Well I'm not claiming that IS the reason but I'm not discounting it either. Maybe not "steal" exactly but I'm sure they wouldn't turn down a special oil discount from the next Iraqi regime. I just don't think they are being honest. So are we gonna do this everywhere where atrocities take place or only in places that will benefit us financially or that are a threat to our own security.
I meant is the plight of the Iraqi people really much worse now than back then or the time period in between. I wasn't talking at all about them being a greater threat to our own security, which I think most people including myself agree with. I was strictly talking about our humanitarian reasons for the war.
Unfortunately, our government has never been able to back up these accusations. If it had, more countries would have backed us in the UN (I mean, do you really think France just charmed them all into not backing us?). Meanwhile, there's far more proof of the nuclear-weapons efforts of Iran and North Korea, and of Saudi Arabia's financial support of terrorism. Are those next on the to-be-invaded list? And how did Iraq pass them?
As long as Swopa points out that that is Swopa's opinion, then Swopa is in the clear. When Swopa fails to differentiate between Swopa's opinion and factual reality, then that is where Swopa has a problem. Swopa is free to think whatever Swopa wants about the administration. Conspiracy theories and cynicism are not illegal.
I repeat, the plight of the Iraqi people, this has nothing to do with the reason they are anti-war. Seriously, WAAAAAAAAAA? If the plight of the Iraqi people was actually the reason we were going to war, you should be pushing for war with any of 50+ other countries around the world, places like China included. We are going to war because we have determined Iraq is a looming threat to our national security. Many anti-war people don't agree with this and that is their primary reason for being anti-war.
People talk about this part but cut out the other parts. Not only is this mission supposedly to free Iraqi people, it's also to seize weapons of mass destruction, biologicals and chemical weapons, and even though they didn't say it, I'm assuming to get terrorists and the people who finance them, and to "send a message" to other countries doing the same thing.
He's saying that the situation is already messed up because of our bungling of the aftermath. What exactly is unclear about this statement: <I>No, I mean I think our government will fumble away much of what could have been gained by removing Saddam. </I> In other words, there's so much to be gained by removing Saddam, but he feels that our government <I>will</I> (not has) fumble that opportunity away based on previous history. It seemed pretty straightforward to me.
And if the inspectors had found zero evidence of weapons, would Sadaam treat his people any differently? The two things are not related.
You don't need to agree with the Administration part and parcle to support this war. Ever heard of a political alliance? The plight of the Iraqi people is one main reason I support this war. You can disagree with the government on the security issue, but you don't take into account IN ANY WAY the plight of the Iraqis. To answer the China Argument: We are going in Iraq because we can, because it is practical.
Who said the United States IS NOT going after them next? The United States just told N Korea to end their nuclear efforst or else. They told Iran that you better not have any connections to terrorists that are attacking the U.S. or else. And didn't the prince of Saudia Arabia try to give the U.S. money 2 years ago in a show of "peace" after the September 11th attacks and New York turned them down? Maybe the the United States is dismantling Iraq for the reasons above, and as a message to the other countries to stay in line.
Could you please explain what you mean by 'special oil discount'? The last time I checked, the price of crude oil was controlled by the market, and countries were not free to charge whatever they want for it.
Well, maybe that's exactly what the majority of the population of countries all over the world, and a substantial chunk of the population here, are worried about. Why the US Inspires Scorn (LA Times) (excerpt) Even in Muslim countries that are helping U.S. military forces, the public is ambivalent, and policymakers admit privately that they worry far more about the impact of unchecked American actions than about Hussein. In the years since the Gulf War, admiration of the U.S. has turned to fear and resentment. Consider: In Doha, just a few miles from the U.S. Central Command base where Gen. Tommy Franks stands ready to run a war against Iraq, a theater audience made up mainly of Qataris breaks into applause as the leading actor reacts to television scenes of the collapsing World Trade Center towers with the words: "Americans go around punishing everyone. Now it's time to let them feel something." This is exactly the attitude that the U.S. is promoting by how it's pursued the war with Iraq.
Okay, but why do you continue to act on the assumptoin that everybody who opposes this war doesn't give a flying flip about the Iraqi people? It's their opinion they think war isn't the answer. I believe they are wrong if they don't think war is the quickest way to free Iraq and it's obvious that you do to, but that doesn't mean you have to act self righteous every single time you post and lambast everybody who opposes this war, people who have arrived at this opinion from different paths. There are probably lots of people who oppose all war, people who arrived at their opinion long before you were born. Why should you call these people idiots when they have a held an opinion for so long? It's nearly the equivalent of telling people they're religion is a sham and they are stupid for following it. That's why someone like me, who usually agrees with you, gets p o'd. I don't know how I can make you understand this. Actually, let me try. I, personaly haven't seen you or I have forgotten if you have, post anything that offers condolences to our fallen soldiers. If I took your route, I would assume that meant that you don't care about our troops. I would then start a new thread, link some articles about our casualties, post a rolleyes, and then say something like "Where is Sinohero now. Is he still going to hate our troops as they fall defending the freedom of Iraqi's and his?" That probably wasn't the best, but it's all I could come up with on the fly. Either way, I hope you see the direction I'm headed in. Furthermore, since the plight of the Iraqi's is the main reason you support this war, I hope that you will voice support for action in other parts of the world where similar things are happening, yet they are completely ignored. If not, then you should stop posting articles left and right about what Iraqi's have suffered because you will come off as a hypocrite later. Anyways, have you ever heard of Burma?
The fact that they applaud planes flying into a building and killing innocenet people and saying that it's righteous tells me they aren't any different then what they claim America is. Here's North Korea nad Iraq building up nuclear weapons, and these people are applauding planes flying into a building. Personally I would just leave from over there and let them kill each other, and if I were the U.S. I wouldn't raise a hand to help them, whether it's with money, technology, man power or whatever. But since they're there I say take care of business. I kind of wonder what those countries would have thought if Iraq had build nuclear weapons and fired it at some of them.
If our government is performing such at such an unsatisfactory rate, you're welcome to become an Iraqi citizen.
