It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Hopechest
And to be fair here, if anyone needed to be removed it was Saddam and his regime. He had started a war with Iran
He was backed by the USA and other Western allies during the war with Iran...therefore should we not also remove the administrations who assisted him?
As for his treatment of the Kurds and other groups of Iraqis, I found it to be disgusting, but "we" allowed it to happen so would "we" not share some of the guilt?
When I say "we" I mean the governments who participated in these murderous campaigns.
You don't really understand how international politics works.
Who is your friend today may very well be your enemy tomorrow. Its just the way the world works. Simply because we supported him at one time in no way means we must be loyal to him no matter what happens in the future.
The US operates from a realism point of view and therefore will use whatever means are available at the time to ensure their security. When situations change our alliances will change to keep that security in place. Regardless of what's happened in the past.
Do we share guild for the Kurds?
Absolutely not. We did not gas them and I'm not sure how you think we let it happen. Did Saddam call us up and tell us his plan and we gave him the OK to do it?
Probably not. Yes we backed out our support after the first war and that was wrong but we had no part in the gassing.
Originally posted by Hopechest
And to be fair here, if anyone needed to be removed it was Saddam and his regime. He had started a war with Iran, he tried to invade Kuwait, he gassed over 5000 of his own people, he was continuing a policy of torture of political enemies...the list is very long of his crimes.
Whether the stated reason was truthful or not is sort of irrelevant. You have to look at what factors are required before the world community should take action to remove someone in power. I agree with taking him out but I think it should of been done in a completely different manner that didn't put the burden of cost on us.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Did Iran gas the Kurds? Claims of Saddam's Genocide Far from Proven
www.mediamonitors.net...
From Media Monitors:
What Happened at Halabja?
The only verified Kurdish civilian deaths from chemical weapons occurred in the Iraqi village of Halabja, near the Iran border, where at least several hundred people died from gas poisoning in mid-March, 1988.
We know that Iran overran the village and its small garrison of Iraqi troops; what is contested is who was responsible for the deaths--Iran or Iraq--and how large the death toll was.
The best evidence is a 1990 report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.[2] Marine Corps document FMFRP 3-203, "Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War," dated December 10, 1990.
Iran
Especially under Reza Shah Pahlavi (1925941), Iran undertook a policy of forcible Persianization of the Kurds through linguicide and ethnocide as well as war, killing, jail, and deportations. As early as 1923, speaking Kurdish had been banned in schools and other state institutions, and by the mid-1930s, a total ban on the language and culture was imposed. Under the Pahlavi dynasty (1925979)
have you ever researched the Iraninan genocide of the kurds ( not to mention Iranians under the US INSTALLED AND SUPPORTED SHAW?
obviously not
I know this already, but it does not make it right. Not agreeing with something does not mean I do not understand how it works. These are people's lives we are playing with here, it's not all a strategic game as you make it sound to be, unless you are one of the global elite who profit from these wars.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Danbones
have you ever researched the Iraninan genocide of the kurds ( not to mention Iranians under the US INSTALLED AND SUPPORTED SHAW?
obviously not
I read your material and it raises the question? What does it have to to with Saddam needing removed? You're making the case for Obama to act against Iran and showing BOTH nations were terrible..but it does nothing to bolster any defense of the madman in Iraq. (For the record..I'm 100% against action against Iran unless they attack first..and SO OBVIOUSLY...even their own allies don't doubt what happened)
I'd also note a HUGE difference between Iraq and Iran. Iraq was a cult of personality with a Government and whole system designed around and to service one man. Woe be anyone who disagreed with that one man for there was no appeal in Saddam's Iraq. Iran, on the other hand, is a structure we'd be more familiar with. It's no Western Democracy but it's FAR from seeing power concentrated in a single pair of hands...
That matters in saying Saddam's removal (If it could have come from Iraqis and/or without a war) would have largely ended the problem. Saddam may have had a replacement..but doubtful. He did what most tyrants do and killed everyone capable of replacing him along the way. Job Security.
What does right have to do with it?
Originally posted by PW229
We'll never see Bush, Cheney, Blair, Rumsfeld etc in the Hague.
I still remember almost 1 million British people marching on London to say "NO" to war and still we went. Follow the money...
Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Hopechest
What does right have to do with it?
It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
Until you are capable of accepting that fact I am unsure if I can address the remainder of your post as it would be a waste of my time and yours as well.
gee, the US has been infinitly more evil then saddam ever was, as has been the british empire
where is the regime chenge there?
Countries do not operate on the premise of what is right or wrong. They operate on the premise of security.
Whatever it takes to maintain that security (whatever version they decide to follow) is what they consider right.
You can not attribute morals to that.
Was it right for the US and the Soviet Union to fight proxy wars instead of battling each other? Millions died yet there was no nuclear war.
Was that right?
Do you see the problem with your reasoning yet?
Originally posted by moonrunner
This is in breaking news?
What next, man lands on moon, well maybe that one could go in a few places on ATS from what I've seen.
They didn't need telling about the lack of WMDs before the invasion, just a quick look at who they'd sold them to would have told them that
A special BBC Panorama programme tonight will reveal how British and US intelligence agencies were informed by top sources months before the invasion that Iraq had no active WMD programme, and that the information was not passed to subsequent inquiries.
You are wrong, most countries operate on their strategic interests which are profit and domination, not the actual security of their citizens as in reality the only global threat at the moment is the NATO war machine who pretty much does what ever USA, UK, and Israel tells them to.
Please tell me how the invasion of Iraq improved the domestic security of Americans or the Brits?
That's the problem with people like you, morals can be attributed to that, and should be attributed to everything. Until the world starts acting on morality versus greed and blood lust we will always be at war.
Millions died by proxy during the cold war?
There were various wars during the cold war such as Korea and Vietnam, but these were not fought by proxy due to the cold war.
reply to post by Hopechest
And to be fair here, if anyone needed to be removed it was Saddam and his regime. He had started a war with Iran, he tried to invade Kuwait, he gassed over 5000 of his own people, he was continuing a policy of torture of political enemies...the list is very long of his crimes.