It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jakomo
Put the shoe on the other foot. What if you were Iraqi and had to watch your neighborhood get carpet-bombed and people you KNOW who are innocent getting blown apart or shot up at checkpoints?
Tell me you'd simply lay down your weapons and say "Come on in, we love you and trust you."
Maybe if you were related to, or friends with, one of the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis that were gassed, tortured, raped, or murdered by Saddam, you might.
If your country was illegally invaded you'd fight just like everyone else, whether they called you a terrorist or a freedom fighter. I know I would. If I have foreign soldiers in MY country telling me what I can and can't do, I could see getting a little frustrated about that. Kill (even accidentally) some of my family and friends and I'm gonna get even more hotheaded. Then have the GALL to tell the world that things are oh so fine and dandy while I wait for my 4 hour daily allotment of electricity and I might start considering resistance.
Now realize that more than half the entire planet identifies more with the Iraqi than they do with the American and you'll start to understand. And watch the BBC, watch CBC Newsworld, watch PBS, watch Al Jazeera. Watch and read every different viewpoint you can before you make sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact.
People sometimes can't help rooting for the underdog.
Personally, I'd like nothing better than to see all US troops out of Iraq, replaced by UN troops. They're more capable and better equipped to deal with re-building, while the US Army is more equipped to country-breaking.
Yeah, now is the time for the UN to move in. They are like a blister...they come around after the work is done. Where were they when innocents were being murdered by Saddam? Doing really effective stuff, like passing seventeen resolutions that Saddam laughed at, or sending in inspectors, whom Saddam kicked out when they got too close to the prize. Oh, and let's not forget Kofi & Sons making money on the food for aid deal..
Originally posted by Djarums
I hate using hindsight, but why not for a moment.
Yes, the US supported Iraq over Iran. Yes the US supported rebel groups in Afghanistan over the Russians. Both very true. In both cases the justification given was "the lesser of two evils." In both cases we got bitten in the ass, hard.
So what to do in a situation like that...
Now comes the hindsight I was talking about. Let's just say for a moment that we sent no one into Iraq. Now, assuming that Hussein would continue his mode of operations and continue to pursue destruction, what would you all be saying if he funded/planned/implemented an attack on the US or UK etc. You'd all scream about the failures of US intelligence etc and how they dropped the ball (precisely the same way you scream about them dropping the ball with 9/11).
Another thing... let's say we hadn't touched the Taliban/Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and they performed another attack the screams would come "how could you not do anything etc etc".
In Haiti we were criticized for sending people in at all, and we were criticized by others for waiting so long to send people in.
Yeah we did some stupid things and supported some nutcases. After getting burned we took some action and got hell for it. But what can you do... the US is in a lose lose situation in that respect. Regardless of what they do, SOME GROUPS will be mad. Period. The only thing to do is go with what you've got. You're gonna catch hell anyways, at least catch hell for what you believe is right.
Originally posted by Jakomo
jsobecky: "Yeah, now is the time for the UN to move in. They are like a blister...they come around after the work is done. Where were they when innocents were being murdered by Saddam?"
Hey, where the F was the USA? Nice revisionist history pal. While the UN was flipflopping the USA was busy bombing the crap out of Iraq over the last 12 years! The No Fly Zones were NOT sanctioned by the UN, just by the US and UK.
"Doing really effective stuff, like passing seventeen resolutions that Saddam laughed at, or sending in inspectors, whom Saddam kicked out when they got too close to the prize. Oh, and let's not forget Kofi & Sons making money on the food for aid deal.. "
Learn some history. Saddam never kicked out inspectors, they were pulled out by the USA so they wouldn't get hurt when the US bombed Iraq.
And what, pray tell was the US doing until 2003 about Iraq? Nothing. Doing BUSINESS with them. Turning a blind eye to atrocities. Telling the Kurds to revolt and then hanging them out to dry when Saddam rolled in with attack helicopters.
The UN doesn't claim to be "champions of freedom and democracy" but the US laughably does.
The US asked the UN for it's go-ahead in the illegal war, and when the entire world declined, they said the UN was "irrelevant" and moved in anyway.
Of course, if the UN had supported the attack, everything would be okay with you, right? That's because you don't seem to have a grasp on actual history.
Go here and read this and then come back and talk about weapons inspectors:
After you admit that you were wrong on this very basic point then maybe you can begin to learn.
Your viewpoint is biased because of your hatred of the US and your sympathy for Saddam Hussein.
Originally posted by Satyr
He never did order them to leave. They were ordered to leave by the UN when they weren't getting full cooperation. I think you have some details confused. It probably depends more on what you'd rather believe, than what's true, eh?
[Edited on 3-22-2004 by Satyr]
Originally posted by Satyr
Maybe you should read the headline on that page.
What a Difference Four Years Makes
In 1998, they weren't claimed to have been "kicked out" by Saddam. That BS started after 9/11.
Incorrect. Look at this link. The year 1999 comes before the year 2001, according to the calendar that is used in the US.
And before you say that the link proves your point, all the arguments that deny Iraq kicked out the inspectors come from Letters to the Editor.
But in the 14 months since then, the Washington Post has again and again tried to rewrite history--claiming that Saddam Hussein expelled the U.N. inspectors from Iraq. Despite repeated attempts by its readers to set the record straight in letters to the editor, the Post has persisted in reporting this fiction.
Not only did Saddam Hussein not order the inspectors' retreat, but Butler's decision to withdraw them was--to say the least--highly controversial. The Washington Post (12/17/98) reported that as Butler was drafting his report on Iraqi cooperation, U.S. officials were secretly consulting with him about how to frame his conclusions.
Originally posted by Variable
Satyr I know what all the reports say but I think what you are missing is the fact the Hussein publicly said he would not continue to allow UNSCOM to do its work. After the threat of force Saddam relented, but still did not allow unfettered access. If they were not allowed to do their work, it can be argued that is why he was bombed (along with the BJ fiasco). The weapons inspectors could not do their job, per Saddams' orders. They were pulled out of the country because of the bombing. If they had stayed they would still not be able to do the job. Saddam, it could logically be said to be responsible for their departure because they were not allowed inspections.
I know the left wing media is writing web sites critiquing the word kicked out, but if Hussein had let them do their job they wouldn't have been taken out right? You're arguing semantics. That's why the Post changed its verbiage because they were in essence "kicked out" by Saddam, by his refusal to cooperate; which provoked bombing; which caused them to be pulled out ;so they wouldn't be taken as hostages. He has done that type of thing before you know. If I was an inpsector I wouldn't ahve wnated to hang around while they got bombed... You can look at it either way imho. It's all in how many conspiricy theories you believe in ;p
If you believe the official reports it all fits. If you believe it was all a sham then you believe whatever it is you think "really" happened.