Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombeels
And one person does not represent the majority. Can you show one poll that favours the US occupation?
|
You are right just as I said, one person does not reflect the population. No I can't find one that favors the occupation. The majority seem to show that the invasion was a good thing but they want to rebuild their own country.
Quote:
|
We are talking about what Iraqis think, not the US servicemen.
|
Wrong, if you read the original post, you will see that this is now way off topic and we are discussing the genocidal acts of the Baath Party.
Quote:
|
Who's picking and choosing now. There are plenty of polls listed outside of Baghdad that represent the Shia and Kurd populations.
|
Do you understand why I posted what I did? It was not to say that the polls were wrong. If you read the polls, the answers are not as simple as the front page of the link you posted. The quick blurb as the introduction to the polls, which most people are not going to make it past, do not show the depth of the poll. They only show the answers that can slew to the opinion of the site. If you read the entire poll, you get the full picture. If you read the entire poll you see the demographic of those participating. If you have a general knowledge of Iraq you tell based on the demographic polled how accurately the poll represents the country.
Quote:
|
Mobile phones over 3 years. Why not show over 6 years.
|
Sorry, I couldn't find any statistics that cover mobile phones over 6 years. The numbers were pretty d
amn low at the start of this 3 year period so I'm not sure how much difference it would make.
Quote:
|
Wrong again. Germany became a world power in the early 30's.
|
No, we are both right. When the National Socialist German Workers Party, also known as the Nazi party, took control of Germany in 1933, the country began to rebuild its military. This signaled the
beginning of the German rise as a world power after the end of WW1. At the same time the Third Reich began its campaign against Jews. Therefore, by the time the world realized that Germany was a major military power, it was to late and millions of Jews had already been murdered.
Quote:
|
Any comparison to the strength and power of pre-war Iraq to Nazi era Germany is ridiculous.
|
I'm sure that you know that the end of WW1, Germany was extremely limited in its in the ability to maintain a military. Of course they chose to violate the Treaty of Versailles and sneak around creating a military powerhouse. Had the world chose to ignore this, I'm sure that Iraq would have been ignored after Desert Storm and followed a similar path.
Quote:
|
No they weren't. Show me one neighbor that felt Iraq was a threat.
|
Kuwait. Why do you think they purchased Abrams tanks and maintained a U.S. presence after Desert Storm? Why did they allow the U.S. to stage the invasion from their soil?
Quote:
|
Now you are getting yourself into a grey area. The UN led sanctions against Iraq killed more and are also considered genocide. Bush's war on Iraq can also be considered genocide. Even the Gulf Invasion can be considered genocide. If you are going to look at the situation by the amount of numbers lost then the US takes most of th responsibility. Don't forget Saddam had the charges dropped against him for the Anfal Campaign.
|
There is no gray, genocide is genocide regardless of scale. Using your logic, any war would be considered genocide.
Having the charges dropped, which I will admit, I did not know about and have not followed up to determine the accuracy of, does not change the fact that it happened under the orders of the Baath Party.
Can you prove this? Intelligence documents tell another story.
Quote:
|
Not prior to the invasion.
|
See above.
I'm guessing that you see no way that anything could have left the country to a neighboring nation?
Quote:
|
They were simply not a threat to anyone.
|
They were a threat or they would not have been invaded.
Quote:
|
But there are no similarities or no correlation. History means nothing if you've been lied to about the present.
|
There are plenty of similarities. If you choose to not see them, that is your choice.
now to look over my original post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
To bad that as true as most people who oppose the war. I support the war and I am educated on the reasons why. I could of course go on and on about weapons of mass destruction and why we never found them even though they were in Iraq prior to the war. I could talk about the resistance the U.N. inspectors faced that is the common reason for the start of the war. I could go in to the ties with terrorist organizations. I'm not going to do that and I would appreciate if others could abstain from bringing these up in this discussion. If you would like make a new thread and we can discuss it there.
As a disclaimer and to protect those who do not want to see the disturbing images, please do not click the links.
I am going to talk about Halabja and the events that took place there in 1988. There were similar attacks, but I am focusing on Halabja because this was the worst attack. This discussion is to hopefully educate some members of this board of the reasons that the Baath party needed to be taken out of power in Iraq.
Most people have heard how the Iraqi government launched chemical weapons against their own people, but how many know more than that? Did you know that Iraq signed the 1925 prohibition of the use of chemical weapons? Did you know that Iraq used various chemical weapons in a civil war in 1988? Did you know that 75% of those killed were unarmed women and children? Ali Hassan Al Majid, the man appointed as governor of northern Iraq by Saddam Hussein, stated "I will strike with chemical weapons and kill them all. What is the international community going to say? The hell with them and the hell with any other country...". Words spoken by a mad man. A mad man appointed by a mad man. 5000 lives lost in less than an hour. 75% were women and children. Mustard, cyanide and nerve gas used against 70,000 civilians. Bombs dropped for an hour in an act of genocide. They were targeted for extermination because they were Kurdish. Does this sound familiar? Would you have been willing to turn your back on the acts of the Nazi party? Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and their own Kurdish population in 1984, 1986 and 1987. These times were verified, there are more times suspected. A government that has already shown that they would use chemical weapons in war time as well as against unarmed civilians would no doubt use them against against others. Back to the subject. When I joined the Army in 1997, I had to attend NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) weapons training. At this time, I was introduced the first time to the events in Halabja. As time went on, I researched further. The thing that turned me to the point of supporting any invasion of Iraq was the images.
Again, do not click the links if you are easily disturbed by death.
halabja,halabjah, iraq, north iraq, kurdistan, kurdland, kurd,bloody friday
So in the war on terror, the Baath party had to be eliminated. They were a terrorist government. They supported terrorism. They developed their attacks to cause the most civilian deaths possible. So now that the Baath party is out of power, should we leave? No, we started a job and now its time to finish it. I hear that we went into Iraq with no exit strategy. We have an exit strategy. Victory. The total liberation of the Iraqi people. Their ability to live without fear of genocidal attacks from their own government. Was the war about weapons of mass destruction? Partially, but remember the name of the operation. Iraqi Freedom. |
I find it disturbing that the bulk of this thread has veered so far from the reason that I posted it. I understand that the subject matter is disturbing, but I don't find that as a valid excuse to ignore it.
To the ones that actually did address the original post, (Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01 and The Unfan mainly) I can surely see your point. It is not the responsibility of the United States to police the entire world. Maybe we should have stayed out. I don't believe that, but I can see the point.
EDIT:
At this point, I choose to bow out of the argument unless someone sees a reason for me to continue. I never started this to convince anyone to agree with me. I started it to show the main reason that I support the invasion of Iraq. Most people have heard of the incident but did not know very much about it. I simply wanted to show another side that people may have not known. I chose to continue arguing even though I requested it to stay on topic and it did not. At this point, I think I have shown that I support the invasion and will continue to support it until such point as facts convince me otherwise. Thanks for a good argument.