Yahoo News - WMD's Gone after '91? 5 replies

Please wait...

NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1514&e=9&u=/afp/20040811/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_weapons_britain_040811215315

This is very interesting....

Doesnt help my case but in the interest of being fair, I felt this should be posted




Mike 51

Bush/Cheney 2004 apparently

50 XP

27th September 2003

0 Uploads

526 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

Is that a problem? I thought the pro-war camp had moved on to the whole 'freedom and democracy' and 'brutal dictator' angle as a justification for Iraq, because its easier and impossible to discredit. Even O'Reilly is talking about 'tragic intelligence mistakes'. I thought everyone had pretty much decided there were no WMDs by now, on all sides of the argument.

Of course it changes nothing, and neither of our 'nukes in 45 minutes' leaders are going to take responsibility, even if every word of this report is true. So what does it matter, by now? What's done is done and, thanks to the crazy world of 'all at fault, none to blame' democracy, nobody's going to pay for it except the 800 Americans and 67 Britons buried in the desert.




grishank

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

6th August 2004

0 Uploads

112 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

So what do you reckon should be done now?

There is still not peace, look at Najaf. It would be immoral to cut and run, we need to rebuild the place we tore apart. Not just that it would be morally wrong, but it would also create sympathisers with the terriorists. One good thing about Saddam was he controlled a population that essentially hates each other, Sunnis, Shias, Kurds etc. When we leave could civil war break out? Can we ever replace Iraqs regime with a strong democratic government? The only quick solution to keep control on a long term basis seems to install a puppet dictator, which is exactly how Saddam got into power. A democratic government would have to be strong to survive, which is virtually impossible in a poor country. Long term occupation would result in more people disliking the West, and would suck in more and more troops and resources that could be spent better. It's a hard situation, one thing I'm sure of though, I want our lads back home.




Ghost

Teh peach party 0wnz j00 n00bs

50 XP

1st June 2004

0 Uploads

1,335 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago
grishankOne good thing about Saddam was he controlled a population that essentially hates each other, Sunnis, Shias, Kurds etc. When we leave could civil war break out?

By striking fear into the hearts of everyone who opposed him.




grishank

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

6th August 2004

0 Uploads

112 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago
GhostBy striking fear into the hearts of everyone who opposed him.

This isn't an argument about whether Saddam was a good thing or not (although I believe Iraq was better off with him than it is now), but what should we do in iraq. I was merely highlighting the lengths needed to go to to keep the population under control by referring to the extreme methods used by Saddam. Let's not turn this into a Liberal vs. Conservative argument. Be positive in this thread and explain what you think should be done now, rather than arguing 'who is right'.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

I fully suported the reasons behind the war, but the war was a disaster. We had no exit plan. It was started with good intentions but sometimes thats not enough.

If we leave now, the arab world will critize us for leaving them. We leave later, we wil get called on for trying to take over the Middle East, one country at a time.