Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2010, 12:50 PM
 
58,571 posts, read 26,889,168 times
Reputation: 14129

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Who's we? Are you going to be carrying a rifle?



Saddam was a despot, but he wasn't a threat to "the rest of the world". His military was broken after 1991, his WMD programs crumbled during 1991-1998.

I was against the 2nd Iraq war, mostly because it was sold to the public on BS premises.

Even so, it could have come out all right, if the occupation hadn't been so utterly bungled. There was a window of perhaps one year, where reforms could have been made, and Bremer et al. bungled it completely.
if he wasn't a threat then why did Clinton sign this?
Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act

Iraq News, SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1998
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2010, 01:04 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,357,826 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
We did know what he was doing to his own people during the 1980's, this was well known. The 88 attacks against the Kurds for one, wasn't exactly some secret, and we knew things that were going on prior to that as well.
I stand corrected.

Quote:
Chemical warfare was viewed as a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance. The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle East, and to keep the oil flowing.
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

I'm not claiming to have an authority on US-Iraq relations but I have however done much more research on US Soviet relations. It does make sense though the stance that we took because one of the main goals of the Reagan administration was to see the Soviet Union collapsed. Part of that was economic warfare in which oil was used since that was the main source of income for the SU. If there had been a cutoff of oil to the world at that time it would have sent oil prices soaring and would have totally defeated the covert negotiations with Saudi Arabia to triple its oil production which decreased oil prices and dealt a considerable blow to the Soviet economy.

I guess the Reagan administration thought of this middle east conflict as something more trivial than the overall threat from the 40,000+ nuclear war heads that the Soviets possessed.

Last edited by BigJon3475; 01-10-2010 at 01:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 01:12 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,357,826 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Saddam was a despot, but he wasn't a threat to "the rest of the world". His military was broken after 1991, his WMD programs crumbled during 1991-1998.

I was against the 2nd Iraq war, mostly because it was sold to the public on BS premises.

Even so, it could have come out all right, if the occupation hadn't been so utterly bungled. There was a window of perhaps one year, where reforms could have been made, and Bremer et al. bungled it completely.
Yes he was. He was always going to be a threat to the rest of the world as long as he was in power and controlled the worlds oil resources -- yeah I said it. If he was allowed to die of natural causes his legacy would have just been picked up by his even more evil sons. You must have missed:

Quote:
Between 1996 and 2002, the overall MIC budget increased over forty-fold from ID 15.5 billion to ID 700 billion. By 2003 it had grown to ID 1 trillion. MIC’s hard currency allocations in 2002 amounted to approximately $364 million. MIC sponsorship of technical research projects at Iraqi universities skyrocketed from about 40 projects in 1997 to 3,200 in 2002. MIC workforce expanded by fifty percent in three years, from 42,000 employees in 1999 to 63,000 in 2002.
Iraq Survey Group Final Report
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 01:15 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,357,826 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
You've absolutely evaded the question! The question has NOTHING to do with terror. The question is WHERE in the Constitution are we tasked with deposing dictators merely because of the living conditions they impose on their people. You're either evading the question or you realize the only correct answer is NO WHERE!





And then what? Allow them to buy their way from guilt as was done with Libya?
Geez! So terrorism is not a threat to our national security? I haven't avoided anything. You would just refuse any reason to go to war and as a pacifist that's your right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 01:21 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,357,826 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
if he wasn't a threat then why did Clinton sign this?
Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act

Iraq News, SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1998
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 01:29 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,121 posts, read 19,344,613 times
Reputation: 5273
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
I stand corrected.

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein

I'm not claiming to have an authority on US Iraq relations but I have however done much more research on US Soviet relations. It does make sense thought the stance that we took because one of the main goal of the Reagan administration was to see the Soviet Union collapse. Part of that was economic warfare in which oil was used since that was the main source of income for the SU. If there had been a cutoff of oil to the world at that time it would have sent oil prices soaring and would have totally defeated the covert negotiations with Saudi Arabia to triple its oil production which decreased oil prices and dealt a considerable blow to the Soviet economy.

I guess the Reagan administration thought of this middle east conflict as something more trivial than the overall threat from the 40,000+ nuclear war heads that the Soviets possessed.
None of which is any reason to arm and fund a brutal dictator who killed his own people. Most of the horrible actions that were against his own people that were used as justification for the Iraq War occurred during the 80's when Saddam was being funded and armed by Reagan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 01:37 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,357,826 times
Reputation: 4798
Considering the Soviets murdered more people -- by a thousand fold -- than Saddam and was in a subversive war in which its goals were to have a one world socialist state which it controlled, I'd have to disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Long Island (chief in S Farmingdale)
22,121 posts, read 19,344,613 times
Reputation: 5273
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
Considering the Soviets murdered more people -- by a thousand fold -- than Saddam and was in a subversive war in which its goals were to have a one world socialist state which it controlled, I'd have to disagree.
The Soviets were already on the verge of being defeated, arming and funding Saddam did not help defeat the Soviets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 02:00 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,357,826 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255 View Post
The Soviets were already on the verge of being defeated, arming and funding Saddam did not help defeat the Soviets.
Of course, that's the usual liberal mantra despite it having zero credibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2010, 05:55 PM
 
4,434 posts, read 6,955,454 times
Reputation: 2261
If the US liberated Iraq, how come their was a mass exodus of people fleeing Iraq? Including those people that fled Iraq were Iraqi Christians. It is estimated that at least 40% of refugees that fled Iraq were Iraq Christains. Before the Iraqi war no christain church was bombed by terrorists, but since the US liberated Iraq, no Iraqi church has been safe. In addition extremist islmaists have executed Christians just becuase they are not muslim. Under Saddam there were Christians that served in Saddams government.

In addition if you are gay now in Iraq, it is now alot worse now than under Saddam as there are Islamists that go around and hunt homosexuals. Islamists in Iraq now prowl gay internet chat rooms to hunt down and execute homosexuals. Under Saddam however life for homosexuals was one of the most liberated in themiddle east.

In addition Islamists have executed people for selling liquor, and have forced women to wear the hijab. In some cases extremists have executed Iraqi women dressing in western clothes. In addition people are being killed becuase of their religion in Iraq. As well as Shia and Sunnis lived in peace with each other until the US liberated Iraq.

Suicide bombings in Iraq which never existed under Saddam are now a daily occurance in Iraq.

Well Iraq has no reason to celebrate the US liberating them for freedom. Iraq is still more dangerous than ever, and terrorism is a daily occurance. People still live in fear and US troops are still being killed there. Infact more US troops have been killed since the occupation of Iraq than the invasion itself.

Bigjohn so if the US did such a good job in Iraq, now the people in IRan and North Korea are screaming for the US to liberate them just as they did to Iraq

Last edited by other99; 01-10-2010 at 06:11 PM.. Reason: change sentence
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top