More hostility between the US and Iran

[TrueStranger]

It doesn't matter how many people "around the world" supposedly have the same experience as John McCain. McCain spent five years in a Vietnamese prison camp and has experienced war first hand. Add to that 20 plus years of political experience and you have a very decent package.

You have a trigger-happy candidate, who is comfortable with staying in Iraq for 100 years. He is hell-bent on provoking war against Iran, and trying to link Iran with AQ. His views are as radical as Bush if not worse. A decent package for the crusaders.

 

[TrueStranger]

just playing the devils advocate here, but do you know of any other group that does the same?

There are plenty of groups out there that are flexible, and don’t consider everything they do is completely right while others who disagree with them are always wrong.

But we barely see them these days.

 

[Keltoi]

If the U.S. carpet bombed Baghdad there wouldn't be a Baghdad left. They have used cluster bombs in limited situations, usually in the mountains of Afghanistan, but also in Iraq.

 

[Keltoi]

You have a trigger-happy candidate, who is comfortable with staying in Iraq for 100 years. He is hell-bent on provoking war against Iran, and trying to link Iran with AQ. His views are as radical as Bush if not worse. A decent package for the crusaders.

McCain isn't trying to link Iran with Al-Qaeda, he is referring to the link that already exists between Iranian agents and the IED devices popping up in Iraq.

 

[Izyan]

“The majority of Americans also "elected" Bush twice.” I think I recognized the fact that the Americans willingly elected Bush, and I haven’t said anything about Bush stealing any elections.

The U.S hasn’t carpet-bombed anything??? Denying it won’t change the fact that America did in fact carpet-bombed Iraq during the Gulf-war using B-52s, and America does use it in Afghanistan and in some cities in Iraq today.

Iraq: A Criminal Process
Carpet bombing, cluster bombs and napalm against Iraqi civilians

by Ghali Hassan

November 27, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca

http://www.pissedoffcombatveterans.com/id589.html

Do you know what carpet bombing is? If the US used carpet bombing there would be no more Iraq. Look at Dresden as an example of carpetbombing. As for Napalm, Napalm was manufactured by the Dupont company. They haven't manufactured since the 80's and it doesn't have a long shelf life. Napalm hasn't been used since Vietnam. Trust me if Napalm was used it would be impossible to hide considering the high visiblity of a Napalm bomb.

 

[Idris]

Do you know what carpet bombing is? If the US used carpet bombing there would be no more Iraq. Look at Dresden as an example of carpetbombing. As for Napalm, Napalm was manufactured by the Dupont company. They haven't manufactured since the 80's and it doesn't have a long shelf life. Napalm hasn't been used since Vietnam. Trust me if Napalm was used it would be impossible to hide considering the high visiblity of a Napalm bomb.

It don't really matter what the US used to bomb Iraq with.Do you really think that Iraq is better of now then b4 the US started this mad war on WOMD?

 

[Izyan]

It don't really matter what the US used to bomb Iraq with.Do you really think that Iraq is better of now then b4 the US started this mad war on WOMD?

It does matter. Carpet bombing in this day and age would be an act of malice due to the ordinance available now. Saying the US carpet bombed a city is saying they went the total destruction route.

Is Iraq better now before the US was invaded? If you would have asked me before the invasion I would have welcomed US troops in Iraq.

 

[MTAFFI]

i am totally against the war in Iraq, anymore, but I will say that complaining about what the US does there is kind of ridiculous considering what could be done. Nothing is really owed to the Iraqis by America, the US went in to remove a dictator, Iraq was dismantled in 7 days, no other was has a country stayed to police after the war like the US has in Iraq.(except maybe Vietnam) I guess it is a plan to setup a US friendly country and establish a US interest in the mid east, however the way it is being gone about is completely botched

 

[snakelegs]

did we go in to remove a dictator? why do we get along so well with many other dictators in the world? was it our place to go in and remove a dictator?
we created the circumstances that allowed anarchy to prevail and because of that, i think we do bear responsibility for what is happening there now.

 

[mustafaisb]

did we go in to remove a dictator? why do we get along so well with many other dictators in the world? was it our place to go in and remove a dictator?
we created the circumstances that allowed anarchy to prevail and because of that, i think we do bear responsibility for what is happening there now.

Exactly

 

[barney]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy

Modern version of Gunboat Diplomacy IMHO

 

[MTAFFI]

did we go in to remove a dictator?

YES, was it the only reason, probably not

why do we get along so well with many other dictators in the world?

Go back and read SH rhetoric towards america, the threats went on for years. Our country was attacked, he was really one of the only leaders of any country in the world threatening the US. Not to mention the fact that if he did eventually coordinate with the real threat, the consequences would have had a severe impact on US security. Not saying that he did already (like our president said he did) since he clearly did not, but the potential was there.

Again, I dont agree with the war, but that isnt the issue being discussed here either.

was it our place to go in and remove a dictator?

It was when our country was attacked and he was practically the only leader of any country making constant threats to our security.

we created the circumstances that allowed anarchy to prevail and because of that, i think we do bear responsibility for what is happening there now.

Any war creates a circumstance for anarchy to prevail, it is a purpose for war, to give people something else to do other than attack your country. My point is not whether or not the war is right or wrong, my point is the US is doing a service in Iraq right now by at the very least attempting to restore some sort of infrastructure, government and law. Granted, it is not working well, but there is the attempt, regardless of whatever other goals there may be after the aforementioned is accomplished. The US has every right to simply leave them to it, without paying or restoring everything... the phrase "war is hell" comes to mind when talking about this

Again, I am not for this war, I say leave them to it, they dont want us there and never will, the US will always be the "invader", I am merely offering an alternative point of view that many hold around the world, which might not be seen on this forum as often because of the "type" (<-- not just 1 type) of people that visit this board.

 

[MTAFFI]

a short list of Saddams infamous quotes and a probable reason he was removed after the events of 9/11

The Gulf War, February 1991
"We will chase [Americans] to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth."
Saddam Hussein, Baghdad Radio, February 8, 1991

"[America] will not be excluded from the operations and explosions of the Arab and Muslim mujahidin and all the honest strugglers in the world."
Iraq News Agency, January 30, 1991 (State-controlled)

"What remains for Bush and his accomplices in crime is to understand that they are personally responsible for their crime. The Iraqi people will pursue them for this crime, even if they leave office and disappear into oblivion. There is no doubt they will understand what we mean if they know what revenge means to the Arabs."
Baghdad Radio, February 6, 1991 (State-controlled)

"Every Iraqi child, woman, and old man knows how to take revenge...They will avenge the pure blood that has been shed no matter how long it takes.
Baghdad Domestic Service, February 15, 1991 (State-controlled)

Iraq Masses Troops Against Kuwait, October 1994
"Does [America] realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?"
Saddam Hussein, September 29, 1994

"[W]hen peoples reach the verge of collective death, they will be able to spread death to all..."
Al-Jumhuriyah, October 4, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)

"[O]ur striking arm will reach [America, Britain and Saudi Arabia] before they know what hit them."
Al-Qadisiyah, October 6, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)

"One chemical weapon fired in a moment of despair could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands." Al-Quds al-Arabi, October 12, 1994 (State-controlled newspaper)

Release of UNSCOM Report, April 10, 1995
"Although Iraq's options are limited, they exist...Iraq's present state is that of a wounded tiger. Its blow could be painful, even if it is the last blow..."
Al-Quds Al-'Arabi, June 9, 1995 (State-controlled newspaper)

Khobar Towers Bombing, June 25, 1996
"[The U.S.] should send more coffins to Saudi Arabia, because no one can guess what the future has in store."
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, June 27, 1996

Operation Desert Fox, December 1998
"If [other Arab nations] persist on pursuing their wrongful path, then we should — or rather we must — place the swords of jihad on their necks..."
Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999

"Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner...Take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted values."
Saddam Hussein, January 5, 1999

"[Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti] blood will light torches, grow aromatic plants, and water the tree of freedom, resistance and victory."
Saddam Hussein, Iraqi Radio, January 26, 1999

"Whoever continues to be involved in a despicable aggressive war against the people of Iraq as a subservient party must realize that this aggressive act has a dear price."
Saddam Hussein, February 16, 1999

"What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds."
Al-Qadisiyah, February 27, 1999 (State-controlled newspaper)

U.S.S. Cole Bombing, October 12, 2000
"[Iraqis] should intensify struggle and jihad in all fields and by all means..."
Iraq TV, October 22, 2000 (State-controlled)

The Attacks of September 11
"The United States reaps the thorns its rulers have planted in the world."
Saddam Hussein, September 12, 2001

"The real perpetrators [of September 11] are within the collapsed buildings."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"[September 11 was] God's punishment."
Al-Iktisadi, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

"The simple truth [about September 11] is that America burned itself and now tries to burn the world."
Alif-Ba, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled magazine)

"t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."
Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)

"The United States must get a taste of its own poison..."
Babil, October 8, 2001

 

[barney]

That is simply CIA agents dressed up as Saddam pretending to be him on Iraqi National TV in order to spread discord amongst the Ummah and feebly veil the real reasons for the Invasion. OIL...which is now being pumped on a daily basis to ...err...Russia and ...ummm...China...?????

 

[snakelegs]

MTAFFI,
are you saying that you believe that saddam hussein, after 10 years of crippling sanctions, was a serious threat to u.s. national security???
if you remember in the weeks leading up to our invasion of iraq, the reasons it was so necessary changed a few times a week: WMD, freedom, and even 9/11!

 

[MTAFFI]

MTAFFI,
are you saying that you believe that saddam hussein, after 10 years of crippling sanctions, was a serious threat to u.s. national security???
if you remember in the weeks leading up to our invasion of iraq, the reasons it was so necessary changed a few times a week: WMD, freedom, and even 9/11!

SH and Iraq were largely accepted as the most powerful military force in the middle east. 10 years of crippling economic sanctions didn't stop him from doing business deals with Russia and other countries that did not abide by the sanctions that restricted any military equipment to be sold to the country. If you care to go back and research it you will find that SH himself, wouldn't allow food and humanitarian aid into the country unless the sanctions restricting military weapons into his country was lifted. You may also find that while his people were suffering, he was living a life of luxury in his many palaces and his mounds and mounds of gold, which is what he used to pay the Russians, the Chinese and the Koreans, and a few others i believe.

The quotes themselves I would think would provide enough evidence, particularly when coupled with the daily military exercises and parades, showing off all of their "military might"

 

[Keltoi]

SH and Iraq were largely accepted as the most powerful military force in the middle east. 10 years of crippling economic sanctions didn't stop him from doing business deals with Russia and other countries that did not abide by the sanctions that restricted any military equipment to be sold to the country. If you care to go back and research it you will find that SH himself, wouldn't allow food and humanitarian aid into the country unless the sanctions restricting military weapons into his country was lifted. You may also find that while his people were suffering, he was living a life of luxury in his many palaces and his mounds and mounds of gold, which is what he used to pay the Russians, the Chinese and the Koreans, and a few others i believe.

The quotes themselves I would think would provide enough evidence, particularly when coupled with the daily military exercises and parades, showing off all of their "military might"

Of course Saddam's military might wasn't what worried the U.S., but his threats of financing an attack on Americans on American soil. Which doesn't take a genious to figure out meant terrorism with WMD.

 

[MTAFFI]

Of course Saddam's military might wasn't what worried the U.S., but his threats of financing an attack on Americans on American soil. Which doesn't take a genious to figure out meant terrorism with WMD.

right, he obviously didnt have the capability to launch an invasion or airstrike on the US, but he did have the capacity to strike US interests in the region and as you said, easily finance anyone to take one of his weapons, which in turn made him a security threat. Not to mention, those last 7 quotes I gave (which there are many more that) were all in relation to 9/11