Re: USA & Iran


AC wrote:
On 2 May 2006 17:46:35 -0700,
wf3h <wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

in what way? having a history of developing WMD's, having lied about
it, taunting the international community with full knowledge that the
ONLY thing allowing UN inspectors in was the threat of force...in what
way WASN'T iraq a threat?

And, unlike Nazi Germany, where every indication of militarism in violation
of treaty could be found by the most trivial glance, every expert out there
stated Iraq posed no threat.

where did THAT come from? NO ONE said that. NO ONE. what they said was,
at BEST, iraq needed MORE inspections. NO ONE, including the germans
and the french, said iraq was NOT a threat

this is what i mean about your argument. because it begins with latent
anti-americanism, the very idea that a rationale existed for the war is
beyond the scope of your imagination.

Unlike Nazi Germany, where successive
governments in the 1930s in Great Britain basically minimized militarism, in
the case of Iraq, the US ended up grossly exagerrating the threat and
creating false links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

the links between AQ and hussein were minimal...but they were there.
and you guys seem to have more faith in hussein than a saint has in
christ. what guarantee do you have...other than his word as a
gentleman, that, when it served his interests, he WOULDN'T cooperate
with murderers?


and was contained, and even if it wasn't, it simply does not
possess the industrial capacity and population that Germany does.

it doesn't need to possess the INDUSTRIAL capacity. it merely needed
the weapons capacity.

Which it did not have. It's nuclear program was no more.

unfortunately hussein successfully deceived everyone about that,
including his own generals.




Iraq was contained.

until it wasn't.

When precisely wasn't it contained?

when hans blix stated that the ONLY reason he was cooperating was the
presence of US troops in saudi arabia. how long would THAT have to go
on?



oh brother....again you seem to have a fascination to blame the US for
every hangnail suffered by every human since 1776.

The US wasn't solely to blame from Germany's military rise.

gee that's sweet of you. somehow the US was responsible. the folks who
WEREN'T, it seems, were the germans. wonder how THEY escaped blame.


Now, the most Hussein was able to do was to harass his own population, steal
oil money and poke the No Fly Zone. He had no WMDs, posed no threat even to
his neighbors and most certainly, considering the kind of dictator he was,
would certainly not have aligned himself with a pack of religious fanatics
like Al Qaeda.

you guys keep saying that as if it were a surah in the q'uran.

prove it.


I'm not defending Hussein, but let us also recall who was helping that
monster out in the 1980s, all to get Iran (which collapsed into theocracy
itself due to the US backing a very bad guy).

the biggest arms seller to iraq in the last 30 years?

germany.

the biggest oil investor? france.

yet you seem to think the US singlehandedly engineered hussein's rise
to power, and his continued presence in office, absent the massive arms
sales from germany and the oil purchases from france.

why?


you simply haven't made your case. should we have waited until hussein
broke out and attacked? until he DID develop WMD'S?

The weapons inspectors had been let back in, but were never given a chance
to do their job.

that is true. and it's probably irrelevant. at SOME point he would have
resumed his weapons development. it was only the threat of US
intervention that even got the inspectors as far as they got.

what do you think would have happened when US troops left saudi arabia?
would hussein have continued to play nice with others?


you haven't put forth a clear statement about the legitimacy of
intervention or non-intervention, except to state that, no matter WHAT
the US does, it's wrong.

That's not what I said. Are you always this dishonest in debates? Do you
always make up strawmen of others' positions. I mean, this isn't even a
strawman, it's a complete fantasy of what I have been saying.


i asked you a simple question, one that you have not answered to date.
the question is:

when was the US RIGHT to go to war?

you write VOLUMES about why the US was wrong. you keep telling me you
think the US WAS wrong in ALL of its engagements. yet you say i'm
simplifying your position.

fine. then answer the question.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: USA & Iran
    ... ONLY thing allowing UN inspectors in was the threat of force...in what ... way WASN'T iraq a threat? ... And, unlike Nazi Germany, where every indication of militarism in violation ... Now, the most Hussein was able to do was to harass his own population, steal ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: USA & Iran
    ... stated Iraq posed no threat. ... at BEST, iraq needed MORE inspections. ... Germany was, even after its defeat in 1918, a highly ... the links between AQ and hussein were minimal...but they were there. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: USA & Iran
    ... stated Iraq posed no threat. ... at BEST, iraq needed MORE inspections. ... Germany was, even after its defeat in 1918, a highly ... the links between AQ and hussein were minimal...but they were there. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: USA & Iran
    ... ONLY thing allowing UN inspectors in was the threat of force...in what ... And, unlike Nazi Germany, where every indication of militarism in violation ... stated Iraq posed no threat. ... the links between AQ and hussein were minimal...but they were there. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: This Just Has To Be Said
    ... I'm not sure why it's important to your argument to tell that particular lie, but in 1941 Germany was destroying US ships in places a lot closer than Iraq. ... against Germany prior to Kreigsmarine vessels sinking US Navy vessels. ... and that has *what* to do with the question of whether Germany posed a threat to those vessels? ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)