Defining Picture of the Iraq War

[Board of Command]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
EDIT 2: there will always be casualties in war, but in my opinion the people of iraq will be able to enjoy a better life after the war is over than under the rule of sadaam.

I have quite a few muslim friends who actually know 2 cents worth of what's really going on, and they totally oppose this "War on Terrorism". They say Saddam really wasn't as bad as the Americans portrayed him, and that most people in Iraq really don't give a shit about Saddam being in power. In fact, it's not like Saddam is running around with a gun shooting people on a street. The country was in better shape under Saddam's rule than it is now under American supervision and this new government. After over 2 years of American occupation, how much has Iraq improved? Is the average Iraqi Joe happier than before now?

Why would the Americans invade Iraq by bombing their capital to ground-zero in the first place in the name of national defense? Defense against what? Is Saddam and the Iraqi army gonna take over the world? There's a big difference between taking extreme precautions and national defense. Seriously, what is the likelihood that Saddam would have eventually attacked America? It's not called defense if there's no offensive side. Do bullies beat up kids in the name of self defense because the weak little kid might grow up and kill them later?

Like someone above said, war is subjective. There is no absolute black and white to it. I'm not saying the Americans are the bad side. Both political sides try to justify themselves and make themselves look like the good. The stuff we see in the western world is handpicked by the western institutions. The video footage we see in the news is handpicked by the media to promote its side of "justice". It's called propaganda, and it's certainly working on some of you (not pointing a finger at SK here).

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: BOARD_of_command
Seriously, what is the likelihood that Saddam would have eventually attacked America? It's not called defense if there's no offensive side. Do bullies beat up kids in the name of self defense because the weak little kid might grow up and kill them later?

Funny, that is the same outlook Great Britain and France had on Germany before it merged with Austria-Hungry and almost took over the world (WWII). They did nothing when Germany broke the provisions of the treaty of Versailles, much like it seems the world would have liked to do for Saddam. I hear that if we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it. I'm not saying the same would have happened (world domination is impossible this day in age, through warfare) but after such a large blunder you would think these "enlightened" countries would have been quicker to act.

[Y]

Originally posted by: Jessper

Funny, that is the same outlook Great Britain and France had on Germany before it merged with Austria-Hungry and almost took over the world (WWII). They did nothing when Germany broke the provisions of the treaty of Versailles, much like it seems the world would have liked to do for Saddam. I hear that if we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it. I'm not saying the same would have happened (world domination is impossible this day in age, through warfare) but after such a large blunder you would think these "enlightened" countries would have been quicker to act.

Their leaders understood the situation better than you do. Saddam Hussein had no army. His "elite" guards surrendered by the thousands to unarmed civilian camera crews, in both Gulf Wars. There is absolutely no parallel with Nazi Germany as far as military strength goes.

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: Y The Alien
Their leaders understood the situation better than you do. Saddam Hussein had no army. His "elite" guards surrendered by the thousands to unarmed civilian camera crews, in both Gulf Wars. There is absolutely no parallel with Nazi Germany as far as military strength goes.

I know Y. My point was not that Saddam would have had a large enough army to take over Europe if left alone, but rather that Germany was shrugged off much like BoC would shrug off Saddam. I was comparing how people thought both Hitler and Saddam were no threat.

My point is, don't think that Saddam was harmless just because of your preconceptions on his military power. In the early 90's it was much easier to gauge strength (size of army being one of the main contributors back then) than now since nuclear and biological arms are much easier to conceal yet it was still messed up in a very large way. It is foolish to simply assume Saddam had no WMD's because if he did one of them, depending on how large he made the bomb, could devastate an entire country.

Military intelligence is not always accurate (heh, obviously) however, that does not mean that everyone else's information was correct, only that it had a better chance to be.

Leaving an instable person such as Saddam in command was a bad move in my opinion, though I understand the reasoning behind doing so. For the most part, war is not fought for peace but rather stability.

Sorry for being kind of all over the place, but I have a test now so I'm not going to refine it much. My apologies.