U.S. Soldiers used as propaganda.....the horrors of WAR...

[Sgt. Yang]

I found it funny because it's true! Ha ha.

[spyretto]

that's the only good thing that can come out of this war. Hope the US military stays to clean the mess they caused ( they have to do it now that all eyes are on them ).

I think that the Iraqui government used despicable tactics but how about the use of weapons of mass destruction as propaganda? we still haven't seen anything.

[Fossil_12000]

The U.S. went in without popular support because the UN secrurity couincl failed to act. the U.S. did this not because of oil not for Iraqs freedom simply you build weapons of mass destrotion or anything you will pay the price. for you who say thay have no proof well! the Iraq goverment was given a deadline on a detailed report on exsisting weapons in the country and when we got the report it had gaps in it, it had weapons missing that we later found and it was almost to a tee the exact same report given at the end of gulf war 1

so the genral feeling is that if suddams goverment cant work with the U.S. or UN inspectors than if he must be removed by force than so be it even without international support. and on a smaller not if you do not live in the U.S., U.K. or even the 40 other nations involved or Iraq then really you dont have much to say because you taken your stand. so people belive that the U.S. is doing this because we are the single most powerful nation on the planet but if it was not for that power do any of you think Europe would be here or part of a Larger USSR that would most likly still be around.

[Ghalib]

:: Clears throat ::

China ...

[luxxi]

Fossil: If Iraqi WMD were such threat to region as US say then why didn't Husein used them when his regime was directly threatened? Could it be, gasp, because he didn't have them?

UN "failed to act" because under UN charter (which US helped to write) didn't allow for war under such reasons as US cited (WMD, regime change, leader who tried to get father of current US president).

And you overestimate support a lot. Directly involved are: US, UK, Australia and Poland with Chezh, Slovakia and Ukraine providing NBC detection teams. There are soem countries that suported US & friends in other ways (basing rights, overflight rights...) but of "Coalition of the willing" many countries many gave suport because it couldn't hurt them and didn't involve anything (e.g. Somalia, some Latin american countries....).

[Fossil_12000]

i dont belive that he has very many working WMD but he does have a few even you no that i trying to say in the nere future he could gain the tecnology to produce these kinds of weapons in what i always say is never trust the one who lie
unlike Iran and N Korea he has said his country has no wmd but when UN insectors went in they did find small amounts they also found rockets that the said they didnt have. im not trying to say that this war is nessisary but i do beleve something needed to be done and while fixing a problem why not try to fix the hole problem

P.S. im not try to up set anyone or trying to talk down antiwar people or anything im just letting everyone know how i and i think the largest % of americans feel so dont get upset if i say something wrong

[Fossil_12000]

im sorry for not giving enough credit to our allies i dont mean not to i have no problem with any nation in the world that does not have a problem with america but as everyone i think would and should we always favor the nation we are from more

[luxxi]

Originally posted by Fossil_12000
i dont belive that he has very many working WMD but he does have a few even you no that i trying to say in the nere future he could gain the tecnology to produce these kinds of weapons in what i always say is never trust the one who lie

And these alledged small amounts of WMD posed such great risk to whole world that US had to take action and invade? Get real.

Originally posted by Fossil_12000

unlike Iran and N Korea he has said his country has no wmd but when UN insectors went in they did find small amounts they also found rockets that the said they didnt have. im not trying to say that this war is nessisary but i do beleve something needed to be done and while fixing a problem why not try to fix the hole problem

Did they found them? I'm talking about Blix, not Powell's half baked acusations, half truths and complete lies at UNSC? And Iraqis claimed Al Samoud missiles were within limits imposed and destroyed them anyway. As for Scuds, were any fired during war? No? were any found? No? Can you draw any conclusions?

Originally posted by Fossil_12000

P.S. im not try to up set anyone or trying to talk down antiwar people or anything im just letting everyone know how i and i think the largest % of americans feel so dont get upset if i say something wrong

If US population think their governemnt is doing the right thing fine. Germans thought Hitler was doing the right thing too.

[PowerPuff Grrl]

Fossil_12000, don't make your country take most of the credit for World War II. As much as the US contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany, it was really the Russians who tore them apart on the the Eastern Front. Second to them were the British, and the British military consisted a lot of British colonies including Canada (which manufactured most of the tanks, truck, guns, etc), Australia, New Zealand, India, etc...
In fact most of the Hollywood movies portraying World War II stories are in fact Canadian stories, fyi.

But nevertheless, America did play a very, very important role... afterwards. Your country helped restructure Western Europe and they would not have recovered so rapidly if it wasn't for the Marshall Plan.
You also established the World Bank and the UN in which you diluted some of your power to help build healthy relationships between nations and with this you assumed the position to police the world.

Now I am not going to say that the Opposition (France, Germany, and Russia) is right in going against the US, UK, and Australia. Those countries have just as much vested interest in this war as the Coalition and are manipulating their power in the UN (and EU) to achieve their goals.
But that doesn't excuse the US of their abandonment of their obligation to the UN, Bush didn't even try to negotiate with the council, Blair had to drag him to it.
And this isn't the first time either, remember the Kyoto Protocol?

I am not regarding the UN as being good at all. They have, in so many instances, failed to commit to resolutions in the past before. Moreover, they have avoided the responsibility to act out and take action against oppresion and continue to do so.
But the US has contributed to the avoidance as well, they have absolutely no right to complain. As well, the US does not participate in Humanitarian causes in the World, usually the dirty work is done by almost all of Europe, Japan, Canada... in fact everybody but the US.

By giving up on the UN what the Coalition Forces has set is a precedent for other nations to go to war without approval.

PS: The US has never acted out against a country to the sole benefit of other parties based on good, selfless intentions.
No country has ever done that done that, the US isn't any different.

[Charles]

Originally posted by Fossil_12000
i dont belive that he has very many working WMD but he does have a few even you no that i trying to say in the nere future he could gain the tecnology to produce these kinds of weapons ...

You cannot use having the technology to make WMD to support anything. If you do, then every country in the world is guilty. Any graduate school chemistry student in the world could make chemical weapons. The information on making all sorts of nasty weapons is easiily found on the internet. There are books on how to make a methamphetamyn lab, but reading that book doesn't make someone a drug dealer.

It is only in the continued creation, stockpiling, and USE of WMD that can justify action. Sure, Iraq has done all three, but recently? I have yet to hear of a cache of WMD being found. Chemical suits. Yep, but not a weapon. Nerve gas antidotes? Again, not a weapon. Possible sarin gas? Nope, probably just pesticides.

[goku]

But the thing is the U.S. doesn't need that so they can actually eliminate them... Just a good reason to tidy up some loose ends. And I don't blame them. If I was the president I'd have been in so many wars by now..

In fact, I think the U. S. isn't very smart by trying to be so conservative.. But George W. is starting to get away from this.. And what do you guys think of this Syria issue?

[Charles]

We got away with attacking Iraq in part becuase Iraq had zero allies. No nation came to their aid. I doubt it would be the same if we were to attack Syria. It isn't too hard to imagine that triggering another energy crisis as we had in the 1970s.

[PowerPuff Grrl]

And even if Syria didn't have any allies Arabs would see it as a trend to invade the entire Middle East.
So obviously there would be some resistance from a lot of Arabs.

[Ackey]

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'... till you can find a rock

[spyretto]

(Saddam's) was depleted by the no-fly zones, selective bombing and the embargo. He wasn't more dangerous this time around than he was 15 years ago when both UK/USA was supplying him with wmd of the latest technology. Maybe they thought some of those weapons would still be in use today.
But if Bush turns towards Syria, that'd be plain stupid. I think he won't, as they did what they wanted to do in Iraq. No need for further aggrevation.

[Fossil_12000]

the U.S. is act for it own benifit and i wont argue with that but every nation has to look out for itself. but you must agree that unlike most nations in the bast it has help other nations with ther problems ever if in the long run it was selfish and most people no matter were they live are the same way Europe wont commit to war because 1 they will not spend the money to update thier military i understand EU theory of colective security but you cannot build a strong economy if you are not will to provide for its defince i know im getting off the subject but the reason europe wont become involved is they really cant yea their is a big gap its been brought up in NATO summits for the last decade even when the U.S. works to with Europe the U.S. end up bering most of the load and that can get shoot down to on how you look at it the U.S. carries most of the actual combat load U.K. provided 37,000 troops to the war in Iraq and thats good that 1/3 of its standing military but it only spends 37 billion dolllars on defince the U.S. spend 314 i beleve and that only 4 % gdp
so on other word the U.S. has the power because it spends the money

[Fossil_12000]

does this mean i won the argument or did everyone stop caring

[luxxi]

I stil think US reasons for war are BS and Blair is such lapdog he woun't do anything to displease Bush (no ofence to Brits here). While France and Russia had their motives for not going to war so did US for going.

[Charles]

I don't think there is a winner in the argument. I haven't stopped caring, but I don't have more to say.

[Fossil_12000]

Well im not trying to win im not asking you to like or go with what i say i just want you to know what most of the people i live around
i have not meant to hurt anyone or make anyone mad and if i have im sorry