Reasons to vote for Bush?

[Ssera]

So because a country didn't send troops or provide logistical support you assume they were opposed? Could just as easily turn that on its head and claim that those countries that didn't come out and demand that the coalition didn't attack supported it, though I won't cos would be just as groundless. And by the same standard you use If they were all against it why didn't they vote condemning it?

see what driwen said though to be fair that list was published just as the invasion started and is not up-to-date (countries have pulled out since then, I'm not aware of any joining though... anyone know if that's the case?)

Do tell what are the 1000 different ways that they could get Saddam out. Assassination? Have everybody up in arms about that one. Sanctions? Yep they were working and its not like the Iraqi people were the only ones who suffered from that. Support internal opposition? Yeh right. DO tell what would have worked, saying "pretty please will you leave"?

look up the word 'hyperbole' in the dictionary. I don't know what would have 'worked', depends on the objectives really. In my eyes this invasion worked... they got the oil. An assault with the backing of the UN (ie the international community) would have worked a hell of a lot better imo. But that would mean sharing the said oil... big no-no.

Didn't say you were accusing the troops, you said that they had been lied to, I said nobody needed to lie to the troops as they had to do what they were told.

"We're going in to Iraq to take out Saddam because he has weapons of mass destruction and he's ready to use them against us! Oh and he's best friends with Ossama Bin Laden and his crew!"

"We're going in to Iraq because Saddam Hussein is a dictator and frankly we're tying up lose ends for the good of the world and want another source of oil other than Saudi Arabia."

spot the difference?

Ah why didn't we stop Saddam as soon as he got into power? Wow if go on that one of taking out a regime that kills its own people we're going to be going to war with a hell of a lot of the coutries of the world. The 1000+ dead is gonna be a drop in the ocean to what would happen if followed that suggestion of yours.

Let's take an example - N. Korea. They have nukes, they don't like Americans and they've made sure everyone knows that. They're even part of the 'Axis of Evil'. Why are there no bombers flying there? Where is the difference between Iraq and N. Korea? Yes the 1000 dead would be a drop in the ocean, but it would be the right thing to do. If going in to get Saddam was 'the right thing to do' (quoted by many neocons after they admitted they had no proof for WMD) then why aren't they doing it everywhere else? Out of all the questions I've asked you, please at least answer this one.

As for Saddam posing an immediate threat. Depends how you define it. Was Saddam capable of lauching ICBMs at US, nope, were there terrorist camps in Iraq, hell yep. Did Saddam have WMD, who can tell, they haven't found any conclusive proof that he did, but then again haven't seen any conclusive proof that he didn't and the argument of "well they havent found any yet" doesn't really hold upto scrutiny cos much of the equipment to produce such weapons (not nuclear) is multi-use and the actual weapons themselves are designed to be portable and as such aren't going to be hard to hide in a country the size of Iraq (face it they're still looking for the Amber Room looted by the Nazis 60 years after the end of the war).

But they said they had proof before going to war!!! Where is that proof now? Did it just get up and walk off on it's own two feet? And what about David Kay's report, the man that the CIA put in charge to find WMD in Iraq. He didn't find anything to support that claim AT ALL and Saddams nuclear program was about as advanced as me drawing a radiation sign on some toilet paper. Quoted directly from David Kay in an interview with a french journalist (you can see it on the dvd I mentioned earlier):

"I wanted to call them and ask them if they'd tell me exactly where they (WMD) were, since they seemed to be much more sure about their existence then those of us searching (1400 CIA agents over a period of 8 months)."

Collin Powell himself said that if he knew what was written in the Kay report before the start of all this, he would have advised Bush against a military course of action.

As for the link with the terrorists, 9/11 etc, a quote from Mr. Bush himself:

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September the 11th."

Liberation to invasion???!!?? Don't remember using the term apart from in reference to your repeated use of "Liberation" (bet you do the quote marks bit when you talk as well). Nothing wrong with the phrase invasion as far as I'm concerned, such as Normandy Invasion 6th June 1944, perfectly happy to call it that, doesn't change what it is.

Sorry I assumed that as you were against me calling it a "so called liberation" you actually thought it was a liberation. My mistake. You're right though, it doesn't matter what you call it, it's still a foreign army invading and occupying a sovreign nation without the approval of the international community. I never provoked you with a personal jibe though...

 

[Driwen]

see what driwen said though to be fair that list was published just as the invasion started and is not up-to-date (countries have pulled out since then, I'm not aware of any joining though... anyone know if that's the case?)

I assumed they had added countries later on as im pretty sure Italy hadn't really supported politically or military with the war (they are helping now after saddam) and as I said the netherlands shouldnt be on that list if it is at the time of the invasion. Italy probably let the US use their bases to move to other locations (possibly even as base for attacks??) and netherlands let the US use our air/land to move their troops through, which is more because they are allies(generally speaking) than because the dutch actually supported the war.
Basically probably 25% of the countries on that list didnt actually give any military or political support and another 25% of them probably did nothing but say that they supported the war. That is atleast before Saddam was removed, as now Japan/Korea/Italy/etc are actually helping so that is also why I assumed the list was updated later. However helping now doesnt mean you approved of going there in the first place, but that you do recognize the need of making sure that there is a stable and democratic chosen goverment in place.

 

[Eroa]

Reason to vote for Bush? is that a trick question?

 

[Ala]

Build your own Bush! Here's my version!

 

[Archeon]

Build your own Bush! Here's my version!

Ohh, fun. Here's Mine

 

[[TB] Benedictine]

I returned from Iraq in March this year (we had US UK Latvian Dutch Italian Spanish Russian Polish Japanese Korean (useless) and a few others out there)

Bush's biggest mistake, which must take precedence over anything else he has done (and I happen to think he is a cowardly, lying buffoon) is that he did not follow the most important principle of war - selection and maintenance of the aim.

The war was on Terrorism (the selected aim) - Iraq had nothing or little to do with terrorism before we invaded - it sure as hell has now. And with regards to Afghanistan, he also cocked it up: To quote Sir Michael Howard, 'George W Bush had made a "terrible and irreversible" mistake calling the campaign a war, as it created public demand for military action.' To go into Afghanistan was I think right - but check out the increase in drugs traffic since the war ended.

US people need to really think about where they want to be in 10 years time, filling in more holes in NY or actually being the global leaders they have the responsibility to be.

Vote Kerry.

 

[harebear]

Har this is fun bushay

 

[Bunnytwo]

Kerry's track record makes Bush look like a model leader. If Bush does get re-elected the main reason will be because if Kerry is the best the Democrats can come up with they're in trouble. As for the Kerry the war hero part of his campaign, this website gives some nice info from the people he served with http://www.swiftvets.com/

You still can't assume that because countries were not actively supporting they were against. Could just argue that they didn't want the same thing to happen to them as happened to Spain (yes it was after but that sort of thing was expected).

I'd also take issue with the idea that the international community can actually be expected to do anything anyway. Their track record is appalling, before WW2 just look at the UN's ancestor the League of Nations, they didn't stop the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, they didn't do anything about Japan's invasion of China and the open massacres of millions of Chinese. They didn't stop Italy's invasion of Ethiopia or Hitler from invading a number of countries before Poland.

If look at the UN itself its no better really, yep they did something in Korea, but then that was because USSR was boycotting the UN at the time or they would have votoed any action, but then they did nothing to stop China's invasion of Tibet, they did nothing to stop Indonesia's invasion of East Timor and it took them about 25 years to put peace keepers in to stop the genocide there. Bosnia, nope Nato did that UN only went in afterwards to legitimise it (Russia would have vetoed UN action therefore Nato went in without UN authorisation). Rwanda, Sudan (nope they've decided it isn't genocide just so they don't have to do anything), Liberia nope failed there too. Kuwait took em 6months to authorise force. Falklands we'd still be negotiating with the Argentinians for them to withdraw if it were up to the international community, hell if it were up to the international community we'd still be negotiating with the Nazis. The international community is a joke as far as getting anything done goes.

 

[[TB] Benedictine]

Kerry's track record makes Bush look like a model leader.

Sure - Air National Guard versus actually seeing active combat service though I appreciate you may not necessarily mean his war record

And are those people on the sterring committee actually his crew? I think not - they seem to be officers not his crew.

Kerry's record is politically patchy but I would take him over a weak warmongering imbecile any day.

True about the UN though

 

[Bunnytwo]

Yep wouldn't argue that Bush bailed on the Vietnam War (though his father has a great military record), but then so did Clinton and some comments on Kerry's 4th months in Vietnam before his collegues encouraged him to apply for a transfer to get rid of him is below (his CO and one of his crew), (Kerry won't release his official military record):

"While in Cam Rahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound -- he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like 'Forget it.' He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom."
Apparently Kerry managed to get a Purple Heart on the grounds that it was treated by a doctor and had a US Army bandaid applied to the wound (which he insisted on), his CO is quoted as saying "I’ve seen worse injuries from a rose thorn."

"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?"

Kerry has the worst voting record in Congress, only 2 conclusions can really come to from that, either he can't be arsed to do his job or he hasn't got the backbone to take any stance that might lose him a vote or two. Not very inspiring either way.

 

[Zede]

Anyone remember the "Omen" films from the 80s ?

G.W.B is Damien Thorn.

 

[Ormorof]

Read the CoC, showing things like that is out

 

[fionnel]

Tbh you either understand that America's policy is aimed at protecting the american interests (and i don't mean those of the american people) or you don't. If you want to believe excuses and lies like non-existant WMD, the 'Axis of Evul', ze terrorists constantly threatening everyone everywhere, the 'human rights' and all the unbeleivable stuff we have heard from the American governments in the last wars in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq again then you are naive at best and not much can be done about it.

America is only acting towards securing its dominion over the world, exploiting the world's resources and making a profit off them and that's just all there is to it, nothing more, nothing less.

Only point i agree though is that the international community is a joke indeed. So the UN gave permission to bombard Yugoslavia, i bet they really feel better about it now, that just made it right.

 

[Bunnytwo]

Tbh you either understand that America's policy is aimed at protecting the american interests (and i don't mean those of the american people) or you don't. If you want to believe excuses and lies like non-existant WMD, the 'Axis of Evul', ze terrorists constantly threatening everyone everywhere, the 'human rights' and all the unbeleivable stuff we have heard from the American governments in the last wars in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq again then you are naive at best and not much can be done about it.

America is only acting towards securing its dominion over the world, exploiting the world's resources and making a profit off them and that's just all there is to it, nothing more, nothing less.

Only point i agree though is that the international community is a joke indeed. So the UN gave permission to bombard Yugoslavia, i bet they really feel better about it now, that just made it right.

Dont' think anyone would disagree that US foreign policy is aimed at protecting US interests, but then every country's foreign policy is aimed at protecting its interests (name one that isn't). As for exploiting all the world's resources, everybody does that both at an individual and national level, most of the clothing, toys etc that you see in the shops these days were made in some sweatshop in China or India. We buy em cos they're cheap they're cheap cos some poor sod made them in conditions and at wages that we wouldn't.

Would say that to claim that the terrorist threat is a lie is naive, especially when you link it to Afghanistan. Like it or not they are a threat, just look at September 11, Madrid, Bali and a hell of a lot of other attacks, and Laden was being sheltered by the Taliban (who refused to hand him over). If you allow (as in make no attempt to stop it) your country to be used as a base for attacking another country (whether as an HQ, training etc) then you can't expect the victim of the attack to just take in up the butt.

As for the WMD never saw any government claiming that Iraq didn't have them (just that weapons inspections should be given a chance (like what 12 years wasn't enough of a chance)). All the evidence pointed towards Iraq having the capability still (if it hadn't I'm sure Russia, France, China etc would have presented it). Who is to say that he didn't anyway, when the allies decided to go in, he had plenty of time to hide/transport them in the buildup, he did it with his airforce in the first Gulf War large numbers of them were shifted to Iran and the ones that remained were hidden in the country. As I said early they still haven't found stuff hidden by the Nazis at the end of WW2 and that was 60 years ago. . . . .When it comes down to it if Saddam had complied they wouldn't have had grounds to invade.

Finally (yep sry long post again) to actually criticise the grounds for the first Gulf War gives the impression that if you were in charge at the time Hilter could have invaded every country going, because hey if he choses to invade another country non of your business. Only problem with that ethos is one day you find that you're next and everyone else has been swallowed up. Not saying the involvement of the west in the Gulf was through altruism (but it wasn't in WW2 either), but even while following self interest a nation may do the right thing (I'd also be a bit weary of the "axis of evil" bit cos Churchill had most people ridiculing his comments about the rise of Facism and Communism, funny thing was he was right on both counts).

 

[Ormorof]

Read the CoC, showing things like that is out

nerf

was funny though

 

[fionnel]

Dont' think anyone would disagree that US foreign policy is aimed at protecting US interests, but then every country's foreign policy is aimed at protecting its interests (name one that isn't). As for exploiting all the world's resources, everybody does that both at an individual and national level, most of the clothing, toys etc that you see in the shops these days were made in some sweatshop in China or India. We buy em cos they're cheap they're cheap cos some poor sod made them in conditions and at wages that we wouldn't.

Every country is protecting its interests, the question is what interests are those. Bush is protecting the interests of the american oil/construction/weapon manufacturing companies because those have played a major part at electing him and are a part of his mechanism of controling power. While i tend to believe that other governments like Chavez's for example cares a bit less for the local oil companies and more for its people's welfare. I am not saying they are perfect ofcourse but at least show that they care for their poor citizens and those who suffer compared to other Latin America countries where US promotes corrupted politicians/dictators who gain power only to turn their country into a US economic/political colony (what happened at Chile back at the '70s is a good example) or compared to the US where civil rights and social welfare disappear in favor of spending money for the war against the invisible enemy which promotes a militaristic society model.

Would say that to claim that the terrorist threat is a lie is naive, especially when you link it to Afghanistan. Like it or not they are a threat, just look at September 11, Madrid, Bali and a hell of a lot of other attacks, and Laden was being sheltered by the Taliban (who refused to hand him over). If you allow (as in make no attempt to stop it) your country to be used as a base for attacking another country (whether as an HQ, training etc) then you can't expect the victim of the attack to just take in up the butt.

Well, the questions here are:

What caused the attacks?

Obviously the feelings against the US that allowed the development of such a noticeable terrorist network in the Middle East were not provoked by a fair and just policy at the region by the US. They were provoked by years of oppression (Palestine? Iran? Saudi Arabia?) that is caused directly or supported by US administrations to ensure their dominion over a strategic energy resource area.

Will the attacks stop now-has the threat been dealt in a proper way?

Nope. No indication of that, the political situation at the Middle East is even worse now, people there are more furious than ever against the US and this is another accomplishment of the Bush policy. The Afghanistan campaign hardly served any purpose after all, Laden didn't get caught, the situation of women there hasn't changed a bit and the only noticeable change is that now they produce more opium than ever before.

Also the safety laws passed in US/Europe have served in nothing other than paying a lot of money for nothing, violating any sense of civil rights and enraging the local populations. When they chose to attack at Madrid, nothing stoped them. It's obvious the aim of those laws is different and not dealing with terrorism but more like eliminating any serious opposition.

Further more, the 'orange security' alerts are obviously used by US gov every once and a while to make its citizens feel threatened while i doubt they really have any info at all for any attacks.

As for the WMD never saw any government claiming that Iraq didn't have them (just that weapons inspections should be given a chance (like what 12 years wasn't enough of a chance)). All the evidence pointed towards Iraq having the capability still (if it hadn't I'm sure Russia, France, China etc would have presented it). Who is to say that he didn't anyway, when the allies decided to go in, he had plenty of time to hide/transport them in the buildup, he did it with his airforce in the first Gulf War large numbers of them were shifted to Iran and the ones that remained were hidden in the country. As I said early they still haven't found stuff hidden by the Nazis at the end of WW2 and that was 60 years ago. . . . .When it comes down to it if Saddam had complied they wouldn't have had grounds to invade.

Your logic is flawed. First of all you can't prove you don't have something, because if you don't have it, you simply can't provide any evidence for it. You can only prove that you do have something and US so far has failed terribly to show us any evidence of WMD in Iraq.

Second of all, having WMD and declaring war for that is not a valid argument at all. So what if he has them? Why isn't Iraq allowed to have WMD and Israel is allowed to have nukes? If a worldwide poll was done and you asked people if they would prefer to give WMD at Saddam or Israel, i think you would be surprised at the result. Just because a part the US and UK people after years of propaganda have been persuaded there is a threat out of nowhere, don't be conviced at all that the rest of the world feels the same. Their idea for global justice is based on a political idea of 'good' and 'evil' and 'right' and 'wrong' that is non existant and certainly not shared by the rest of the world.

Finally (yep sry long post again) to actually criticise the grounds for the first Gulf War gives the impression that if you were in charge at the time Hilter could have invaded every country going, because hey if he choses to invade another country non of your business. Only problem with that ethos is one day you find that you're next and everyone else has been swallowed up. Not saying the involvement of the west in the Gulf was through altruism (but it wasn't in WW2 either), but even while following self interest a nation may do the right thing (I'd also be a bit weary of the "axis of evil" bit cos Churchill had most people ridiculing his comments about the rise of Facism and Communism, funny thing was he was right on both counts).

As for that it's very arguable what kind of country/nation Kuwait was. It certainly wasn't Austria or Poland. It was more like a western interest foothold at the area rather than a real nation.

Secondly, you are blowing this out of proportion. Iraq at no time had the war machine the nazis had. It never had Germany's resources. The state's and party's ideology was never that of global Arian Race dominion. At worse, Saddam cared for a strong Middle Eastern state, there is at no time any real or possible threat against America.

 

[Elvodus]

Well all in all is there are any as the topic says "reasons to vote for bush" or (very likely) not?

 

[fionnel]

Tbh i wouldn't vote for anyone, the american elections are a joke where only the elite minority participates while the biggest part of the lower classes, black and spanish people are left out. How many voted last time, like 40%?

Let alone that usually the hottest topic is who served at Vietnam like you are supposed to be proud of getting pwned by a primitive army while slaughtering mostly innocent civilians or if the president was alcoholic/cheating his wife or if he is in favor of gay marriage and other hot issues like those.

 

[Laston]

weeee dont you think this is so true? ^^ Real life versus the internet http://www.bsd-unix.net/seitz/funny/RvB_NYC2.mov


Politics part i mean :worthy:

 

[Bunnytwo]

Your logic is flawed. First of all you can't prove you don't have something, because if you don't have it, you simply can't provide any evidence for it. You can only prove that you do have something and US so far has failed terribly to show us any evidence of WMD in Iraq.

Second of all, having WMD and declaring war for that is not a valid argument at all. So what if he has them? Why isn't Iraq allowed to have WMD and Israel is allowed to have nukes? If a worldwide poll was done and you asked people if they would prefer to give WMD at Saddam or Israel, i think you would be surprised at the result. Just because a part the US and UK people after years of propaganda have been persuaded there is a threat out of nowhere, don't be conviced at all that the rest of the world feels the same. Their idea for global justice is based on a political idea of 'good' and 'evil' and 'right' and 'wrong' that is non existant and certainly not shared by the rest of the world.

As for that it's very arguable what kind of country/nation Kuwait was. It certainly wasn't Austria or Poland. It was more like a western interest foothold at the area rather than a real nation.

Secondly, you are blowing this out of proportion. Iraq at no time had the war machine the nazis had. It never had Germany's resources. The state's and party's ideology was never that of global Arian Race dominion. At worse, Saddam cared for a strong Middle Eastern state, there is at no time any real or possible threat against America.

So Kuwait wasn't really a proper country? Okkkkkk. I'd rather live there than Iran, Syria or any of the other anti-US regimes.

We didn't goto war against Germany because Poland was a proper country, we'd given up enough of those to Hitler before Poland, we went to war becuase we were obligated to by our treaty with them which said explicitly thats what we would do.

As for the war machine part umm Iraq had one of the biggest armed forces in the world, yep not the best quality, but then if you look into it the German army at the beginning of the Second World War was greatly inferior both in quality and numbers to the French and British. Where the Germans did so well was they had much better tactics, which they had been allowed to hone because people said "no they're not really a threat, they just want a strong Germany" (spot the similarity to your Saddam statement?).

Yep Israel has nukes. Would most people prefer Saddam to have them or any other WMD than Israel, think you're dreaming there tbh. Has Israel ever used its nuclear weapons? Nope. Has Saddam used his WMD? Hell yeh. BTW no he didn't have the right to have em, that was under the terms of the treaty at the end of the first Gulf War thats why the UN inspectors were supposed to be able to look for them.

Your belief that at worst Saddam wanted a strong Middle East is just laughable, yep that why he fought a ruinous war against Iran and then invaded Kuwait, that really helped to strengthen it. He only played that card, along with the honest I'm devout Muslim (which Bin Laden took the piss out of too) when his back was against the wall. Didn't realise someone would believe either of those lines, but then again people believed Hitlers "Honest I know I've said it before, but really this time I will be satisfied with Czech territory."

 

[fionnel]

Kuwait is a country, what i was doubting was its different national identity to Iraq. Seems more like a club for the rich Arabs and a strategic western foothold to me rather than a country with a distinct national identity. Yeah, i would prefer to live there too, my doubts weren't about the welfare of its citizens.


Besides that, your analogy with Germany is still flawed in many ways:


-Germany had a fully militaristic society which was one of the most obvious reasons they did so well at the start of the war, their whole society had the morale and was ready to fight at all time. Iraq was a dictatorship but hardly a militaristic society. Half the population wasn't parading all day long and training for war.

-Germany's tech might have been inferior, in some sectors, but tbh comparing the technological disadvantage that Germany had with the Iraqi army which hardly had any air force or tanks is really too much. Even if Germany was behind, its gap was not as wide as that between US and Iraq military. Atm the gap between the US military force and any other is just huge. It was proven by the fact that it only took the US army less than 1 month to overcome Iraqi resistance and seize power. US military power is not really comparable to others the way British military force was compared to German.

-To get more political, Germany didn't start the war on its own but had a worldwide alliance to cover its back, including Italy, Japan, several Balkan nations etc etc. Fascism was a worldwide movement with considerable impact. Unlike them Saddam's regime was a simple dictatorship which did not support a fascist ideology but rather a nationalist one (and the difference between the two is huge) if it supported any ideology at all. Iraq had no allies to be a threat to anyone. Unless you believe it would ally with N. Korea and Iran to bring d00m to the world, despite the fact the 3 regimes are totally different in mentality and they could never really cooperate (or they would have done so a long time ago). The 'Axis of Evil' is made up from third world countries fighting for the survival of their regimes, not fully developed countries with a respectable war machine like Germany and Italy looking to get more lands to exploit because they are left out of the world splitting. That difference is rather huge.

-As for the Iran war, it's a proven fact that at that time Saddam was cooperating and supported by the Americans in their effort to overthrow the
fundamentalist regime, so it wasn't really his ambition that led to that.

Finally, as for the Israeli nukes, i think you are totally underestimating the hate for Israel and the US that has developed in a lot of european/middle eastern (well, obviously) african and asian countries.

 

[Bunnytwo]

Germany had a fully militaristic society which was one of the most obvious reasons they did so well at the start of the war, their whole society had the morale and was ready to fight at all time. Iraq was a dictatorship but hardly a militaristic society. Half the population wasn't parading all day long and training for war.

-Germany's tech might have been inferior, in some sectors, but tbh comparing the technological disadvantage that Germany had with the Iraqi army which hardly had any air force or tanks is really too much. Even if Germany was behind, its gap was not as wide as that between US and Iraq military. Atm the gap between the US military force and any other is just huge. It was proven by the fact that it only took the US army less than 1 month to overcome Iraqi resistance and seize power. US military power is not really comparable to others the way British military force was compared to German.

-To get more political, Germany didn't start the war on its own but had a worldwide alliance to cover its back, including Italy, Japan, several Balkan nations etc etc. Fascism was a worldwide movement with considerable impact. Unlike them Saddam's regime was a simple dictatorship which did not support a fascist ideology but rather a nationalist one (and the difference between the two is huge) if it supported any ideology at all. Iraq had no allies to be a threat to anyone. Unless you believe it would ally with N. Korea and Iran to bring d00m to the world, despite the fact the 3 regimes are totally different in mentality and they could never really cooperate (or they would have done so a long time ago). The 'Axis of Evil' is made up from third world countries fighting for the survival of their regimes, not fully developed countries with a respectable war machine like Germany and Italy looking to get more lands to exploit because they are left out of the world splitting. That difference is rather huge.

-As for the Iran war, it's a proven fact that at that time Saddam was cooperating and supported by the Americans in their effort to overthrow the
fundamentalist regime, so it wasn't really his ambition that led to that.

Finally, as for the Israeli nukes, i think you are totally underestimating the hate for Israel and the US that has developed in a lot of european/middle eastern (well, obviously) african and asian countries.

Firstly I think you overestimate the hatred felt for Israel and the US in many coutries, yes you may see anti-US/Israel protests, but then I remember when this latest conflict started and US and UK war graves were attacked in France a lot of the French spoke out saying that they still held a debt of gratitude to both nations. Just because you see some protests on the TV or whatever doesn't mean that the majority feel the same way. If used this measure then you would also have to believe that the majority of Muslims are mad firebrand suicide bombers, which isn't the case.

You should also look further into the year before WW2 before dimissing the comparison. When Germany first started to break the terms of the Versailles, its military was absolutely no match for either France or Germany, it was not a fully developed country either (it had been stripped of much of its economic infrastructure to pay reparations to the allies after WW1), it was only able to build up its war machine and gather allies through people dismissing the danger out of hand in exactly the same way you have done with Iraq (Germany veneared over its arms buildup so that appeasers could deny it was happening). Yep Iraq wasn't a match, but then from what you're saying it seems you would have them wait till it was before doing anything. I'm saying learn from your mistakes, we got away with it by the skin of our teeth then and millions died because of that attitude.

Also BTW there are other nations in the world that are close to the US on military power, China for example can field a force that vastly outnumbers the US, it might not be technologically very close with the US, but they caused the UN (including the US) huge problems in the Korean War when the technology gap was even greater. Which is why the US tends to treat carefully in that part of the world.

I'm glad to see that you've dropped the claim about Saddam's benovolent asperations for the region though. + Yep the US and the UK did support Iraq's attack on Iran, but they didn't twist his arm to do it (and Russia, France, Germany, India and the majority of countries in the region provided support to him as well so can't lay the blame on the US)

As for Iraq not being a militaristic society, yep and neither is Israels, honest.

 

[Melachi]

Firstly I think you overestimate the hatred felt for Israel and the US in many coutries, yes you may see anti-US/Israel protests, but then I remember when this latest conflict started and US and UK war graves were attacked in France a lot of the French spoke out saying that they still held a debt of gratitude to both nations. Just because you see some protests on the TV or whatever doesn't mean that the majority feel the same way. If used this measure then you would also have to believe that the majority of Muslims are mad firebrand suicide bombers, which isn't the case.

You should also look further into the year before WW2 before dimissing the comparison. When Germany first started to break the terms of the Versailles, its military was absolutely no match for either France or Germany, it was not a fully developed country either (it had been stripped of much of its economic infrastructure to pay reparations to the allies after WW1), it was only able to build up its war machine and gather allies through people dismissing the danger out of hand in exactly the same way you have done with Iraq (Germany veneared over its arms buildup so that appeasers could deny it was happening). Yep Iraq wasn't a match, but then from what you're saying it seems you would have them wait till it was before doing anything. I'm saying learn from your mistakes, we got away with it by the skin of our teeth then and millions died because of that attitude.

Also BTW there are other nations in the world that are close to the US on military power, China for example can field a force that vastly outnumbers the US, it might not be technologically very close with the US, but they caused the UN (including the US) huge problems in the Korean War when the technology gap was even greater. Which is why the US tends to treat carefully in that part of the world.

I'm glad to see that you've dropped the claim about Saddam's benovolent asperations for the region though. + Yep the US and the UK did support Iraq's attack on Iran, but they didn't twist his arm to do it (and Russia, France, Germany, India and the majority of countries in the region provided support to him as well so can't lay the blame on the US)

As for Iraq not being a militaristic society, yep and neither is Israels, honest.

I havent read the whole thread since it got very long, but let me just state what I believe are a few things, im open to the fact I may be wrong though

1. Regarding the UK, the government supported the war, yes. However before the war started polls (I know they dont prove anything) showed that the public was against it. It wasnt until the war began that it began to balance out.

2. Im cant tell wether in the last line you said about "yep and neither is Israels, honest." if its sarcastic or not. Anyway if it is, I think your wrong, again the Government may be militrastic (maybe its not), but in Israel you have many difirent sides, the ultra-cons, but the majority is in favour of the creation of a Palestinian state and peace in the region. You shouldnt judge contries on their leaders.

3. Americans do not seem to realise the affect the war has had on many countries. I live in Ireland, and believe it or not we too had our small part to play in the war. Shannon airport was being used by the US militray on its transport to other air bases for use in the war. There were MASSIVE protests about this, for two reasons, 1. People against the war, but mainly 2. that it was completely flaunting our neutrality.

Yep Iraq wasn't a match, but then from what you're saying it seems you would have them wait till it was before doing anything.

4. So do you support Pre-emptive strikes? Im sorry but this really is absurd, Pre-Emptive strikes require assumptions, which maybe so called 'edducated assumptions' but nevertheless assumptions which are in no way flawless. Things as important as wars should not be decided on guesses.

5. Regarding the 'better of two evils' this war has become, people stating 'well even if the WMD's dont exist, atleast we got rid of the regime'. Ok so Sadam and his regime did not benefit the public for the most part, but can you honestly say, that the people of Iraq's standard of living has gone up since the war began?

 

[Driwen]

5. Regarding the 'better of two evils' this war has become, people stating 'well even if the WMD's dont exist, atleast we got rid of the regime'. Ok so Sadam and his regime did not benefit the public for the most part, but can you honestly say, that the people of Iraq's standard of living has gone up since the war began?

for one you have to give some time for the country to rebuild itself and settle down again and the standard of living in Iraq was for most people reasonably with Saddam actually, it was just the lack of freedom and killing millions which was bad.
The other thing is that I dont believe the-what-do-we-do-after-Saddam part was reasonably well thought out, so we have this mess.

The removing of Saddam is good, as he has proved himself to be a bad ruler. However the way in which it was all done, means that it will be a really bumpy road and with a possible ending where we just end up with another dictator and one that is trully anti west.

 

[Bunnytwo]

It is rather hard for the coalition to improve the standard of living of the population with attacks on the people trying to rebuild the infra-structure. Living in Ireland (though in the South) you will be aware that many potential investments into Northern Ireland did not take place due to the activities of the terrorists (from both sides) in the province. Money had to be pumped into it. In Iraq setting up a new government is rather hard due to the fact that the country is so divided on religious and cultural grounds, it was always going to be tough to find a leadership that would be agreeable to all.

Israel is a militaristic society, it has one of the most powerful armed forces in the world, and the most powerful armed forces of any nation of its size. Its forces have an almost constant state of readiness and have large reserved which can be rapidly mobilised (as it has done in the past on a number of occasions). The only area in which it is slightly lacking is that the military isn't quite as pervasive into the civil sphere as it is in nations such as China, N. Korea and Saddam's Iraq, or at least is slightly more subtle.

As for the polls factor, maybe before the start of the war the polls showed a small majority against the war. However, after Dunkirk polls showed around 75% of the British population wanted to make peace with Hitler. I'd hate to think of what the world would be like if the polls had been followed then. There were protests against WW2 at the start also (until they got stamped out) and against the first Gulf War and involvement in the Balkans (both nationally and internationally).

For the pre-emptive part, your statement isn't valid for two reasons. Firstly Saddam had already displayed his willingness to use WMD both against Iran and within Iraq. He also was not keeping to the terms of the ceasefire after the first Gulf War, under which inspectors were to be allowed free access to ensure that WMD had been destroyed and that no program was in place to manufacture more. Therefore on this basis there was no doubt of his willingness to use these weapons indiscriminately and his unwillingness to give inspectors free access would give validity to any evidence that he was continuing his weapons program. As a result it wasn't as if the coalition was attacking some random country that didn't have a very recent track record.

 

[Melachi]

For the pre-emptive part, your statement isn't valid for two reasons. Firstly Saddam had already displayed his willingness to use WMD both against Iran and within Iraq. He also was not keeping to the terms of the ceasefire after the first Gulf War, under which inspectors were to be allowed free access to ensure that WMD had been destroyed and that no program was in place to manufacture more. Therefore on this basis there was no doubt of his willingness to use these weapons indiscriminately and his unwillingness to give inspectors free access would give validity to any evidence that he was continuing his weapons program. As a result it wasn't as if the coalition was attacking some random country that didn't have a very recent track record.

How is it not valid? You state that Sadam had already displayed his willingness to use WMD, yes correct. That is not proof he will do it again. So you have to make the assumption he will do it again.

Not willing to let inspectors in? Yes all the time, until the threat of war was on them, then the inspectors were in there. I remeber perfectly though, when the war started, Hans Blix leaving! Iraq because US was starting its campaign. It was the US that made him leave.

Sorry have to restate one thing again,

You say

Therefore on this basis there was no doubt of his willingness to use these weapons indiscriminately and his unwillingness to give inspectors free access would give validity to any evidence that he was continuing his weapons program.

You see what you are doing here? Your replacing "very little doubt" with "no doubt". It is completely impossible for anyone to have "no doubt" that Sadam would use/make WMD's. Therefore assumptions had to be made.

And if your arguement is that of, "well there is nearly no doubt he would use/make WMD's" even though your right, 'nearly' has no place in such important things.

Two small sayings that would be rellevant to this discussion:
"Nearly never won the race"
and
"Assumptions are the mother of all f**kups"

Ok, sayings dont prove anything, but they sound cool