Political Crossfire Forums

[Freemason]

Germany paid a horrible cost for invading France - even though it had gotten away with invading France just 40 years before WWI and many times before that.

The US's hands were tied during the Cold War - and could not chose a side or decide to side against both in the Iraq-Iran war.

But why should Saddam get away with this when Germany could not?

[Freemason]

To make sure people don't banter about how Iraq was defeated and subdued and blah blah. So was Germany in 1918.

Iraq showed (with the invasion of Kuwait) a determination to strengthen its regional power - not merely by controlling oil export percentage within the OPEC but because Kuwait gave Iraq a strategic port and coast-line that was less able to be blockaded by Iran ... during the Iraq-Iran war Kuwait was crucial in exporting Iraqi oil and importing material to Iraq.

Saddam's goals had always been to create a single nation out of the Arab world under his National-Socialist party. While the idea it was effectively contained after 1991 persists the fact is he was a regional threat and could potentially start a war on his terms at any time.

[Timmytour]

Freemason wrote: Germany paid a horrible cost for invading France - even though it had gotten away with invading France just 40 years before WWI and many times before that.

The US's hands were tied during the Cold War - and could not chose a side or decide to side against both in the Iraq-Iran war.

But why should Saddam get away with this when Germany could not?

I've watched it. I saw war being waged. Now can you add the context about what it has to do with your thread?

I hope there is a point to be made and it's not just that you are somehow reaping advertising benefit from each unsuspecting visit? :wink:

[Timmytour]

Freemason wrote: To make sure people don't banter about how Iraq was defeated and subdued and blah blah. So was Germany in 1918.

Iraq showed (with the invasion of Kuwait) a determination to strengthen its regional power - not merely by controlling oil export percentage within the OPEC but because Kuwait gave Iraq a strategic port and coast-line that was less able to be blockaded by Iran ... during the Iraq-Iran war Kuwait was crucial in exporting Iraqi oil and importing material to Iraq.

Saddam's goals had always been to create a single nation out of the Arab world under his National-Socialist party. While the idea it was effectively contained after 1991 persists the fact is he was a regional threat and could potentially start a war on his terms at any time.

This post came after my previous comment was compiled. But I'm right in what I thought. The link you showed had precious little in it. It could have been showing Iraq today with you blaming Bush, for all the sense it added to your post.

Let's not let Iraq get away with it...let's hang Saddam...and er what's that you say...it's already happening..

well ok then...let's force Iraq to pay loads of dollars in reparations then..

oh...that's already happening as well is it....

well ok then make them pay the companies that lost out through lack of business like Halliburton rather than the relatives of those who got killed and injured...wait a minute...

..you mean that's already taken care of too?

So what is left to ask for?

[Freemason]

I wish - I haven't been able to get Google Ads to work yet :)

But no - the point is that Saddam did need to be removed - the world should not have to blockade an entire nation and its nearly 30 million people from the rest of the world because of its political party's desire to conquer their neighbors.

Would we be having No Fly Zones and tirades with Iraq 100 years from now? Rediculous waste of time that can only end with the utter collapse of Iraq or the lack of interest by those containing Iraq in which Iraq would have thus risen again to try and conquer her neighbors.

[Timmytour]

Freemason wrote: I wish - I haven't been able to get Google Ads to work yet :)

But no - the point is that Saddam did need to be removed - the world should not have to blockade an entire nation and its nearly 30 million people from the rest of the world because of its political party's desire to conquer their neighbors.

Would we be having No Fly Zones and tirades with Iraq 100 years from now? Rediculous waste of time that can only end with the utter collapse of Iraq or the lack of interest by those containing Iraq in which Iraq would have thus risen again to try and conquer her neighbors.

First of all Saddams intentions and his capabilities were poles apart. That's something Powell and Rice recognised prior to 9/11 but chose to ignore after the event.

Secondly, for all his faults, it's possible that Saddam was a safer bet in power in Iraq then the vaccum of power that would follow were he to be toppled. If not safer for the Iraqi people, then certainly for the region and possibly the world. That's something a certain other President Bush recognised to be true.

But even if you agree the world would be better off without him there can you honestly say the only way you can think of it being done was to launch an invasion and imagine that the world would fall in love with democracy American style afterwards?

That's delusional.

[Freemason]

Timmytour wrote: Freemason wrote: I wish - I haven't been able to get Google Ads to work yet :)

But no - the point is that Saddam did need to be removed - the world should not have to blockade an entire nation and its nearly 30 million people from the rest of the world because of its political party's desire to conquer their neighbors.

Would we be having No Fly Zones and tirades with Iraq 100 years from now? Rediculous waste of time that can only end with the utter collapse of Iraq or the lack of interest by those containing Iraq in which Iraq would have thus risen again to try and conquer her neighbors.

First of all Saddams intentions and his capabilities were poles apart. That's something Powell and Rice recognised prior to 9/11 but chose to ignore after the event.

Secondly, for all his faults, it's possible that Saddam was a safer bet in power in Iraq then the vaccum of power that would follow were he to be toppled. If not safer for the Iraqi people, then certainly for the region and possibly the world. That's something a certain other President Bush recognised to be true.

But even if you agree the world would be better off without him there can you honestly say the only way you can think of it being done was to launch an invasion and imagine that the world would fall in love with democracy American style afterwards?

That's delusional.

Again - this bodes the question 20 or 30 years down the road what did we do when the Ba'athists rearmed? We aren't doing anything to Iran right now - or to North Korea...not so much because we're under strength but because it's DIFFICULT to mount pressure against a nation's will to arm itself. The Globe recognizes the right of a nation to do such a thing.

We could not impose a restriction on such armament forever on Iraq - eventually the political consensus would be to let them do their own thing - 10 years after which they would have invaded someone else because THAT is their mind-set.

That's the way the world works, we saw it time and time again in the politics of Europe...only the most dramatic being WWI and WWII.

The best way to prevent such an instability in the region was to destroy Iraq and occupy it which we did...Iraq's turmoil is contained and has NO bearing on regional politics except the concern it may spill over...it is nothing compared to the concern of a large invasion.

The fact that there are entangling alliances in that region is even more reason - technically Iraq was on our side opposing the Soviet Union. Had they invaded Iran again we'd be in another problem of facing off with the Russians.

[The American]

Timmytour wrote: Freemason wrote: I wish - I haven't been able to get Google Ads to work yet :)

But no - the point is that Saddam did need to be removed - the world should not have to blockade an entire nation and its nearly 30 million people from the rest of the world because of its political party's desire to conquer their neighbors.

Would we be having No Fly Zones and tirades with Iraq 100 years from now? Rediculous waste of time that can only end with the utter collapse of Iraq or the lack of interest by those containing Iraq in which Iraq would have thus risen again to try and conquer her neighbors.

First of all Saddams intentions and his capabilities were poles apart. That's something Powell and Rice recognised prior to 9/11 but chose to ignore after the event.

Secondly, for all his faults, it's possible that Saddam was a safer bet in power in Iraq then the vaccum of power that would follow were he to be toppled. If not safer for the Iraqi people, then certainly for the region and possibly the world. That's something a certain other President Bush recognised to be true.

But even if you agree the world would be better off without him there can you honestly say the only way you can think of it being done was to launch an invasion and imagine that the world would fall in love with democracy American style afterwards?

That's delusional.

The invasion of Iraq came after 9/11. Saddam's capabilities and intentions were NOT known at the time. No one knew. Unless Powell had information no one else knew about. I recall he stood before the American people on national t,v. explaining satellite images of trucks supposing to be moving WMD from one location to another, evading insects. Hussein ordered inspectors to leave the country shortly after. It was only a few months prior to the invasion did he allow them to return.

His capabilities in conducting an aggression is hindsight. So, was Saddam a safer bet? Nope, not even without WMD. It did not stop the slaughter of many after the Iraqi rebellion in 92'. No doubt Saddam had to be removed.

As for the Iraqis embracing freedom, I've seen the results. Purple fingers and a smile pretty much explains their love of freedom. However, you said democracy American style? Delusional. They created their own style.

:wink:

Trig.

**By the way, Freemason, excellent post. One that makes you think.**

[Trajan]

24 Feb 2001 In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

He did know. So did Rice. So did the CIA, NSA, NRO and the rest of the alphabet soup.

[sLiPpY]

Freemason wrote: Germany paid a horrible cost for invading France - even though it had gotten away with invading France just 40 years before WWI and many times before that.

The US's hands were tied during the Cold War - and could not chose a side or decide to side against both in the Iraq-Iran war.

But why should Saddam get away with this when Germany could not?

What are you talking about? The man has been sentenced to hang already. :P

[Trajan]

Freemason wrote: Germany paid a horrible cost for invading France - even though it had gotten away with invading France just 40 years before WWI and many times before that.

[/url]

Germany got away with the Franco Prussian War because they won. How many timed did they inavde France before that?

Hint: Actually none, as Germany did not exsist until 1871.

And what horrible fate befell her after 11/11/18? Outside of the Rhineland being occupied on failure to pay indemnotoes, what were they?

[The American]

Trajan wrote: 24 Feb 2001 In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

He did know. So did Rice. So did the CIA, NSA, NRO and the rest of the alphabet soup.

I hate being right.

History update;

Quote:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030205-powell-un-17300pf.htm

Remarks to the United Nations Security Council

Secretary Colin L. Powell
New York City
February 5, 2003


Is this just a forgotten moment? A dream I once had? Nope. A very good read,

Attempting to rewrite history has its challenges.

Saddam had to be removed.

Trig.

[LostSoul3412]

Freemason wrote: The US's hands were tied during the Cold War - and could not chose a side or decide to side against both in the Iraq-Iran war.

Was that why we were able to official supply Iraq with weapons, while secretly selling those same weapons to Iran?

[LostSoul3412]

Freemason wrote: But why should Saddam get away with this when Germany could not?

Because we learned from history that punishing a country to the extremes that the Treaty of Versailles did only leads to more war.

See WWII for details.

[The American]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Freemason wrote: But why should Saddam get away with this when Germany could not?

Because we learned from history that punishing a country to the extremes that the Treaty of Versailles did only leads to more war.

See WWII for details.

Would this include countless sanctions imposed by the U.N? What did we learn? Removing a government leadership is not punishment, it is judgement.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Freemason wrote: Germany paid a horrible cost for invading France - even though it had gotten away with invading France just 40 years before WWI and many times before that.

The US's hands were tied during the Cold War - and could not chose a side or decide to side against both in the Iraq-Iran war.

But why should Saddam get away with this when Germany could not?

Your post makes no sense whatsoever.

The link you provide goes to iran-iraq war, 01min:43sec .
Now I don't know for a fact but, there's a good chance you witness American military hardware being used in that clip.
There's also a very good chance the intelligence and satellite recon was performed by the US Military.
Your question "But why should Saddam get away with this when Germany could not?" is quite simple, America was not Germany's friend and partner.

Perhaps you could ask your question of these two men.

After all they were deeply involved in the Iran-Iraq War effort.

[Trajan]

The American wrote: Trajan wrote: 24 Feb 2001 In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

He did know. So did Rice. So did the CIA, NSA, NRO and the rest of the alphabet soup.

I hate being right.

History update;

Quote:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030205-powell-un-17300pf.htm

Remarks to the United Nations Security Council

Secretary Colin L. Powell
New York City
February 5, 2003


Is this just a forgotten moment? A dream I once had? Nope. A very good read,

Attempting to rewrite history has its challenges.

Saddam had to be removed.

Trig.

If only you were right. To prove you are, show me where the so called WMDs are. I'll make it easy for you. The ones he outlined in his dog and pony show. The one with all the colors.

And while you are having moments of forgetfulness:http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-10-01-powell_x.htmPowell regrets 2/03 presentation

Powell described the assertions he made about the purported labs as "the most dramatic" element of his Feb. 5, 2003, speech. He acknowledged April 2 that the nformation was suspect but stopped short of drawing any public conclusions.

In his comments on NBC, Powell went further.

"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading," he said. "And for that, I am disappointed, and I regret it."

[LostSoul3412]

The American wrote: Would this include countless sanctions imposed by the U.N? What did we learn? Removing a government leadership is not punishment, it is judgement.

Who said anything about removing a government leadership?

Also, who said that it was our place to judge?

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Freemason wrote: Timmytour wrote: Freemason wrote: I wish - I haven't been able to get Google Ads to work yet :)

But no - the point is that Saddam did need to be removed - the world should not have to blockade an entire nation and its nearly 30 million people from the rest of the world because of its political party's desire to conquer their neighbors.

Would we be having No Fly Zones and tirades with Iraq 100 years from now? Rediculous waste of time that can only end with the utter collapse of Iraq or the lack of interest by those containing Iraq in which Iraq would have thus risen again to try and conquer her neighbors.

First of all Saddams intentions and his capabilities were poles apart. That's something Powell and Rice recognised prior to 9/11 but chose to ignore after the event.

Secondly, for all his faults, it's possible that Saddam was a safer bet in power in Iraq then the vaccum of power that would follow were he to be toppled. If not safer for the Iraqi people, then certainly for the region and possibly the world. That's something a certain other President Bush recognised to be true.

But even if you agree the world would be better off without him there can you honestly say the only way you can think of it being done was to launch an invasion and imagine that the world would fall in love with democracy American style afterwards?

That's delusional.

Again - this bodes the question 20 or 30 years down the road what did we do when the Ba'athists rearmed? We aren't doing anything to Iran right now - or to North Korea...not so much because we're under strength but because it's DIFFICULT to mount pressure against a nation's will to arm itself. The Globe recognizes the right of a nation to do such a thing.

We could not impose a restriction on such armament forever on Iraq - eventually the political consensus would be to let them do their own thing - 10 years after which they would have invaded someone else because THAT is their mind-set.

That's the way the world works, we saw it time and time again in the politics of Europe...only the most dramatic being WWI and WWII.

The best way to prevent such an instability in the region was to destroy Iraq and occupy it which we did...Iraq's turmoil is contained and has NO bearing on regional politics except the concern it may spill over...it is nothing compared to the concern of a large invasion.

The fact that there are entangling alliances in that region is even more reason - technically Iraq was on our side opposing the Soviet Union. Had they invaded Iran again we'd be in another problem of facing off with the Russians.

You're not a student of history, are you ?
The Iran-Iraq war was fought with America's assistance against the newly installed Ayatollah, remember the one who was holding Americans hostage for 300+ days?
As for your silly comment regarding Kuwait, Saddam was our friend our ambassador transmitted the pledge of the President to remain neutral and agreed with Saddam his claim that Kuwait actually did belong to Iraq proper before the British stole it during WWI.

[indieinmich]

Show me a leader that doesnt take advantage of their power.
Show me a leader who doesnt wish to maintain that power.

Sadam was a bad man.No doubt about that.But when I look out at world politics today I see alot of bad men.Some sitting idol.Others bombing their neighbors.SLAUGHTERS are happening all over!

We had a slaughter here in the US on 9/11.Its widely excepted that Osma Bin-laden was the master mind behind that attack and yet we have made very lttle head way with catching him.Why is that?

I may be more inclined to rid the world of scumbags when we already have our own trash on the curb for pick-up.