invade Iran

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Now that we have that out of the way let me clearify. The insurgency will be what gets you of iraq just like in Vietnam. The Viet Kong outlasted you with huge losses n their side and also large losses on your side. If the insurgency persists they can acomplish what the VietKong did in Vietnam.

Pay very close attention this time. We have the large number of troops we have in Iraq right now because of the insurgency. Without the insurgency, the war would have been over years ago, and Iraq would be an independent nation. We will have some troops in Iraq for the rest of your life. However, we will start reducing troop numbers when we think the insurgency has died down enough.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

the insurgency has no moral mandate to stand down either. You agressed iraq, iraq who never attacked you guys who never threatend to attack you guys who never had the yellow cake that you were claiming. Iraq did have chemical weaons however but they did for decades and decades itw as not like it was a secret.

Our war is not against Iraq. It is for Iraq. What we have been against are the Hussein regime and the insurgency. The insurgency does have a moral obligation to stop targetting Iraqi civilians, American/Coalition civilian workers, and American/Coalition soldiers. The insurgency is accomplishing nothing but getting a bunch of people killed and postponing Iraqi independence. Can you name anything specific that it is doing that is good? Specific! (other than your claim that it is keeping us there, since I just corrected that again) Once again, the insurgency is our reason for having the high troop level and why Iraq is not quite independent yet. Is it not?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

As far as im concerned you guys started this shit and you will have to leave. That guy mccain bitches about honour but invading a country that had nothing to do with you is not a very honourable thing. You will have to leave with your tails between your legs like vietnam. but thats what you get.

Wrong. We have reduced the insurgency, stabilized many areas, turned a lot of the Iraqi population against the insurgency, and protected the democratic government this whole time.

The Hussein regime did violate our ceasefire on several terrorism grounds for 12 years. That alone refutes your claim that they did nothing against us. I challenge you to admit that. They were also a terrorist government that engaged in the mindless terrorism you support. That made them an enemy of the world. Plus, I believe in overthrowing every government that engages in genocide. How innocent do you think genocide is?

We did not leave Vietnam with our tails between our legs. We left short of North Vietnamese surrender because of political pressure from our left wing. They killed 56,000 of us, we killled a few million of them. We did not have tails between our legs. That is a silly concept.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The iraqi people dont want a drawn out occupation or USA prescence and the current path iraq is going down will lead to iraq eventually being american free atleast in the same sense as vietnam.

Then the insurgency needs to end. We want the war to end too, but then insurgents have been keeping it going for years and getting a lot of innocent people killed. Our war in Iraq ends when the insurgency ends. Tell your insurgent friends to knock that shit off today so Iraq can be independent today. Get it?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Look at one point the USA had 450 000 thousand soldiers in Vietnam (correct me if im wrong) but the insurgency the vietkong persisted and eventually purged their country of occupation. The vietkong had to deal with those much higher numbers and they overcame it and so will the insurgency of iraq.

I already explained this to you in another thread. We were not in Vietnam because of an insurgency. We were in Vietnam because of a communist take over. We left because of our own internal political pressure, not because we lost 56,000 to their 3 million or so. We are still occupying Iraq because of the insurgency. So stop telling me that the insurgency is getting us to leave. It is why we have 150,000 troops in Iraq right now in the first place. Get it?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Look Iraq has a right to be free of you guys, you invaded iraq. They had nothing to do with Al Qaeda they had nothing to do with 9/11 they were staying out of your faces yet you invaded them. they have a right to purge themselves of you guys with whatever manner of hellfire they see fit. You started this the insurgency will finish it.

If the insurgents want us to leave, they need to call of the insurgency. I explained to you what the Hussein regime did. We never said they had anything to do with 9/11. We said they had a lot to do with terrorism and had even engaged in WMD terrorism on top of violating our ceasefire with them on terrorism grounds. That is not at all innocent. Neither is genocide. Genocide is the entire world's business.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Iraq does not have to accept any of your conditions or standards, they have the righ to be free of gringo occupiers and not to be occupied. This is not about fighting off democracy this is about being free of kuffar crusaders (their words not mine) who shot the first gun.

They have a right to be free. That is what we have given them along with a government that is not the type that will fire sarin gas at their own civilian populations, support Hamas and Hezballah, provide financial incentives for Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, take over Kuwait, or engage in genocide. The Hussein regime did all of that. We are going to do what it takes to preserve the democracy until it can preserve itself. That is what the insurgents are so desperately trying to stop, and we are going to continue to capture and kill them for as long as we have to.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Dude america is not the world police. You cant just go and invade any country you want because the government is totalarian.

We are the world police because somebody has to be. The U.N. would not do its job, so we did it for them. The entire world should come together on things like this, but unfortunately too many countries are way too apathetic to do what is needed.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Your activity was not legitimate. Iraq did nothing to the united states. They never attacked you guys they were all isolated. You guys invaded them when they had nothing to do with you at all.

The rioters are responding to an illegitimate invasion on your behalf, you invaded when iraq had nothing to do with you guys and then you take control of the country by force. The "rioters" will not stop till you are gone, you are the original agressors not them,your prescence is illegitmate.

The americans ie the burgalars started the fight now the occupatants of the house are fighting to get rid of the bugalars. Why do you think the insurgency even took up arms? cause you guys invaded the country, they wont stop till you're out and your illegal occupation. Like i said you are not the world police.

You are getting very repetitive, and I am tired of being repetetive in response. I cleared up all of that earlier in my post. We did not start the fight. We would have cleared out our fighting divisions and just had a base there after we arrested the criminals, but a bunch of dipshits had to start a riot. Now we are there on riot duty.

Is a fire good for keeping firemen away from the fire?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

You should have only invaded with the blessing of NATO and the UN like was the case with Aghanistan. You were impatient to invade and you invaded but the proper procedure would have been to get permession would be to get a proper security clearance from the UN and NATO the decesion wether or not to invade. You guys waited and got clearance to invade Afghanistan with NATO and the UN so why couldnt you wait for the UN? They should of been the ones to decide wether or not war woudl be a choice not a country whos presdent once said Iraq was connected to 9/11 to make up a reason to invade.

Like i said there is a reason why the UN is there, its to make sure countries liek the USA dont make do imperalist things like invading countries that have nothing to do with them. Wether or not to invade Iraq should have been a decision by the UN and NATO not by a sole country.

I will make a specific post to the "bin ladesn leader to america" so dont worry that part will be adressed.

If there was sufficient reason for the invasion of Iraq then the UN security council would have responded appropiately but the decision to invade didn't lye with an invidual country. The UN charter does give nations the right to self defense....

"under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence"

Under this the USA would have had reason to invade or attack iraq but the problem is Iraq was not an imminent threat to the USA.

Even a washington insider who worked with rumsefeld amitted it to the illegality of the war.

"International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing"

The apporpiate thing to do would be to wait for NATO and the UN to take action and the the UN resoloution warning Iraq that their would be serious consequences if it did not comply with onother resoloution was not for the US to back up it was for the UN security Council to choose what measures or consequences would be appropiate to take in response to any iraqi non compliance.

The U.N. and NATO would not do their jobs! So we had to do their jobs for them. The Hussein regime ruined their right to exist, just like the Nazis did. You talk as though we did the equivalent of invading Canada out of the blue for no reason. You know that is far from the truth.

grr u left me with tons of stuff to respond to. This is such a headache!

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

grr u left me with tons of stuff to respond to. This is such a headache!

I don't think there's really that much. We just keep covering the same stuff over and over. Just tell me this...

1. How is 12 years of violation of our ceasefire not an infraction against us? Should a ceasefire continue when its provisions are not met?

2. How is a terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism, funding of suicide terrorism against Israel, and support of international terrorist groups not a threat to Israel's major ally and the Hussein regime's major enemy?

3. Would Iraq be an independent nation right now if not for the insurgency? Why or why not?

4. Would the U.S. have more than or fewer than 150,000 troops in Iraq right now if there were no insurgency?

5. Is genocide the business of only the government that engages in it?

They have a right to be free. That is what we have given them along with a government that is not the type that will fire sarin gas at their own civilian populations, support Hamas and Hezballah, provide financial incentives for Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, take over Kuwait, or engage in genocide. The Hussein regime did all of that. We are going to do what it takes to preserve the democracy until it can preserve itself. That is what the insurgents are so desperately trying to stop, and we are going to continue to capture and kill them for as long as we have to.

I just want to adress the issue of hamas and hezbollah first. HAMAS is not the evil you think it is. They are no the ones firign the rockets into israel it is Islamic Jihad. Hamas has actually tried to stop and arrest them. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...428566,00.html

The current dictatoriship (and it is a dictatorship i can elaborate if you will)propagated by Israel is FATAH in reality there is not much difference between hamas and fatah. thre are originas are very similar to.

Hamas even made a 10 peace treaty with Israel in return for them pulling out of Gaza and guess who broke it too?

The crucial difference between hamas and fatah are that Hamas dos not recgonize israel but with the peace treaty they could of negotiated mutial recognition in that time to bad israel broke it.

Fatah is israels bitch and they are extremely corrupt and lazy. Why do you think they lost the election? I wont include Hezbollah because im starting to backtrack.

But my point is you guys had no business going into Iraq. It was a matter for the UN and NATO not for any rogue country. Why couldnt you wait for the matter to be resolved with the UN like the afghanistan issue was?

Some years

We are the world police because somebody has to be. The U.N. would not do its job, so we did it for them. The entire world should come together on things like this, but unfortunately too many countries are way too apathetic to do what is needed.

Again dude, The entire world does come together to come and discuss world affairs and make decisions together. Its called the UN and NATO. Just because they dont do something fast enough or dont come to a decesion your country doesn't like does not give you the right to defy or say fuck you when at the same tiem you critice countries for acting in defiance of it. Thats hypocrocy. countries can't be cherry pickers.

You are getting very repetitive, and I am tired of being repetetive in response. I cleared up all of that earlier in my post. We did not start the fight. We would have cleared out our fighting divisions and just had a base there after we arrested the criminals, but a bunch of dipshits had to start a riot. Now we are there on riot duty.

Is a fire good for keeping firemen away from the fire?

There was no fire to begin with, the invasion of iraq is like the firemen going to a building and starting a fire. The invasion of Iraq is the catlyst for all its problems today.

Again you should have had the foresight to see that if they (Al Qaeda) attacked you because (partly) you had christian soldiers in Saudi then you should have known that invading onother muslim country would produce a disaster.

Don't you think that much was painfully obvious?

The U.N. and NATO would not do their jobs! So we had to do their jobs for them. The Hussein regime ruined their right to exist, just like the Nazis did. You talk as though we did the equivalent of invading Canada out of the blue for no reason. You know that is far from the truth.

Again it was up to the UN to decide how the UN resoloution would be interpreted and carried out not for any sole country. To decide.


EDIT: PLEASE DONT REPLY YET I HAVE TO GO AND RESPOND TO THE REst AND I WILL BUT I NEED A BREAK FROM THE COMPUTER. ONCE I REPLY To EVEYRTHING THEN BY ALL MEANS RESPONS BUT NOT UNTIL I DO SO. I DONT WANT IT TO LOOK Like IM AVODING ISSUES up

Man, if you will just answer those five questions I asked, we will get to the bottom of things much faster.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think there's really that much. We just keep covering the same stuff over and over. Just tell me this...

1. How is 12 years of violation of our ceasefire not an infraction against us? Should a ceasefire continue when its provisions are not met?
err i admit, i dont know much about the cease fire but does it have to do with kuwait? Im still learning about iraq and the iraq war i spent to much time studying the palestinian/israeli conflict...

2. How is a terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism, funding of suicide terrorism against Israel, and support of international terrorist groups not a threat to Israel's major ally and the Hussein regime's major enemy? can you give me proof that they were supplying any such groups? and if so it was not a imminent matter it was a matter that could be solved through negotiations and was not one which called for war neccesarily.

3. Would Iraq be an independent nation right now if not for the insurgency? Why or why not?

4. Would the U.S. have more than or fewer than 150,000 troops in Iraq right now if there were no insurgency? i suppose so yes. but i beleive the invasion was illegal and the actions of the insurgency are warranted.

5. Is genocide the business of only the government that engages in it? Genocide is a matter for the international community EG the UN. It is not a matter for one sole country to deal with.

.

Most importantly, when we talk about the Middle East, we need to be looking at the big picture. Illegal or no, it doesn't matter at this point, the stability of the region is extremely important to the world. Whatever your political stance, we are subject to the economic impact of changes in the global economy. A stable Iraq is a necessity for a stable Europe and United States. Don't be naive, the United States is the world police. If you control the waters, you control the world. Hearken back to the Spanish and English empires. If doing such things can keep greater wars and genocides from occuring, then it is morally justifiable, as it is in Iraq. Life is the more precious than gold, and a lot more lives would be lost if a World War were sparked by a rogue state. We created the UN and the League of Nations to prevent another World War, remember?

Most people that oppose or support the war are giving into to political rhetoric instead of investigating the region and it's history like they should. We installed Saddam Hussein, and we booted him out because he wasn't reliable, he became a rogue instead of acting like a puppet like we intended. The thought was, by having a secular dictator in such a radically divided region ethnically, he could unify the country. What he did to achieve this was not worth it however, so daddy had give him a good spanking.

George Bush is essentially finishing what America started and his father didn't finish. Sometimes we must make painful choices to do not only the right thing but the necessary thing.

Traveling Troubador, excellent post.

Dragon, you seem to have the quote function confusion I used to have. You can either delete everything from between the quote brackets except what you want to quote and then use cut and paste or you can use the quote button with the two ++'s and... something.

The boldface comments are the answers you gave to my questions. My responses are under them.

1. err i admit, i dont know much about the cease fire but does it have to do with kuwait? Im still learning about iraq and the iraq war i spent to much time studying the palestinian/israeli conflict...

Yes, the ceasefire is what ended (temporarily) the 1991 war we engaged in with the Hussein regime after they took over Kuwait. The Hussein regime did not comply with the ceasefire, and they violated it on several grounds. So the 2003 invasion was a continuation of the 1991 war. We were not being bullies.

2. can you give me proof that they were supplying any such groups? and if so it was not a imminent matter it was a matter that could be solved through negotiations and was not one which called for war neccesarily.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

Negotiations did not work with the Hussein regime. They thumbed their noses at us for twelve years in regard to their terrorism and the ceasefire provisions that concerned it.

3. (unanswered... I would love to know your answer to it.)

4. i suppose so yes. but i beleive the invasion was illegal and the actions of the insurgency are warranted.

Then you understand that the insurgency has not served to keep our troop number lower than otherwise. It has kept it very high.


5. Genocide is a matter for the international community EG the UN. It is not a matter for one sole country to deal with.

They would not deal with it. Not only was genocide not enough basis for a U.N. invasion as far as the U.N. was concerned. Genocide plus everything else I have talked about was not enough for the U.N. to send in forces. Also, we did not act alone. We went in with a very large coalition.

Originally Posted by Traveling_Troubador

Most importantly, when we talk about the Middle East, we need to be looking at the big picture. Illegal or no, it doesn't matter at this point, the stability of the region is extremely important to the world. Whatever your political stance, we are subject to the economic impact of changes in the global economy. A stable Iraq is a necessity for a stable Europe and United States. Don't be naive, the United States is the world police. If you control the waters, you control the world. Hearken back to the Spanish and English empires. If doing such things can keep greater wars and genocides from occuring, then it is morally justifiable, as it is in Iraq. Life is the more precious than gold, and a lot more lives would be lost if a World War were sparked by a rogue state. We created the UN and the League of Nations to prevent another World War, remember?

I beleive international law and procedure should be always respected, it is doubtful if a world war would have been sparked from Iraq as they were in no position to do such a thing at all. They had chemical weapons from the 1990's with a shelf life of 2 montsh big deal they expired years ago!!!

Saddam Hussein didnt have Yellow cake or nuclear weapons either.

If you guys followed procedure and respected the UN and international law then many many lives could have been sparred if you had not invaded and caused the mess.

You contradict yourself. The UN was created to creat a dialogue between the worlds nations were they all could discuss issues at hand instead of doing something stupid like invading a country illegally. You guys only harmed world peace by invading iraq, if you ahd followed procedure and waited for the UN to come to a proper conclusion on the issue then this whole calamity could have bene avoided.

Originally Posted by travelling_troubador

]Most people that oppose or support the war are giving into to political rhetoric instead of investigating the region and it's history like they should. We installed Saddam Hussein, and we booted him out because he wasn't reliable, he became a rogue instead of acting like a puppet like we intended. The thought was, by having a secular dictator in such a radically divided region ethnically, he could unify the country. What he did to achieve this was not worth it however, so daddy had give him a good spanking.

this is distrubing news to me, its not news to me but to see an american actually admitting it is something i never expected. I have in my reading encountered this idea bout puppet dictators. Its called the Dictator dilema or something. the idea states that if you have a country with democracy, the leaders of said country are shifting every 4 years or so and thus the position of said country on the united states would be perodic. You might get one politician elected who is pro america and onother who is anti america.

However i disagree. Your support of Saddam was not because he could unify the country under sectarian lines. NO. NOt at all if this was the case you would have played it safe and installed a Shia puppet leader. You just wanted a consistently pro america dictator however as history will show us he was not consistent in the end with his position on america.

thus it was decided by the united states that dictators would be better to support because with a dictator you could usually get a consesent position on the united states. Ie the USA helped install pro america dictators.

However i disagree. your support of Saddam wa snot because he could inify the country under sectarian lines. No. Not at all. If this was the case you would have played it safe and installed a shia puppet leader instead of taking the leap of faith and supporting a Sunni leader (who would have a sunni bias) in a majority shia country. You guys just wanted a consistently pro america dicatator. As history shows us he was not consistent on his position on america thus you made some excuses and invaded.

There is a reason why the United States didnt wait for the UN and NATO for support on the iraq issue, you waited and got UN and NATO support with the afghanistan issue. So why not with Iraq? Well, you revealed it with your post.

Originally Posted by Travelling_troubador

George Bush is essentially finishing what America started and his father didn't finish. Sometimes we must make painful choices to do not only the right thing but the necessary thing.

I dont beleive it was the right or not the neccesariy thing but i agree with teh rest of this quote. the minute george bush got into office he wanted to invade iraq that much was clear. Watch Farenheit 9/11

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, the ceasefire is what ended (temporarily) the 1991 war we engaged in with the Hussein regime after they took over Kuwait. The Hussein regime did not comply with the ceasefire, and they violated it on several grounds. So the 2003 invasion was a continuation of the 1991 war. We were not being bullies.

As i understand it the original gulf war of 1991 was a joint UN endeavour lead primarily by the United States. I hold firmly that the matter was not one for any individual country to pursue without support from the UN and NATO.

The United Nations security council estabilished the terms of the ceasefire and any interprations of the terms or any enforcement of the order should have been carried out only by the UN and possibly NATO but not by an individual nation or any other body sepearte from the United Nations. Not doing so only results in ugly international incidents like the world has in Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq as an ugly example arrogance on behalf of the bush admnistration and i have to say the majority of the americans agree with me.

Thats my opinion i guess...


[quote=Universal Mind]

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Negotiations did not work with the Hussein regime. They thumbed their noses at us for twelve years in regard to their terrorism and the ceasefire provisions that concerned it.

As i understand it in that article there is much speculation on many isues and it did not appear that Iraq was an immiment threat to the united states in any sense. Any grievenaces the USA had with Iraq should have been pursued through the United Nations, there is a reason why the united nations is there its to prevent uneccesary conflcits like WWII. Sadly if the bush administration wasn't so arrogant this conflict could have been avoided!

3.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

(unanswered... I would love to know your answer to it.)

I can't say for sure if Iraq would be totally independent or if it would not have large american military bases thats a big IF. I suppose iraq would proably be independent. Alot of my opposition to the occupation is a pride issue and other issues too...(there i said it!)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then you understand that the insurgency has not served to keep our troop number lower than otherwise. It has kept it very high.

Okay yes. and there are two possible approaches i can come to this. I can say the invasion of iraq was illegal and thus the actions of the insurgency are legitimate to fight of an illegal invasion and occupation on the other hand i can say its a silly issue of pride. You know the humilation of the first gulf war plus the more recent invasion and plus the fact of a being occupied by a christain army......

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They would not deal with it. Not only was genocide not enough basis for a U.N. invasion as far as the U.N. was concerned. Genocide plus everything else I have talked about was not enough for the U.N. to send in forces. Also, we did not act alone. We went in with a very large coalition.

As shitty as the UN is in your view. I still think its only a matter for the UN. But if it was genocide that was your issue why didn't you guys invade in the 80's at the height (I think) of the genocide and only in 2003 when things were pretty much quite in comparison. I think this has to do alot with what traveling troubador said. Back in the 80's Saddam was regarded as a stooge of the west and as long as that was true you guys just let him do his thing, if only for the sake of having a pro america guy in power?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

As i understand it the original gulf war of 1991 was a joint UN endeavour lead primarily by the United States. I hold firmly that the matter was not one for any individual country to pursue without support from the UN and NATO.

The United Nations security council estabilished the terms of the ceasefire and any interprations of the terms or any enforcement of the order should have been carried out only by the UN and possibly NATO but not by an individual nation or any other body sepearte from the United Nations. Not doing so only results in ugly international incidents like the world has in Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq as an ugly example arrogance on behalf of the bush admnistration and i have to say the majority of the americans agree with me.

Thats my opinion i guess...

Like I said, the United Nations would not do its job. I have told you the long list of reasons we saw the Hussein regime as a threat and a very potential funder and supplier of terrorist groups who want to kill us. Acting on that was not arrogant. It was the prudent thing to do. Most of us wish it never had to happen.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

As i understand it in that article there is much speculation on many isues and it did not appear that Iraq was an immiment threat to the united states in any sense. Any grievenaces the USA had with Iraq should have been pursued through the United Nations, there is a reason why the united nations is there its to prevent uneccesary conflcits like WWII. Sadly if the bush administration wasn't so arrogant this conflict could have been avoided!

The United Nations was not going to help us with the problem in 2003. They had gotten too arrogant and apathetic as a result of corruption. The apathy of and hatred toward us from Russia and France was part of that problem. When the U.N. does not do its job, we have to do it for them. We could not just let a terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism and apparent funding of Islamofascist terrorists continue to exist when they kept ignoring our ceasefire on terrorism grounds in a post-9/11 era after the formation of the necessary Bush Doctrine, especially after U.N. representatives and the intelligence divisions of six governments reported that they had present stockpiles of WMD's (plus a history of WMD programs, including a nuclear one). Doing so would have been insane.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I can't say for sure if Iraq would be totally independent or if it would not have large american military bases thats a big IF. I suppose iraq would proably be independent. Alot of my opposition to the occupation is a pride issue and other issues too...(there i said it!)

Wow, thank you for your honesty. If it is any consolation to you, a lot of us Americans wish we were not by far the most powerful country in the world. A lot of us wish the rest of the world would adopt our economic system so they too could be powerful, prosperous, and civilized. I have a lot of great things to say about the American system, but I wish we were not the only country with it. I wish we could just be another great country among many. That is something that could actually happen. I want the best for the whole world, not to have my country win some pride contest. It is not about that.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Okay yes. and there are two possible approaches i can come to this. I can say the invasion of iraq was illegal and thus the actions of the insurgency are legitimate to fight of an illegal invasion and occupation on the other hand i can say its a silly issue of pride. You know the humilation of the first gulf war plus the more recent invasion and plus the fact of a being occupied by a christain army......

At least the side that lost was the side that deserved to lose.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

As shitty as the UN is in your view. I still think its only a matter for the UN. But if it was genocide that was your issue why didn't you guys invade in the 80's at the height (I think) of the genocide and only in 2003 when things were pretty much quite in comparison. I think this has to do alot with what traveling troubador said. Back in the 80's Saddam was regarded as a stooge of the west and as long as that was true you guys just let him do his thing, if only for the sake of having a pro america guy in power?

Genocide was not the issue. It was an issue. Genocide has never been enough reason alone for the U.S. to go to war, but it has been one more variable to add to the list of reasons. Saddam was a plan that went horribly wrong. By 2003, there was a solid enough list of reasons to overthrow his government.