Why George W. Bush Really Invaded Iraq

well as i know in nam we didnt purposely attack inocents because they disagreed with us.
ask the iraqis who survived saddams liquidations on what they think.

and when your in a war or fight a war inocents die,

That is exactly why you should avoid it.

theres allways gonna be a sub human like saddam, and his followers.

we cant let people die like we have not just the usa did with hitler.

when free people turn there backs on evil people it gives that scum more strenghth.
wish the world was all free but were in a real world not a fantisy world.

some day maybe till then we will fight to free the opressed.

There hasn't been an American President that can even come close to the quantity of slaughter of innocents that Saddam did without even thinking.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Different names,SS!

Yes, the dropping of the A Bombs was and remains controversial.

But what is not debated is the mind set of the enemy then, and that Australian, New Zealand, and British lives were saved, not just American. The captured military was Forced into a Death March, and some captives were used for " medical experiments". The enemy opted for suicide rather than capture, and young men considered it an honor to crash onto Allied ships. The enemy's citizens had been called to arms to repel an anticipated invasion of their homeland.

IMO, there is a difference in being willing to die for one's country than in being willing to die for the Emperor, whom they considered to be a god.

Germany had a rocket delivery system, and "heavy water" plants. Do you think that they would not have sent nuclear bombs onto London had time permitted?

Vietnam was a horrible event. Yet, there are places like Indonesia that threw out the Russians in the aftermath, so maybe some good came from it.

BTW, this tells where Agent orange came from.

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/vietnam/

Are you using United States' involvement in Viet Nam as a symbol appropriate for a little late-night American-bashing?

Many who protested against the war did so because of a deep hatred for the suffering experienced by the Vietnamese (while ignoring the 150,000+ Americans killed and 340,000 wounded, and who were hated for it). However, outside the US it was using the Vietnam war for the most part to develop a theory of imperialism implicating expansive U.S. hegemony. In other words, the reality of the Vietnam war was less important than the war as a potent symbol.

Unlike the Americans, those in other countries did not have to face their own war machine or the draft.

Your using "SS" as an analogy is disturbing, and implies hate of the US. There are other venues on the web where you can talk about American Imperialism all you like with those that share your views. We get a queasy feeling when we hear such talk, as we don't know when the next McVeigh might show up.

Angeline


click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

would have died on both sides if we invaded withn the j-a-p-s mentality to fight to the last person?

we warned them showed them and evan wityh the 1st bomb they refused to surenender, so your lame point is just a lame point.

and vietnam we used carpet bombs, to bad we stopped eh!

more of my buddies died because of the pansy people.

I saw a large part of the study somewhere on the net a while ago. I'm going to try to track it down now. The study made news in a number of places.

the Reagan administration was supporting Saddam. The gassing of them took place in 1987/1988 when Reagan was still president and Bush senior Vice President and the administration supported Iraq financially and diplomatically. Some people even say that the Reagan administration even helped Iraq developing those WMDs.

The fact that the Reagan administration in fact did support Saddam before and after the gassing is more important.
Mark keeps posting about the Kurds and the gassing of them and I have a feeling that he did like the Reagan administration that supported a country which is responsible for such atrocities.

saddam was ok you sem to think we shouldnt have removed saddam did you like him that much?

Where did I or anybody else for that matter (except for those that supported Reagan and thus his support to Saddam) say that Hussein was OK?

I didn't say that it was wrong to have him removed from power. You took the example of the Kurds and I simply stated that the Kurds were gassed while Reagan and his administration were supporting Saddam financially and diplomatically.

Do you think Reagan did a good job by supporting him and that Rumsfeld did the right thing to go shaking his hand?

the president now in power is very smart and brave to do the right thing.
and back then did we know saddam the evil gassed the kurds?

i doubt it`and to say that we did support him as you say knowing he gassed i dont beleave it

The CIA was well informed about what was going on.

The entire world had seen pictures of the atrocities.

If the Reagan administration had not seen them or wasn't aware of what was going on, I have a hard time thinking that anyone would consider it was an administration worth its name.

and we did the right thing

and if the whole world saw the atrocities they said nothing, did nothing, and yet it was the usa who removed him . hmmmmmmm

When it occured, the US supported Saddam. Do you think it was OK for the Reagan administration to support him? That is the only question here. You refer to the atrocities by Saddam against the Kurds, but yet don't answer if it was ok or not for the Reagan administration (which included Rumsfeld) to support him.

Many countries supported the Kurds against Saddam AND the Turkish government (which is part of NATO) and the Sunnis. US on the other hand supported Saddam. Was that a correct decision by Ronald Reagan?

please provide links that we new about them allso that the world new about them.
and why didnt they say something.hmmmmm

if these reports are true bush made up for the bad judgements .
so the wmd that werent there now where are they?

were all not equiped with 20/20 vision.

That bad judgement cost hundered of thousands of people's lives.

I am glad to see that you hold the Reagan administration partly responsible for those lives though.

we all see in know if those articles are acurate and truthfull, with 20/20 hindsite but at the time we cant say as we dont know do we?

and i think since the past cant be changed we should learn from it as our president showed in by removeing saddam and the results seem to show me were right.
and as the other countries that supposedly new what those articles aledge why were they quiet they can yell now but why not then hmm.
maybe more than truth in these articles.

> When it occured, the US supported Saddam. Do you think it was OK for the Reagan administration to support him? That is the only question here. You refer to the atrocities by Saddam against the Kurds, but yet don't answer if it was ok or not for the Reagan administration (which included Rumsfeld) to support him.

You want to ask questions, but are unwilling to answer them. And offended when someone asks a question of you. You're not the Official Speakeasy Interrogator charged with the authority to question but never answer. It's such a familiar and tiring pattern...

Fridays, sheesh...

DE

"The entire world had seen pictures of the atrocities."

Sitting on their behinds waiting for the USA to do something? Damned if we do, damned if we don't! Sheesh!

Were the Kurds gassed while Reagan, Bush and Rumsfeld were in power and supported Hussein?

Elvis has nothing to do with the Kurds, my friend.

and elvis was a supporter

Elvis was a supporter of what?

The history of the Kurdish people is full of atrocities stretching back to the nineteenth century and beyond.

In the first half of the fifties, last century, the harsh policies of the Turkish, Iraqi and Iranian regimes, which led to millions of Kurds being forcibly reallocated, assimilated, imprisoned or killed, passed unnoticed. This was due to many factors, including the dishonest and misleading policies of the concerned states, the cover-up by the west and the USSR, and the inability of the Kurds to publicize their case successfully. In the second half of the twentieth century some publicity regarding the Kurds was visible but mainly regarding the Kurds who were fighting the Iraqi regime under the leadership of Mustafa Barzani. This publicity was the result of the cold war between the USA and USSR, which usually supported Baghdad;

http://www.kurdistanica.com/english/humright/articles/hum-article-06.html

The plight of the Kurds has always been ignored by the whole world including the USA. And if they get any attention at all from the US now it will probably be because their oil.