khilji said:
How was it achieved by invading Iraq, if it had increased "terrorism" since the invasion - according to all US govt. reports.
Which government reports are you referring to? I'm not sure that I've seen them.
khilji said:
Fair enough. But Iraq had in no way threatened the US, the whole story of WMD was a fairy tale trumped up by Cheney and the neo-cons, even the CIA were pressured by Cheney and his sub-ordinates.
Nope. WMD was discussed way before the Bush administration. Go back to the Clinton administration and you'll find plenty of info.
Oh, and what do you guys define a neo-con as?
khilji said:
and please tell us which of the TV channels you normally watch.
Honestly, I don't watch much news. I usually surf. I don't really have particular ones that I always use. As long as it is in English, I check it out.
khilji said:
False statement, yes there were minor contact between the two groups, but no evidence of working cooperation. 9/11 has no link with Iraq invasion, but Bush, the blind, was leading the US public - a blind leading the blind, if we can say that.
I disagree. I never said that Saddam was linked to 9/11 but to say that there was only "minor" contact is incorrect.
khilji said:
Agreed, no one goes to war for fun and when history judges Bush for the reasons he went to war, it will not be kind. He should be tried for war-crimes for killing 50-100k innocent Iraqi's in an illegal war and if he is found to be guilty, the US harboring him may also be guilty, just like the Taliban was guilty, if OBL did commit the 9/11 crime. The same goes for Blair and the UK. Will they ever be tried, nooo, because they are man-gods, the leader of other man-gods, whose lives are infinitely more valuable than pesky muslims, in far-away places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
If the Iraqis think that Saddam is not guilty, then set him free. Place him back as their leader. They have that option.
khilji said:
Quite a stretch, don't you think. This is the danger of pre-emptive strike. In the end, it is might is right. I am strong, I have the power to hit you and you cannot stop me, I think you are a threat, so here goes, Saddam out, 50-100k Iraqi's out, yes we lost 2k, maybe we will loose another 1k, but hey, we can do what we want, because we are the 800 pound gorilla, and we do not care what others think or do. If we see a threat, we will take him out, because we "can" do it.
It wasn't just based on evidence provided from the U.S. There were other countries that legitimately believed that Saddam did indeed possess WMD. I, for one, am relieved he didn't have them. The loss of life on both sides would be much worse. And, knowing that he was only waiting for the sanctions to end to reinstate his WMD program tells me that the pre-emptive action was the right thing to do.
khilji said:
Bush and his people succeeded to dupe a large portion of the US population, because they were angry and they wanted to hit back - Bush just found some cooked up reason of WMD to direct the anger and fear towards Saddam and Iraq, and of course Saddam was the fool who never saw what was coming.
Angry, yes. Anxious to get revenge. Not exactly. Many Americans did and still do not agree with the war in Iraq. It's not like the majority was a bunch of blood thirsty loonies hell bent on killing a bunch of muslims to make themselves feel better.
khilji said:
Here we go again, the benevolent idea of nation building - never forget the prime directive, never to interfere in other's affairs, because when you change history in your ignorance and arrogance, you take responsibility for the good and bad and it can be a terrible responsibility.
Agreed. Except, I say this applies equally to both sides.
khilji said:
Let me see here, now obviously you are a Republican and you have voted for Bush, or am I wrong?
Wrong and right. I am a libertarian by registration but I consider myself more as an independent because I simply don't agree with any one party 100%. And, yes, I did vote for Bush both times. In both elections, I simply couldn't stomach the Democratic Party alternative. And, while there were libertarian candidates, the party still doesn't have a fighting chance in this country where the two major parties reign. So, then I pick what I think is the lesser of two evils.
You also have to remember, we vote for candidates for much more than that of foreign policy.
khilji said:
OK, despite all my sarcastic comments and despite my sadness in seeing your point of view, I am also an optimist like yourself. What has happened has happened, we cannot bring back the dead, nor can we change the past, but we must work towards a future, where all of us can have a more fair and just world and it is never too late to try.
I'm glad to see another optimist in this world of so many pessimists! :applaud:
And here is the
link again. Hopefully, it will work this time.
