US wants to back out of Iraq?

[Smoothie104]

http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.troops09jul09,0,5504250.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

[Kriz]

I really doubt that the European people would be supportive of such an action, especially now that the sh*t has hit the fan about the false documents used to approve the war and such.

[budanski]

I really doubt that the European people would be supportive of such an action, especially now that the sh*t has hit the fan about the false documents used to approve the war and such.

The European people would oppose Bush with WHATEVER he does. :roll:

Yes, one of the documents was a forgery. However 99.9% of the other supporting evidence is factual and verified by the international community. Concerning the suspected documents - Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.

[He219]

Kriz wrote:

the sh*t has hit the fan about the false documents used to approve the war and such
:cantbeli:
I recon you would not have had us clean house in Iraq and remove Saddam from power then?

Imagine waiting for the 'bad' news had curageous nations not participated in defeating tyrants over the past years. Are we supposed to allow attroceties and muder of civilians to continue until somebody finds a smoking gun? Imagine the course of the Jewish Haulocaust had remaining prisoners not been freed. You probably would still argue some 'cause and effect' method for inaction.

Regardless of the trivialities, Saddam had to go. You just hate to admit that it takes courage and fortitude to go against opinion for values and liberties that benefit the individual in the long run.

More importantly, you don't like Americans to wield their might unless you have your .02 Euros to say about it....

[Kriz]

Regardless of the trivialities, Saddam had to go. You just hate to admit that it takes courage and fortitude to go against opinion for values and liberties that benefit the individual in the long run.

More importantly, you don't like Americans to wield their might unless you have your .02 Euros to say about it....

I really don't care about Americans getting their ass shot off for "liberty". Let's see how much the Iraqi people appreciate your bringing of freedom and liberty to their country. When all this is over we'll see about that.

Ow and by the way you really think that bringing liberty to the people of Iraq was the prime motivation for this war :roll:
No it was the threat Saddam was supposed to be, his support of terrorists (for both I have seen only little evidence) and only last the so called bringing of liberty.

So yes I recon you should have stayed out of the region and have dealt with a regime that is a far greater threat then the one of Saddam (for example North Korea)
But off course the American might dosn't want to loose to many of it's soldiers so a task like that won't happen until it's allready too late.

[SABER 2-3]

If the North Koreans are so high on the hit list maybe your country (whatever that may be) should do something about it. But I'm sure that won't happen due to the fact that most of the world would rather shoot their mouths off and not their rifles. It's OK if the U.S. pounds who you want but when it's someone YOU don't see as a threat it's a travisty of justice. You need to "check your fire" before it's to late.

[budanski]

Ow and by the way you really think that bringing liberty to the people of Iraq was the prime motivation for this war :roll:
No it was the threat Saddam was supposed to be, his support of terrorists (for both I have seen only little evidence) and only last the so called bringing of liberty.

Reasons for liberating Iraq were and are listed in official and public record documents and sources. These included first and foremost:

1) Iraq's failure to honor their 1991 ceasefire agreement
2) Iraq's failure to honor and intentional violation of all UNSC resolutions requiring its compliance
3) Iraq's WMD program, including the refusal to disclose complete and accurate information on it
4) Iraq's support of international terrorism. Including Palestinian terrorist organizations like Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezzbollah and others.
5) Iraq's continued engagement of coalition military forces in the no fly zones
6) Regime change. That has been documented as far back as the Clinton administration in 1998, and voiced publically by the Bush administration since late 2001.
7) Removing a threat to the region

All these are on public record as reasons to depose and remove Saddam.

[Seiyuuki]

Regardless of the trivialities, Saddam had to go. You just hate to admit that it takes courage and fortitude to go against opinion for values and liberties that benefit the individual in the long run.

More importantly, you don't like Americans to wield their might unless you have your .02 Euros to say about it....

I really don't care about Americans getting their ass shot off for "liberty". Let's see how much the Iraqi people appreciate your bringing of freedom and liberty to their country. When all this is over we'll see about that.

Ow and by the way you really think that bringing liberty to the people of Iraq was the prime motivation for this war :roll:
No it was the threat Saddam was supposed to be, his support of terrorists (for both I have seen only little evidence) and only last the so called bringing of liberty.

So yes I recon you should have stayed out of the region and have dealt with a regime that is a far greater threat then the one of Saddam (for example North Korea)
But off course the American might dosn't want to loose to many of it's soldiers so a task like that won't happen until it's allready too late.

It's always easy to criticize when you're not in the fire.

[cut]

6) Regime change. That has been documented as far back as the Clinton administration in 1998, and voiced publically by the Bush administration since late 2001

that was rumsfeld in 98

[cut]

It's always easy to criticize when you're not in the fire.

that's why the americans were so easy on the french before the war.

[He219]

cut wrote:

that's why the americans were so easy on the french before the war.

Don't forget about French overflight denial for US planes going to bomb Libya's capital Tripoli and the city of Benghazi in 1986 in reprisal for the Berlin nightclub bombing. That's when things really started turning sour towards the French.

;)
He219

[cut]

I didn't :D

[Kriz]

Seiyuuki, I don't see you in the fire ;)

[Seiyuuki]

Don't be an idiot, did I ever said directly I was in the fire and am I criticizing? ;)

[usa320]

"1) Iraq's failure to honor their 1991 ceasefire agreement
2) Iraq's failure to honor and intentional violation of all UNSC resolutions requiring its compliance
3) Iraq's WMD program, including the refusal to disclose complete and accurate information on it
4) Iraq's support of international terrorism. Including Palestinian terrorist organizations like Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezzbollah and others.
5) Iraq's continued engagement of coalition military forces in the no fly zones
6) Regime change. That has been documented as far back as the Clinton administration in 1998, and voiced publically by the Bush administration since late 2001. "

couldnt have said it better myself.

Am i the only one who feels that kriz is depriving a village of its idiot?[/quote]

[Argyll]

This debate will rage on regardless of the reasons,and all points are well documented,and come under UNSC resoloutions in some form,right up to the point where the UN said,If you do go to war it is without UN backing,all the points are relevant,but the UNMOVIC said give us a little more time(2 months) and we'll try to locate the WMD's/Programs,but the answer was a resounding "No he's had long enough"To which I was fully backing,there was far too much reference to the WMD issue,and how it was considered a clear and present danger to National Security,despite what has happend ,not a trace of WMD has been found,not a single shell ready to be deployed,and this was both the US and UK's swaying point with it's public,he was ready to use them at 45 mins notice.
I can go along with all the other points but not a single scientist has said "gimme $20 million dollars,anonymity,and freedom,and I'll spill the beans,and tell you what you want to know,Allah for that I'll dig it up myself!!".But not a single word has been spoken by them,what have they got to lose in telling the West,or the world for that matter what we've all been hoping for?
I've already gave my opinions on the Mobile labs,why leave loose ends like that?No attempt to destroy them,but yet they supposedly destroyed all the other stuff they were documented to have,a bit too convenient,and so much doubt has been cast over the claims as to their use anyway,from the State Dept and the Pentagon dissagreeing their validity!!
The infrastucture may be in ruins,but the regime is still a major threat as long as Saddam is alive and free,I doubt that he's the only preson within Iraq that has all the answers about the WMD program.