Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post - Study: Bush led U.S. to war on 'false pretenses'

xyzer · Jan 30, 2008, 11:54 am

thx posts.."Why should he have been made more cooperative? It is not the place of Europe or the U.S. to force cooperation from self ruling countries"

Ignoring the umteen UN mandates over the years that Saddam had ignored? Ignoring the fact that Saddam had invaded Kuwait been thrown out and agreed to peace terms, which he promptly broke and in fact fired missiles at US patrol aircraft flying over in an effort to enforce the terms of the agreement. How long does a ruithless dictator on the run have to be talked to before some action is taken? He had invaded Iran in 1980 and they fought a 7 year war?
This sounds like a redux of the antiwar pacifist ideology. It doesn't matter what another nation does, how much its evil ruler ignores the warnings and proclamations of the UN, we must continue to talk to him? It doesn't matter how many people he kills or nations he invades..just talk and complain to the UN..It doesn't matter that the UN(World Orgainization) has warned and cautuioned this butcher and destabilizer in the middle east for 20+ years we should still continue to talk? Nonsense! We don't let known murders run loose in our cities and towns do we?

I agree that a full scale invasion wasn't what I would have done. I would have dropped several block buster bombs on Saddams palaces and then given him an ultimatum to shape up or else face more bombing?
It worked with Libya. It's pretty futile to talk to an evil dictator...much more effective to use force. Bombing him would have been much cheaper.

Jan 30, 2008, 11:54 am	#71 (permalink) (top)
xyzer Liberated thinker Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 2,175	thx posts.."Why should he have been made more cooperative? It is not the place of Europe or the U.S. to force cooperation from self ruling countries" Ignoring the umteen UN mandates over the years that Saddam had ignored? Ignoring the fact that Saddam had invaded Kuwait been thrown out and agreed to peace terms, which he promptly broke and in fact fired missiles at US patrol aircraft flying over in an effort to enforce the terms of the agreement. How long does a ruithless dictator on the run have to be talked to before some action is taken? He had invaded Iran in 1980 and they fought a 7 year war? This sounds like a redux of the antiwar pacifist ideology. It doesn't matter what another nation does, how much its evil ruler ignores the warnings and proclamations of the UN, we must continue to talk to him? It doesn't matter how many people he kills or nations he invades..just talk and complain to the UN..It doesn't matter that the UN(World Orgainization) has warned and cautuioned this butcher and destabilizer in the middle east for 20+ years we should still continue to talk? Nonsense! We don't let known murders run loose in our cities and towns do we? I agree that a full scale invasion wasn't what I would have done. I would have dropped several block buster bombs on Saddams palaces and then given him an ultimatum to shape up or else face more bombing? It worked with Libya. It's pretty futile to talk to an evil dictator...much more effective to use force. Bombing him would have been much cheaper. Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us.