Iraq Conflict and Hope: Part 4 Truth and Consequences

[EasyEs]

Hey 87FG keep posting BS you know noting about.. its as if you get all your Facts from Wikipedia. You better have some good source ready pal cuz I'm comin an Gonna rock your ignorant little world....PS you can't lift worth anything either I bet..

[juikm]

I wish everyone would stop calling the Kurds "his own people." They're their own people, not Iraqis.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@juikm an important distinction.

[87fg]

Bush should be imprisioned for war crimes.

[MrPootisman]

@87fg because...

[87fg]

A war of aggression is illegal as stated by international law. Bush invaded when he knew that Iraq posed no threat to America's security. Iraqi civilians were victims of American airstrikes.

[MrPootisman]

@87fg there are four reasons where a regime loses its independence under international law

1) violation of the genocide convention

2) Invasion of neighouring states

3) not abiding the non-poliferation treaty i.e. fooling around with WMDs

4) giving hospitality and aid to international terrorist organisations

Iraq clearly broke all in many ocasions. and in every war of the 20th century there were civilian casualties. sure people who had knowilingly killed them should be put into justice

[87fg]

Iraq did not attack the United States. Al-Qaeda was not operating in Iraq until the US invaded. The Sanctions and No Fly Zones stopped Saddam from being a threat. There were no weapons of mass destruction, which was a lie by the Bush administration. This war was about oil, not freedom.

[MrPootisman]

@87fg

1. it didn't attack US but it did invaded Kuwait and tried to annex Iran, and clearly had plans Saudi Arabia

2. it is documented that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the bin-ladenist acted a number of terrorist bombings in Iraq

3.no fly zones and sanctions did contain him in Iraq but the despotic and tyranical treatment of the iraqi civilians persisted

4. it is established and provable to show that there had been a Iraq-Pakistan-North Korea inter trade of WMDs

cont.

[87fg]

Kuwait was slant drilling on disputed territory in Iraq. The United States provided Saddam with arms in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq War. There is not link between Saddam and North Korea. China is the only real ally of North Korea. Al-Qaeda was not operating in Iraq, that was a lie made by Richard Perle. This invasion did not just happen it was planned years before by the Pentagon and Neoconservatives. This is imperialism and geopolitics. It was never a war of liberation.

[87fg]

*no

[MrPootisman]

but ok let me grant you the fact that there were none found by Hans blix. isnt it the case that the use of chemical weapons on the kurds in the 90s which resulted in nearly 10,000 kurds killed , is a use of a weapon of mass destruction. lastly so what if there is oil? upon this resource this nation can build its future from the rubble it has been left by the hussein regime. i can think of oil richer countries that the US could invade like kuwait or saudi arabia so that argument is just silly

[87fg]

Saudi Arabia and are allies who favor US policy. Iraq has the capacity to out produce thoughs two countries. The US supports the absolute monarchies and dictators of the Middle East as an indirect way to control oil resources. The Saudis have a virtual monoply on OPEC. That is the only way they protect their vast wealth. Iraq was invaded because of it's oil reserves.

[87fg]

*and Kuwait

[EasyEs]

@87fg I wonder what your toughs are on the connections between Oklahoma and Hussain al Hussaini ?

[87fg]

I am convinced that government agencies attempted to fabricate a link between McVeigh and terrorist organizations. Hussain Hussaini had to be involved in the 1993 WTC attack. McVeigh was a lone wolf terrorist that falls under domestic terror classification. The FBI and CIA knew that sleeper cells and lone wolfs were active in the USA. Why they did not stop them, we can only speculate.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

@87fg that is insane... right wing militias are a threat, how many abortionists have to die for you people to realize that? That is assuming you aren't a fellow traveler of these nazi scumbags... Again, like me Hitchens is an atheist, who despises the right, and supports this cause for progressive reasons... which should be obvious... somehow I think if not for Bush and 9-11, non of you would care... hell Romney is already starting to question Afghanistan. I guess its Obama's war now...

[87fg]

Iraq was a war of aggression. Saying it was progressive is insane to me. It was not humanitarian it was a geopolitical maneuver. I never said right-wing militias were not a threat. The Tea Party seems dangerous to me. You clearly did not read my posts.

[87fg]

The chemical weapons Saddam used came from the West. The US, France, and the Soviet Union gave him the means to commit acts of genocide. Saddam never took the advice of Abdul Khan (nuclear scientist and arms dealer) to start a nuclear program. Iraq never aquired a nuclear weapon. The army was busy crushing revolts in 1991 and could not project power as they did before. Thus, Iraq was not a threat. Saddam tricked inspectors,so that Iraq could still appear powerful. Your argument is not credible.

[punktum8]

Where is the rest???

"Iraq Conflict and Hope: Part 6", and so on.

pleace post them, if you can. It is a very interesting and iluminating program, so it is very sad that the end is missing.

[hexag1]

great post. thanks.