The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Weapons of mass destruction not found in Iraq and in my opinion they didn’t need to be found.
Does this mean the war was pointless and that it cost money and lives without any reason?
To most of the people yes, for the government said that they had to go into Iraq to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. Most people agreed, some disagreed, but all most all the people who agreed said it had to be done because of the threat of chemical and biological weapons. So as you know the war happened costing lots of money and many soldiers lives, with out no apparent threat of the so-called weapons. So many people, mainly everyone, were angry with the government because they said there was an increasing threat to the world. Still no weapons have been found. But I think even if there were no weapons of mass destruction we should have gone to war. Not because I love war because nobody does. But because it was releasing oppressed people from a cruel man who was torturing them. He was one evil man. So that’s why I don’t think you need the weapons to go in to Iraq because we should all be free which the Iraq people were not.
One example of Saddam’s evil:
Unfortunately the following facts are true. In one of his meetings with his Generals: they were all discussing the countries problems and what to do about it. Saddam had made a comment. Everyone but one person agreed with him almost immediately. The person who disagreed was to be punished, Saddam asked everyone to step out side with him. He loaded a gun in front of the general’s sweaty face. He fired. The bullet had caught the General’s shoulder, but it wasn’t over. The other Generals were ordered to finish the poor man who was now on the floor, they did it. So just for disagreeing with him he was killed, is that right? What's the point when you can’t express yourself at a meeting.
I think everyone is missing the point of the war, it wasn’t just for those damn weapons of mass destruction, it was to release oppressed people from an evil man’s clutch. And this, I think was the main point of the war, but people wont except it, they have to have the weapons of mass destruction found before they say the war was needed. Do these people not care about other’s freedom?
As long as those Iraqis are free the war is a success in my eyes.
Does this mean the war was pointless and that it cost money and lives without any reason?
To most of the people yes, for the government said that they had to go into Iraq to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. Most people agreed, some disagreed, but all most all the people who agreed said it had to be done because of the threat of chemical and biological weapons. So as you know the war happened costing lots of money and many soldiers lives, with out no apparent threat of the so-called weapons. So many people, mainly everyone, were angry with the government because they said there was an increasing threat to the world. Still no weapons have been found. But I think even if there were no weapons of mass destruction we should have gone to war. Not because I love war because nobody does. But because it was releasing oppressed people from a cruel man who was torturing them. He was one evil man. So that’s why I don’t think you need the weapons to go in to Iraq because we should all be free which the Iraq people were not.
One example of Saddam’s evil:
Unfortunately the following facts are true. In one of his meetings with his Generals: they were all discussing the countries problems and what to do about it. Saddam had made a comment. Everyone but one person agreed with him almost immediately. The person who disagreed was to be punished, Saddam asked everyone to step out side with him. He loaded a gun in front of the general’s sweaty face. He fired. The bullet had caught the General’s shoulder, but it wasn’t over. The other Generals were ordered to finish the poor man who was now on the floor, they did it. So just for disagreeing with him he was killed, is that right? What's the point when you can’t express yourself at a meeting.
I think everyone is missing the point of the war, it wasn’t just for those damn weapons of mass destruction, it was to release oppressed people from an evil man’s clutch. And this, I think was the main point of the war, but people wont except it, they have to have the weapons of mass destruction found before they say the war was needed. Do these people not care about other’s freedom?
As long as those Iraqis are free the war is a success in my eyes.
Page:
Th reason we went to war with Iraq was because Saddam Hussain wouldn't let weapons inspectors in, and two very paranoid but powerful leaders did it by force. And the weapons weren't found.
But, the other aim was to eject Saddam- and that was achieved. Although no end of trouble was caused. But if Iraq can be restructured after the liberation of her people from tyranny, then the future looks better from the Middle east.
And if Saddam Hussain is found and rought to justice, it'll be an added bonus.
But, the other aim was to eject Saddam- and that was achieved. Although no end of trouble was caused. But if Iraq can be restructured after the liberation of her people from tyranny, then the future looks better from the Middle east.
And if Saddam Hussain is found and rought to justice, it'll be an added bonus.
Togaboy wrote:
> Which negates the reason offered.
> Forget regime change, forget liberating civilians. At the risk of
> repeating and sounding dull, the ONLY reason we were proffered for
> invading Iraq was the immediate and credible threat posed to this
> country by these weapons.
Just a point of clarity - Up until the penultimate draft of the covering letter for the Iraq dossier (as released via the Hutton Inq.), the government's line was that there was no threat from Iraq itself, only if Iraq's weapons got into terrorist hands.
After this point they simply became less specific, only talking about weapons = threat, without mentioning *who* would be using them.
It's a small point, but I think it's important.
(Also, Blair had a committee look into how the war would affect the risk of weapons getting into terrorist hands. Predictably they found it would vastly increase the risk, but Blair chose to reject their opinion. Since it seems like such an obvious conclusion, especially as there was no evidence of links b/w Iraq and Al-Quaeda, I think we have to be sceptical about his reasons for rejecting the findings.)
> Since the mid 1940's, we have helped to keep that region unsettled
> and at war with each other. Why? I personally (and quite a few others) > believe it's to prevent the nations that control oil flow from unifying > and being the keepers of all that precious black gold.
Hmm. Interesting view. I've tended to believe there's generally slightly less conspiracy and oil-hunger. I always figured it was just an effort to keep the countries busy fighting each other (it's clear western states more or less simultaneously supported both sides) so nobody would start thinking about taking onthe us.
Then again the new plans for the (world's longest) BP line (through unstable areas) suggest the oil effort may be larger than I'd believed.
> Which negates the reason offered.
> Forget regime change, forget liberating civilians. At the risk of
> repeating and sounding dull, the ONLY reason we were proffered for
> invading Iraq was the immediate and credible threat posed to this
> country by these weapons.
Just a point of clarity - Up until the penultimate draft of the covering letter for the Iraq dossier (as released via the Hutton Inq.), the government's line was that there was no threat from Iraq itself, only if Iraq's weapons got into terrorist hands.
After this point they simply became less specific, only talking about weapons = threat, without mentioning *who* would be using them.
It's a small point, but I think it's important.
(Also, Blair had a committee look into how the war would affect the risk of weapons getting into terrorist hands. Predictably they found it would vastly increase the risk, but Blair chose to reject their opinion. Since it seems like such an obvious conclusion, especially as there was no evidence of links b/w Iraq and Al-Quaeda, I think we have to be sceptical about his reasons for rejecting the findings.)
> Since the mid 1940's, we have helped to keep that region unsettled
> and at war with each other. Why? I personally (and quite a few others) > believe it's to prevent the nations that control oil flow from unifying > and being the keepers of all that precious black gold.
Hmm. Interesting view. I've tended to believe there's generally slightly less conspiracy and oil-hunger. I always figured it was just an effort to keep the countries busy fighting each other (it's clear western states more or less simultaneously supported both sides) so nobody would start thinking about taking onthe us.
Then again the new plans for the (world's longest) BP line (through unstable areas) suggest the oil effort may be larger than I'd believed.
Skarra wrote:
> Well Goat, would you have prefered there to have been no war at all?
Again, you're saying that the alternative is inaction. That is hugely dishonest of you to use that argument; last time I discussed this with you you accepted that there were other alternatives, but that they weren't to your liking. And here you are again, trying to claim that it had to be inaction or war. Which is, as you know, toss.
> Well Goat, would you have prefered there to have been no war at all?
Again, you're saying that the alternative is inaction. That is hugely dishonest of you to use that argument; last time I discussed this with you you accepted that there were other alternatives, but that they weren't to your liking. And here you are again, trying to claim that it had to be inaction or war. Which is, as you know, toss.
> Silënt Thunder wrote:
>
> I think everyone is missing the point of the war, it wasn’t just for
> those damn weapons of mass destruction, it was to release oppressed
> people from an evil man’s clutch.
Sorry, but no it wasn't. Paul Wolfowitz, a senior member of the Dubya administration and a man involved heavily in the planning of this land grab, has already admitted that freeing the Iraqi people from oppression was the last reason that the US government came up with. Not only that, but it was not enough of a reason on it's own to justify war. He made the point that one of the other justifications, WOMD or Al-Quaida, had to be in place for the war to have true legitimacy. Both of these justifications now seem to have been untrue at best, outright lies at worst.
Don't get me wrong; it's good that Saddam is gone. But Iraqi's are still living under an oppressive regime. And if the US is so interested in getting rid of dictators, why does it support so many?
http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/ dictators.html
>
> I think everyone is missing the point of the war, it wasn’t just for
> those damn weapons of mass destruction, it was to release oppressed
> people from an evil man’s clutch.
Sorry, but no it wasn't. Paul Wolfowitz, a senior member of the Dubya administration and a man involved heavily in the planning of this land grab, has already admitted that freeing the Iraqi people from oppression was the last reason that the US government came up with. Not only that, but it was not enough of a reason on it's own to justify war. He made the point that one of the other justifications, WOMD or Al-Quaida, had to be in place for the war to have true legitimacy. Both of these justifications now seem to have been untrue at best, outright lies at worst.
Don't get me wrong; it's good that Saddam is gone. But Iraqi's are still living under an oppressive regime. And if the US is so interested in getting rid of dictators, why does it support so many?
http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/ dictators.html
I am not sure about this one because it will either make things a bit better or a lot worse. Its a hard decission but if the government keeps the soldiers in Iraq at the moment there are going to be a lot of deaths. Maybe the Iraqi people just want help and suggestions from the Americans and the other governments. But only suggestions and help, not actually running the country.
Is it time the soldiers left Iraq and went home?
Leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves, well this is what many of the people of Iraq want. They want their own goverment run by other Iraqis.
Our goverment and George Bush said that as soon as the opressed people of Iraq were freed they would set up an Iraqi goverment and then the soldiers would go home.
But this hasnt happened instead we have all these big heads from America and over countries runing the place, this isnt what the people want at all.
Maybe thats why there are still attacks on other countries buildings in Iraq because they just want to be allowed their independents.
Leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves, well this is what many of the people of Iraq want. They want their own goverment run by other Iraqis.
Our goverment and George Bush said that as soon as the opressed people of Iraq were freed they would set up an Iraqi goverment and then the soldiers would go home.
But this hasnt happened instead we have all these big heads from America and over countries runing the place, this isnt what the people want at all.
Maybe thats why there are still attacks on other countries buildings in Iraq because they just want to be allowed their independents.
I would have preferred that we never installed Hussein in the 1st place.
There just was no need to. But we meddled (along with the USA) in Iran in the 40s & 50s, aiding coups, funding paramilitary guerillas to overthrow anti-Western idealised ELECTED leaders and installing puppet dictators that are compliant with the West's desires.
Since the mid 1940's, we have helped to keep that region unsettled and at war with each other. Why? I personally (and quite a few others) believe it's to prevent the nations that control oil flow from unifying and being the keepers of all that precious black gold.
If they're at each others throats, then it's easier to stick in pro-Western dictators that will play along.
We are the only reason Hussein exists, make no mistake about it.
We are the only reason Bin-Laden exists, make no mistake about it.
Both of these now "evil madman" were handy to have, train, fund and arm when they were doing our bidding. It's only when we decide that we don't need their help that suddenly they are "evil" and "terrorists"
We act surprised when hardcore fundamentalist dictators turn and bite the hand that fed them.
I said it here over 2 years ago, and the thread was popped in about May, that we would invade again.
And I said as soon as Blair & Bush started eyeing up Iraq that there was no way in hell Hussein would ever be caught/killed/brought to justice.
It's an act. This war and the "hunt for the evil madman" is just a play, it's a soap-opera for you and me to watch nightly as we eat our dinner.
That's all it is.
Bush was (dubiously) elected and preached the military-industrial block vote. Same as his daddy did. His daddy was a bigshot in the CIA, a group that Clinton decimated with his legislation when he said "Hey, maybe we don't need you guys because, y'know, we dont really have any enemies".
Bush Jr wades in amongst an air of suspicion.
His popularity is rock-bottom in the polls a mere two months after he's elected.
What happens?
The USA almost get into it with China over downed spy-planes, remember that?
His popularity soars.
Then he starts to nosedive again as the economy hits the bottom.
It's election time next November. What's a good way to increase the national economy, raise your profile in the polls and get people thinking how good their country is under your leadership?
Hmmmm...how's about a war!
Yeah. And, here's an even cooler idea, let's go back and finish a war that daddy started.
We can't possibly lose! They got zero weapons, zero naval capability and their air-force is crappier than stuff you can buy in Walmart.
Hell, we know they don't got anything because we sold them their last lot. And we damn well know exactly what their army is capable of, because we trained them!
After Sept 11th, quite rightly Bush went to stop Al-Queda in Afghanistan.
Except he didn't. Bin-Laden still roams free, and if you belive the newspapers then Al-Queda are the world's largest terrorist organisation and a massive threat to us (we'll ignore the IRA for now, even though they're the only terrorist group to ever strike against the UK. Heck, we'll even let a load of them out over Xmas from Maize prison).
The USA screwed up Afghanistan. They bombed an already backwards nation into the ground. And just gave up when it got cold and they wouldn't come out with their hands up. Miniscule aid amounts have been recieved, it's not even in the news anymore. That country is decimated.
And we were told exactly the same thing.
FREEDOM! DEMOCRACY! AIR-COOLED SHOPPING MALLS ON EVERY CORNER!!
Didn't happen though did it? Christ, you don't hear anything at all about Afghanistan anymore in the news.
But Iraq? Well there's an easy target. They have no weapons of mass destruction (almost a year after we started talking about them), they have no inaccessible mountain ranges to hide in.
Yet what the papers seem to neglect to mention, and it's taken as read by people that are too lazy to check?
Saddam Hussein has zero links with Al-Queda. Even The Whitehouse admitted that.
Al-Queda don't like Hussein.
"Ah but training camps!!!!"
Yeah, so what? There are weapons caches in this country, Gloucester for example, so do we bomb The North? (well...now you mention it....)
Al-Queda is being used as a lazy justification for the fact that we waged an invasion on lies, erroneous information and errors.
Yet when it's pointed out, people say "Ah but the freedom of the people!!!", but never mention that wasn't the reason.
If they had said "We're going to kill Hussein because, even though we trained him, he's a maniac that isn't in our goodbooks anymore and we want to help his people"
But they didnt.
They lied about WOMD.
"He gassed his own people!! He's evil!!!!"
With gas we sold him, with our full knowledge and an increased line of credit to buy more arms afterwards.
There isn't a legitimate argument for the invasion of Iraq.
The only reason that country is known is because we put it there.
Saddam Hussein is no threat whatsoever to us at all.
But we were told he was.
Lies.
No WOMD have been found to date. Blair's rhetoric scaled down from "Weapons of mass destruction that present an immediate threat" to "programs of weapon manufacture"
Lies.
Saddam is in league with Al-Queda, he's the bogeyman!
Lies.
He's evil and killed his own people!
Truth.
But it's only when it's election time that we seem to have a problem with it.
This invasion was a phoney excuse to keep that region destabilised.
In the years gone by, we simply shot these people that threated to unify entire countries and mobilise them into some sort of self-representation (John F Kennedy & Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Ghandi, Archbishop Romero).
Now, instead of a gunshot we use the IMF and sanctions and laser-guided bombs that you can watch live on the news fly down chimneys.
It's morally wrong to install a dictator and allow him to do what he wants as long as it serves your foreign policies, then to say he's evil and blow up a country when you've decided he can't have any cake because you don't like him.
There just was no need to. But we meddled (along with the USA) in Iran in the 40s & 50s, aiding coups, funding paramilitary guerillas to overthrow anti-Western idealised ELECTED leaders and installing puppet dictators that are compliant with the West's desires.
Since the mid 1940's, we have helped to keep that region unsettled and at war with each other. Why? I personally (and quite a few others) believe it's to prevent the nations that control oil flow from unifying and being the keepers of all that precious black gold.
If they're at each others throats, then it's easier to stick in pro-Western dictators that will play along.
We are the only reason Hussein exists, make no mistake about it.
We are the only reason Bin-Laden exists, make no mistake about it.
Both of these now "evil madman" were handy to have, train, fund and arm when they were doing our bidding. It's only when we decide that we don't need their help that suddenly they are "evil" and "terrorists"
We act surprised when hardcore fundamentalist dictators turn and bite the hand that fed them.
I said it here over 2 years ago, and the thread was popped in about May, that we would invade again.
And I said as soon as Blair & Bush started eyeing up Iraq that there was no way in hell Hussein would ever be caught/killed/brought to justice.
It's an act. This war and the "hunt for the evil madman" is just a play, it's a soap-opera for you and me to watch nightly as we eat our dinner.
That's all it is.
Bush was (dubiously) elected and preached the military-industrial block vote. Same as his daddy did. His daddy was a bigshot in the CIA, a group that Clinton decimated with his legislation when he said "Hey, maybe we don't need you guys because, y'know, we dont really have any enemies".
Bush Jr wades in amongst an air of suspicion.
His popularity is rock-bottom in the polls a mere two months after he's elected.
What happens?
The USA almost get into it with China over downed spy-planes, remember that?
His popularity soars.
Then he starts to nosedive again as the economy hits the bottom.
It's election time next November. What's a good way to increase the national economy, raise your profile in the polls and get people thinking how good their country is under your leadership?
Hmmmm...how's about a war!
Yeah. And, here's an even cooler idea, let's go back and finish a war that daddy started.
We can't possibly lose! They got zero weapons, zero naval capability and their air-force is crappier than stuff you can buy in Walmart.
Hell, we know they don't got anything because we sold them their last lot. And we damn well know exactly what their army is capable of, because we trained them!
After Sept 11th, quite rightly Bush went to stop Al-Queda in Afghanistan.
Except he didn't. Bin-Laden still roams free, and if you belive the newspapers then Al-Queda are the world's largest terrorist organisation and a massive threat to us (we'll ignore the IRA for now, even though they're the only terrorist group to ever strike against the UK. Heck, we'll even let a load of them out over Xmas from Maize prison).
The USA screwed up Afghanistan. They bombed an already backwards nation into the ground. And just gave up when it got cold and they wouldn't come out with their hands up. Miniscule aid amounts have been recieved, it's not even in the news anymore. That country is decimated.
And we were told exactly the same thing.
FREEDOM! DEMOCRACY! AIR-COOLED SHOPPING MALLS ON EVERY CORNER!!
Didn't happen though did it? Christ, you don't hear anything at all about Afghanistan anymore in the news.
But Iraq? Well there's an easy target. They have no weapons of mass destruction (almost a year after we started talking about them), they have no inaccessible mountain ranges to hide in.
Yet what the papers seem to neglect to mention, and it's taken as read by people that are too lazy to check?
Saddam Hussein has zero links with Al-Queda. Even The Whitehouse admitted that.
Al-Queda don't like Hussein.
"Ah but training camps!!!!"
Yeah, so what? There are weapons caches in this country, Gloucester for example, so do we bomb The North? (well...now you mention it....)
Al-Queda is being used as a lazy justification for the fact that we waged an invasion on lies, erroneous information and errors.
Yet when it's pointed out, people say "Ah but the freedom of the people!!!", but never mention that wasn't the reason.
If they had said "We're going to kill Hussein because, even though we trained him, he's a maniac that isn't in our goodbooks anymore and we want to help his people"
But they didnt.
They lied about WOMD.
"He gassed his own people!! He's evil!!!!"
With gas we sold him, with our full knowledge and an increased line of credit to buy more arms afterwards.
There isn't a legitimate argument for the invasion of Iraq.
The only reason that country is known is because we put it there.
Saddam Hussein is no threat whatsoever to us at all.
But we were told he was.
Lies.
No WOMD have been found to date. Blair's rhetoric scaled down from "Weapons of mass destruction that present an immediate threat" to "programs of weapon manufacture"
Lies.
Saddam is in league with Al-Queda, he's the bogeyman!
Lies.
He's evil and killed his own people!
Truth.
But it's only when it's election time that we seem to have a problem with it.
This invasion was a phoney excuse to keep that region destabilised.
In the years gone by, we simply shot these people that threated to unify entire countries and mobilise them into some sort of self-representation (John F Kennedy & Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Ghandi, Archbishop Romero).
Now, instead of a gunshot we use the IMF and sanctions and laser-guided bombs that you can watch live on the news fly down chimneys.
It's morally wrong to install a dictator and allow him to do what he wants as long as it serves your foreign policies, then to say he's evil and blow up a country when you've decided he can't have any cake because you don't like him.
The end doesn't justify the means.
It's no good turning around afterwards and saying "Hey, it turns out our original reasons for the invasion have now been proven to be completely and utterly groundless, but never mind because at least some good came from it after all"
That's no better than the hacker who claimed he was doing good when he reported to the police the address of someone whom he'd found to posess child pornography their computer. An event which, if I remember correctly, just about everyone here was very strongly against.
Worse perhaps, as killing is a rather worse crime than invasion of privacy, wouldn't you say?
It's no good turning around afterwards and saying "Hey, it turns out our original reasons for the invasion have now been proven to be completely and utterly groundless, but never mind because at least some good came from it after all"
That's no better than the hacker who claimed he was doing good when he reported to the police the address of someone whom he'd found to posess child pornography their computer. An event which, if I remember correctly, just about everyone here was very strongly against.
Worse perhaps, as killing is a rather worse crime than invasion of privacy, wouldn't you say?
Well Goat, would you have prefered there to have been no war at all?
At least this is a start, a lot less Iraqi's will die next year, than if Saddam was in power.
At least this is a start, a lot less Iraqi's will die next year, than if Saddam was in power.
Silënt Thunder wrote:
So as you know the war happened costing lots of
> money and many soldiers lives, with out no apparent threat of the
> so-called weapons. So many people, mainly everyone, were angry with
> the government because they said there was an increasing threat to
> the world. Still no weapons have been found.
Which negates the reason offered.
Forget regime change, forget liberating civilians. At the risk of repeating and sounding dull, the ONLY reason we were proffered for invading Iraq was the immediate and credible threat posed to this country by these weapons.
We were shown satellite photographs, Powell waved around a dossier on these weapons (cribbed from a 12yr old Uni Thesis as it turned out).
We were told that we were soon to be killed/attacked etc. Remember the tanks at Heathrow in the run-up to the invasion? The increased alerts at airports?
It was this country too afraid to say "Hold on a moment", and instead we huddled inside wishing for the big bad man to be stopped.
> One example of Saddam’s evil:
>
> Unfortunately the following facts are true. In one of his meetings
> with his Generals: they were all discussing the countries problems
> and what to do about it. Saddam had made a comment. Everyone but one
> person agreed with him almost immediately. The person who disagreed
> was to be punished, Saddam asked everyone to step out side with him.
> He loaded a gun in front of the general’s sweaty face. He fired. The
> bullet had caught the General’s shoulder, but it wasn’t over. The
> other Generals were ordered to finish the poor man who was now on the
> floor, they did it. So just for disagreeing with him he was killed,
> is that right? What's the point when you can’t express yourself at a
> meeting.
Where are the links to the following "facts" please?
> I think everyone is missing the point of the war, it wasn’t just for
> those damn weapons of mass destruction, it was to release oppressed
> people from an evil man’s clutch.
No. The only reason was those "damn weapons of mass destruction", and nothing else. It was only when these weapons mysteriously couldn't be found, despite the mountains of evidence waved at the UN before the USA and UK invaded that suddenly we were beacons of hope, decency and McDonald's on every corner in Baghdad.
> As long as those Iraqis are free the war is a success in my eyes.
Except Hussein hasn't been found.
The WOMD haven't been found.
Troops are being killed daily, headquarters of the UN being destroyed, suicide bombers daily.
No power or basic sanitation provided STILL in major towns.
But Bush flies in, serves turky for 5 minutes, gives a speech and flies out.
Meanwhile, Iraqi civilians that are free have no running water, no electricity, no jobs, no real safety on the streets, no infrastructure, no interim government months after the ceasation of hostilities.
At what price?
Billions spent by the USA and UK on this invasion, more troops killed since the "war" was declared over, no end in sight, no captured Hussain, no discovered WOMD.
Just a freeform anarchy, bombs left right and centre and a President not visiting anywhere but a secure base for 5 mins.
So as you know the war happened costing lots of
> money and many soldiers lives, with out no apparent threat of the
> so-called weapons. So many people, mainly everyone, were angry with
> the government because they said there was an increasing threat to
> the world. Still no weapons have been found.
Which negates the reason offered.
Forget regime change, forget liberating civilians. At the risk of repeating and sounding dull, the ONLY reason we were proffered for invading Iraq was the immediate and credible threat posed to this country by these weapons.
We were shown satellite photographs, Powell waved around a dossier on these weapons (cribbed from a 12yr old Uni Thesis as it turned out).
We were told that we were soon to be killed/attacked etc. Remember the tanks at Heathrow in the run-up to the invasion? The increased alerts at airports?
It was this country too afraid to say "Hold on a moment", and instead we huddled inside wishing for the big bad man to be stopped.
> One example of Saddam’s evil:
>
> Unfortunately the following facts are true. In one of his meetings
> with his Generals: they were all discussing the countries problems
> and what to do about it. Saddam had made a comment. Everyone but one
> person agreed with him almost immediately. The person who disagreed
> was to be punished, Saddam asked everyone to step out side with him.
> He loaded a gun in front of the general’s sweaty face. He fired. The
> bullet had caught the General’s shoulder, but it wasn’t over. The
> other Generals were ordered to finish the poor man who was now on the
> floor, they did it. So just for disagreeing with him he was killed,
> is that right? What's the point when you can’t express yourself at a
> meeting.
Where are the links to the following "facts" please?
> I think everyone is missing the point of the war, it wasn’t just for
> those damn weapons of mass destruction, it was to release oppressed
> people from an evil man’s clutch.
No. The only reason was those "damn weapons of mass destruction", and nothing else. It was only when these weapons mysteriously couldn't be found, despite the mountains of evidence waved at the UN before the USA and UK invaded that suddenly we were beacons of hope, decency and McDonald's on every corner in Baghdad.
> As long as those Iraqis are free the war is a success in my eyes.
Except Hussein hasn't been found.
The WOMD haven't been found.
Troops are being killed daily, headquarters of the UN being destroyed, suicide bombers daily.
No power or basic sanitation provided STILL in major towns.
But Bush flies in, serves turky for 5 minutes, gives a speech and flies out.
Meanwhile, Iraqi civilians that are free have no running water, no electricity, no jobs, no real safety on the streets, no infrastructure, no interim government months after the ceasation of hostilities.
At what price?
Billions spent by the USA and UK on this invasion, more troops killed since the "war" was declared over, no end in sight, no captured Hussain, no discovered WOMD.
Just a freeform anarchy, bombs left right and centre and a President not visiting anywhere but a secure base for 5 mins.
Page: