who was the greatest american president

[GabonX]

I agree with you Gabon, the world is much safer without Saddam. What people fail to see is that Iraq was the only nation to use chemical and biological weapons in battle since WWI. And if you think that Saddam would have sat on his hands the rest of his life if we hadn't of interfered, you need a reality check.

Agreed 100%

The one problem with your logic Gabon is that some people might actually take our actions as a precedent and do things like invading defenseless nations on trumped up charged (Russia vs. Georgia).

Yeah, that is a real problem.

A bigger problem is that a great many people are incapable of seeing the difference.

[Frigidus]

The one problem with your logic Gabon is that some people might actually take our actions as a precedent and do things like invading defenseless nations on trumped up charged (Russia vs. Georgia).

Yeah, that is a real problem.

A bigger problem is that a great many people are incapable of seeing the difference.

Of course there's a difference. That still doesn't mean that invading every semi-threatening country is a legitimate foreign policy.

[GabonX]

I don't see leaving illegitimate and destructive regimes in power as particularly intelligent or moral conduct either..

[Frigidus]

I don't see leaving illegitimate and destructive regimes in power as particularly intelligent or moral conduct either..

It's not moral, but it's practical. We can't save the world. Even if we were going to try to it would be in our best interest to try "saving" countries with less suppressed extremists in the population. I mean, if we were to go back to 2003 and set aside the amount of money and manpower spent on invading and occupying Iraq for the purpose of making the world a better place, the action we took would be very low on my list of Things to Do.

[jsholty4690]

I don't see leaving illegitimate and destructive regimes in power as particularly intelligent or moral conduct either..

It's not moral, but it's practical. We can't save the world. Even if we were going to try to it would be in our best interest to try "saving" countries with less suppressed extremists in the population. I mean, if we were to go back to 2003 and set aside the amount of money and manpower spent on invading and occupying Iraq for the purpose of making the world a better place, the action we took would be very low on my list of Things to Do.

The problem of the Iraq War was they planned for everything to go right and when it didn't (does it ever?) They didn't know what to do until Pretreaus (excuse the spelling I can't spell) came on the scene. If they had planned everything out for the worst case scenerio than a lot of things would have been different.

[GabonX]

David Petraeus for President

He has more experience running a country than ANYONE in Washington as he organized and made livable the hell that was Iraq.

Did I mention he's brilliant?

[jsholty4690]

David Petraeus for President

He has more experience running a country than ANYONE in Washington as he organized and made livable the hell that was Iraq.

Did I mention he's brilliant?

I second that!

[GabonX]

Best ever!

[notyou2]

codswallop

[comic boy]

Forcible regime change is a bit of an American speciality, it has certainly played its part in making the World more volatile ! I would love for you or Dim Jim to provide some links showing anywhere near a concencus supporting your wild claims, even most Bush appologists dont try to claim that the WORLD is safer since Saddam was overthrown.

ng Goiby your logic we should have just let Hitler do his thing. Sprechen sie deutsche Comic?

The world is a better place without Saddam in power. Not only are we minus one dictator, but we act to create a precedent. If other would be dictators do not recognize our action as precedent, but rather view us as to weak to act again, we have waisted a great deal of resources.

I agree with you Gabon, the world is much safer without Saddam. What people fail to see is that Iraq was the only nation to use chemical and biological weapons in battle since WWI. And if you think that Saddam would have sat on his hands the rest of his life if we hadn't of interfered, you need a reality check.

The one problem with your logic Gabon is that some people might actually take our actions as a precedent and do things like invading defenseless nations on trumped up charged (Russia vs. Georgia).[/quote]



Very Noble sentiments, what a pity that the USA have not actually acted in accordance with them;

1) The Japanese used chemical weapons against the Chinese from 1936 onwards......The US response was ?

2) Hitler was doing his thing from 1938........The US response was ?

Saddam was a monster but he was not a fool, he used chemical weapons against the Iranians because he knew that they could not retaliate. He also gambled that the US and Western governments ( who had supplied the weaponry ) would not make a fuss and he was proved correct, despite an outcry by the Iranians they were ignored.In contrast when opposed by the west during the Persian gulf war he did not use chemical weapons because he feared reprisal, this rather defeats your claims that he was offering a threat to the World at large.
You would have us believe that the US has been a shining beacon, initiating regime change for the good of the World, the truth is very different. It has always been about either furthering US sphere of influence or for pure commercial gain, Iraq is a good example with Cheyney and Haliburton doing very nicely thank you.

[GabonX]

1) The Japanese used chemical weapons against the Chinese from 1936 onwards......The US response was ?

2) Hitler was doing his thing from 1938........The US response was ?

Surely you could have found a better example than WW2

The US response was to support their opponents and eventually to win the war for them directly. The United States didn't have the military that could take on the world in the 1930s. Things like that aren't built over night. It takes at least five to ten years.

Saddam was a monster but he was not a fool, he used chemical weapons against the Iranians because he knew that they could not retaliate. He also gambled that the US and Western governments ( who had supplied the weaponry ) would not make a fuss and he was proved correct, despite an outcry by the Iranians they were ignored.In contrast when opposed by the west during the Persian gulf war he did not use chemical weapons because he feared reprisal, this rather defeats your claims that he was offering a threat to the World at large.

To hell with Iran. I don't even care that he used weapons against him. We should have given him more weapons to use against them..

It was his action against Kuwait, Israel, and the Kurds in Iraq which demonstrated that he was a threat to world stability.

The world is better with him gone.

You would have us believe that the US has been a shining beacon, initiating regime change for the good of the World, the truth is very different. It has always been about either furthering US sphere of influence or for pure commercial gain, Iraq is a good example with Cheyney and Haliburton doing very nicely thank you.

Those who are in power always seek to further their sphere of influence. It has always been this way and always will be regardless of who is in control.

The question is not, "are these people trying to strengthen their influence?" as only people who try to strengthen their influence will have can possibly hope to influence things, but rather "what is motivating these people and why do they want to have influence?"

[comic boy]

What was Motivating Cheyney

[Skittles!]

What was Motivating Cheyney

Obviously THE GOOD OF ALL MAN KIND!

[notyou2]

What was Motivating Cheyney

His wife????

[jsholty4690]

Very Noble sentiments, what a pity that the USA have not actually acted in accordance with them;

1) The Japanese used chemical weapons against the Chinese from 1936 onwards......The US response was ?

We (the world) have never comfirmed this to be ture. There are also rumors that they used it in New Guinea, but again we have not be able to confirm that they used them in battle.

2) Hitler was doing his thing from 1938........The US response was ?

I don't understand your point here. Hitler never used chemical or biological weapons here. And we did take him out for his aggressive expansionism starting in 1942. If you're saying why we didn't start sooner, blame the following people:
1. Britain's leaders
2. France's leaders
3. The Isolationists in America

Saddam was a monster but he was not a fool, he used chemical weapons against the Iranians because he knew that they could not retaliate. He also gambled that the US and Western governments ( who had supplied the weaponry ) would not make a fuss and he was proved correct, despite an outcry by the Iranians they were ignored.In contrast when opposed by the west during the Persian gulf war he did not use chemical weapons because he feared reprisal, this rather defeats your claims that he was offering a threat to the World at large.
You would have us believe that the US has been a shining beacon, initiating regime change for the good of the World, the truth is very different. It has always been about either furthering US sphere of influence or for pure commercial gain, Iraq is a good example with Cheyney and Haliburton doing very nicely thank you.

What was Iraq doing in the Iraq-Iran War? Trying to expand its sphere of influence. Saddam had a vision of a Muslim world united, if you think he hadn't of let that go in his final years, you need to get your head out of the sand.

The thing about expanding U.S. influence is bullcrap. Name one nation that has acted selflessly in the defense of another or to help the world at large, where they would get nothing in return.

I'm not touching Cheney because, well, he's Cheney.

[joecoolfrog]

So explain why Iraq didn't use chemical weapons in the first gulf war ?

[jsholty4690]

So explain why Iraq didn't use chemical weapons in the first gulf war ?

Saddam wanted to unite the Muslim world together against the coaltion forces. He tried to do this by attacking Israel via SCUD missiles, hoping that Israel would attack Iraq and thus creating an enemy the Muslim world could unite behind. He also did not use his WMD stock pile (because he feared the images of the Iran Iraq War would play in the minds of the masses in the Middle East).

[thegreekdog]

Here's some information to add fuel to the fire...

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsart ... x?id=15918

It's probably biased though - it's from the military after all...

[jsholty4690]

Here's some information to add fuel to the fire...

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsart ... x?id=15918

It's probably biased though - it's from the military after all...

I remember hearing this a couple of years ago, but I thought it got debunked or something because it didn't get much news coverage. But then again it is the media.

[comic boy]

So explain why Iraq didn't use chemical weapons in the first gulf war ?

Saddam wanted to unite the Muslim world together against the coaltion forces. He tried to do this by attacking Israel via SCUD missiles, hoping that Israel would attack Iraq and thus creating an enemy the Muslim world could unite behind. He also did not use his WMD stock pile (because he feared the images of the Iran Iraq War would play in the minds of the masses in the Middle East).

So A) He did not use chemical weapons against the western forces during the Gulf war.
B) He did not use chemical weapons during the Iraq war.
C) He utterly failed to unite the Muslim World against the west ( though ironically Bush did ), in fact he actively divided the main Islamic sects inside Iraq itself.

Yes I can see now where you leap to the conclusion that he was a massive risk to the security and peace of the World

[jsholty4690]

So explain why Iraq didn't use chemical weapons in the first gulf war ?

Saddam wanted to unite the Muslim world together against the coaltion forces. He tried to do this by attacking Israel via SCUD missiles, hoping that Israel would attack Iraq and thus creating an enemy the Muslim world could unite behind. He also did not use his WMD stock pile (because he feared the images of the Iran Iraq War would play in the minds of the masses in the Middle East).

So A) He did not use chemical weapons against the western forces during the Gulf war.
B) He did not use chemical weapons during the Iraq war.
C) He utterly failed to unite the Muslim World against the west ( though ironically Bush did ), in fact he actively divided the main Islamic sects inside Iraq itself.

Yes I can see now where you leap to the conclusion that he was a massive risk to the security and peace of the World

Do you really think there would not be a new Iran Iraq War going on right now? Saddam would not allow his archenemy to get this far in developing nuclear weapons. So if you think we would be safer with these to nations (both of which have had nuclear programs in the past and/or present) hitting eachother, then by all means go back in time and tell Bush not to invade Iraq.

Bush did not divide the Islamic sects in Iraq. You do not know Iraqi history or Islamic history. The Shia and Sunnis have been at one anothers throats since the death of Mohammed over a thousand years ago. Saddam was the one who killed and tortured hundred of thousands of Kurds and Shia and Sunni dissidents. He was the one who created a great divide in Iraq. The reason why there was violence between the sects after the fall of Saddam was because we took away the one thing that could have stopped the violence, fear. Fear of Saddam's reprisals (just look what he did to the Shia after the first Gulf War and the Kurds during the Iran Iraq War)

[thegreekdog]

Here's some information to add fuel to the fire...

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsart ... x?id=15918

It's probably biased though - it's from the military after all...

I remember hearing this a couple of years ago, but I thought it got debunked or something because it didn't get much news coverage. But then again it is the media.

One of my friends in law school was a former active duty Marine who served in the First Gulf War. After this came out, he told me that his friends in the Marines have pictures of them standing next to large piles of chemical weapons. That's what prompted me to find the link again. I'm not sure why it doesn't get media attention. Might as well ask why the media at a press conference doesn't ask the current president about Iraq.

[comic boy]

So explain why Iraq didn't use chemical weapons in the first gulf war ?

Saddam wanted to unite the Muslim world together against the coaltion forces. He tried to do this by attacking Israel via SCUD missiles, hoping that Israel would attack Iraq and thus creating an enemy the Muslim world could unite behind. He also did not use his WMD stock pile (because he feared the images of the Iran Iraq War would play in the minds of the masses in the Middle East).

So A) He did not use chemical weapons against the western forces during the Gulf war.
B) He did not use chemical weapons during the Iraq war.
C) He utterly failed to unite the Muslim World against the west ( though ironically Bush did ), in fact he actively divided the main Islamic sects inside Iraq itself.

Yes I can see now where you leap to the conclusion that he was a massive risk to the security and peace of the World

Do you really think there would not be a new Iran Iraq War going on right now? Saddam would not allow his archenemy to get this far in developing nuclear weapons. So if you think we would be safer with these to nations (both of which have had nuclear programs in the past and/or present) hitting eachother, then by all means go back in time and tell Bush not to invade Iraq.

Bush did not divide the Islamic sects in Iraq. You do not know Iraqi history or Islamic history. The Shia and Sunnis have been at one anothers throats since the death of Mohammed over a thousand years ago. Saddam was the one who killed and tortured hundred of thousands of Kurds and Shia and Sunni dissidents. He was the one who created a great divide in Iraq. The reason why there was violence between the sects after the fall of Saddam was because we took away the one thing that could have stopped the violence, fear. Fear of Saddam's reprisals (just look what he did to the Shia after the first Gulf War and the Kurds during the Iran Iraq War)

So your story now is that Bush predicted a new Iran/Iraq war so thats why he invaded....good one And by extension this of course would endanger the World......err even though the first one did not !
Who said Bush divided the Shia and Sunni communities ?
I made the point that far from portraying himself as the uniter of Islam, Saddam actively kept the 2 sects apart , what Bush did was unite the Muslim world by invading, you going to try and deny that now
I find it terribly amusing that you have now 3 times accused me of knowing nothing whilst regurgitating the same nonsense that even the Bush administration gave up peddling because it was so farcical. Do carry on though proving how misinformed myself and 99 % of the rest of the World ( including a huge majority of your countrymen ) are..........unlike you we all like to broaden our education

[jsholty4690]

Saddam wanted to unite the Muslim world together against the coaltion forces. He tried to do this by attacking Israel via SCUD missiles, hoping that Israel would attack Iraq and thus creating an enemy the Muslim world could unite behind. He also did not use his WMD stock pile (because he feared the images of the Iran Iraq War would play in the minds of the masses in the Middle East).

So A) He did not use chemical weapons against the western forces during the Gulf war.
B) He did not use chemical weapons during the Iraq war.
C) He utterly failed to unite the Muslim World against the west ( though ironically Bush did ), in fact he actively divided the main Islamic sects inside Iraq itself.

Yes I can see now where you leap to the conclusion that he was a massive risk to the security and peace of the World

Do you really think there would not be a new Iran Iraq War going on right now? Saddam would not allow his archenemy to get this far in developing nuclear weapons. So if you think we would be safer with these to nations (both of which have had nuclear programs in the past and/or present) hitting eachother, then by all means go back in time and tell Bush not to invade Iraq.

Bush did not divide the Islamic sects in Iraq. You do not know Iraqi history or Islamic history. The Shia and Sunnis have been at one anothers throats since the death of Mohammed over a thousand years ago. Saddam was the one who killed and tortured hundred of thousands of Kurds and Shia and Sunni dissidents. He was the one who created a great divide in Iraq. The reason why there was violence between the sects after the fall of Saddam was because we took away the one thing that could have stopped the violence, fear. Fear of Saddam's reprisals (just look what he did to the Shia after the first Gulf War and the Kurds during the Iran Iraq War)

So your story now is that Bush predicted a new Iran/Iraq war so thats why he invaded....good one And by extension this of course would endanger the World......err even though the first one did not !
Who said Bush divided the Shia and Sunni communities ?
I made the point that far from portraying himself as the uniter of Islam, Saddam actively kept the 2 sects apart , what Bush did was unite the Muslim world by invading, you going to try and deny that now
I find it terribly amusing that you have now 3 times accused me of knowing nothing whilst regurgitating the same nonsense that even the Bush administration gave up peddling because it was so farcical. Do carry on though proving how misinformed myself and 99 % of the rest of the World ( including a huge majority of your countrymen ) are..........unlike you we all like to broaden our education

Apparently they didn't teach you reading comprehension in school. I never said that Bush predicted a second Iraq Iran War, but there would be one going on right now if the U.S. hadn't of invaded Iraq. The first war cost over a million lives the second could have cost another million. What I find sad is your lack of compasion for the people of the Middle East, just like your forefathers. If England hadn't of drawn imaginary lines in the Middle East after WWI the U.S. probably wouldn't be there fighting what the Brits started ninety years ago.

I never said that Saddam was a uniter, but he tried and failed to unite because of his past actions against (there we both agree). Two I never defended Bush's invasion. I just pointed that there would be another major war in this region.

[comic boy]

Rambling now.....par for the course