That was in 1991. That conflict is over.
I do this thing called "study history."
You said it yourself: Saddam is a potential threat.
The point is that there are still no major Al Qaeda operations in Iraq. While it is true that they don't have a central headquarters, a substantial majority of their resources, camps, etc were in Afghanistan.
You presented an example that was hypothetical and speculative. With all of your your improper grammar and foblish you are not going to win an argument over semantics with an English major.
The fact that we didn't know Hitler's plan has nothing to do with whether or not we knew Saddam's plan in the 80's. He was just as much of a tyrranical dictator then as he is now. The only difference is that in the 80's he was fighting a war with Iran and we didn't like Iran. All he did with Kuwait was continue to fight with other countries in the region but picked one we liked instead of one that we didn't; and that was in 1991.
Iraq isn't what I would call "nearby."
There's no comparison between England and the American colonies in the 1700s and Iraq and America in the past 20 years. None.

 

:werd:
and they're definitely not thrilled.
watch news from outside the US and you see a few people that are happy about it, but then you see others crying and saying "What did we ever do to the US to deserve this?", while there house is being blown up in the background.
The weird thing is, the news here will tell you one thing, and show you another...they'll say "The people of Iraq are glad we're invading their country", while they're showing you Iraqi citizens shooting rifles at American choppers.

 

I think the question should really be "why wage a war" rather than "why not wage a war?" I haven't seen any real solid reason for war yet. I mean, at least in the past we would stage an attack on our ships as an excuse to counterattack. Now we're just concerned that something *might* happen (to somebody else) so we level their country. :eh:

 

:werd:

If you attack someone unprovoked, you are a criminal. Even if the person who you attack is evil, even if they have murdered before. You can rant and rave all day long about how evil your victim is, and rationalize all kinds of manufactured justifications. But none of that changes the fact that you made an unprovoked attack, and that you are the criminal in this case. You are the problem; you are morally and legally wrong.

Just because it's scaled up to the national level doesn't change the basic moral and legal imperative. Just because the US is big and powerful doesn't make us automatically right. In fact our size and power being used against a country that had no hope of a fair fight makes us the bully. A "98 lb. weakling" simply isn't a valid threat to a pro wrestler, as Iraq simply wasn't a valid threat to the US.

For those who use the terrorism excuse, have we wiped out all terrorism for good? Of course not. If we are to wipe out terrorism through violence alone, then our job is not done until we have wiped out the whole world. Only then will there be no chance of dissent. And if we do try to take over the whole world to assuage our fears, are we any better than the other regimes that have tried the same thing in the past? Precisely what makes George Bush different from Hitler, Stalin or Ghengis Khan?

 

I am gainst it but not really sure how valid my argument is at this point because I have given up kinda on the entire subject since its moot at this point....but here goes my reasoning..

I think the pretense that it is a preemptive strike is a bit vague. If this is a valid reason to attack another country then why not attack Mexico because they may try to flood the orders with bomb carrying mules (I dunno but you get the idea). Basically it is pening the doors to a whole new way to wage war with anyone we don't agree with politically.

The other reason this war is so hated in my eyes is that originally weren't we chasing Osama for the 9/11 attack...or was that just a ploy to get the people to back an attack? and why haven't we heard anything more on "the hunt for Osama"? It would seem we would finish something valid before going on a tangent about an arms treaty that has been put on the wayside for 12 years or so.

I dunno I still think the attack on 9/11 was just a vehicle to get into the middle east. I know it sounds conspiracy theory and all but I really do wonder about the validity of all this in light of the way Osama has been dropped for a bigger better target.

 

Iraq has no ties to Al Queda? :bs:

I've seen it on MSNBC, Fox, CNN and even the BBC... multiple governments HAVE PROOF that Saddam started Al Queda and continued to supply, fund and train members. I dunno how more simply to put it, other than fly over there and see for yourself. There's proof littered all over Iraq.

 

Saddam started Al Qaeda? You have got to be kidding me. Al Qaeda is an extremest Muslim terrorist organization that justifies its actions with its religious beliefs. Saddam is about as good of a Muslim as I am. Sure he uses Islamic rhetoric to get people to act a certain way, but he has been known to throw people in jail for "praying too much." The ideology of the Ba'ath party is as far away from that of Al Qaeda as possible.

 

While I agree and see your point... I don't trust saddam nor what he tells anyone.

I really dont' have any more info than what I see on tv and papers. If I was there and had inside info I might be able to 100% confirm or deny it, but I do not. I see it on tv they say they have proof of him starting al queda... eh, take it with a grain of salt... but to me it sounds more real and believable when multiple stations report same/similar.

So.... am I right? maybe. I'm mostly just repeating what the tv tells me.

 

Osama bin Laden started--and still runs--Al Qaeda. Any ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam if they even exist at all, are minimal at best.

I find it highly doubtful that any sort of credible news agency would claim that Saddam started Al Qaeda.

It is easy to make the association because both Saddam and bin Laden are both arabs and both don't like the USA, but that's merely a coincidence.

 

huh? WTF are you talking about?!?!?!?!?!