The point is someone called the US and Iraq allies so what?
The term ally or support is meaningless it does not make them "best buddies" it just a beneficial arrangement until a objective is met.
"old useless muntions were found" because we put boots on the ground there was no other way of that determination.
So what does the Iran Iraq war have to do with this topic eh? What about that deflection? Or that other deflection of Invading Syria ?
Erm...well maybe because it exposes the disgusting hypocrisy of the United States and Britain when considering the justifications for the Iraq War?
So we can apply that to Iraq and Syria then. So Iraq moved their weapons into Syria...because...until....no..no it makes no sense whatsoever.
Originally posted by SOLIDSNAKE101
reply to post by neo96
You provided a weak and pathetic blog to bolster this thread and win over an argument. If this was a real case then you would've opened a new thread screaming iran, iraq syria china blah blah blah. Your intention stinks.edit on 18-3-2013 by SOLIDSNAKE101 because: (no reason given)
Funny I would say the disgusting hypocrisy of Saddam and those Eastern countries who claim they are "allies".
reply to post by Hopechest
Whether the stated reason was truthful or not is sort of irrelevant.
Makes sense to me lot of things get lost in a war zone easy access for some people to aquire weapons of mass destruction.
So, in direct answer to my earlier question you said you don't support military action against Syria to recover the alleged Iraqi WMDs
Yet you're justifying the invasion of Iraq which was to find the WMDs. Which incidentally wern't found, or not in the manner we were led to believe they would be.
Apparently they were moved to Syria, yet you're not in favour of attacking Syria to get the supposed weapons?
Maybe because...some of the instances of gassings undetaken by Iraqi forces was done during the Iran-Iraq war.
A war in which the United States supported Iraq. I hope you're following this Neo...
Invading Syria is also relevant as you were the one who brought up Syria in the first place and it was a legitimate question in light of your views regarding the invasion of Iraq to recover WMDs which you then claimed were moved into Syria.
So which way do you want to have it first your saying they don't exist now your saying the do exist and some how I want the Us to invade another country because of something that "doesn't exist" SO really WHICH WAY IS IT? Either Saddam had them or he didn't and if he didn't that means Syria is not going to get "invaded" Again which way is it?
Oh I get it now! It's all Saddam's fault! Thousands dead in the Iraq War and all this time it was Saddam's attempt to assassinate the President which is the reason behind it all.
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.
A war which 2 enemies were killing themselves
Thousands were dying long before the US ever got there and did i say that was the reason behind the Iraq war? No. The assasination plot was brought up because someone actually thought the US/Iraq were ever "allies".
It's you saying Saddam had them and moved them to Syria yet somehow you don't justify invading Syria to retrieve them. Even though by your own admission you can't know the WMDs are actually in Syria unless you have boots on the ground which is why according to you that Iraq was invaded