By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
koffieboon on 20 March 2008
Edit Thread
kazadoom said:
koffieboon said:
kazadoom said:
koffieboon said:
Rock_on_2008 said:
By defeating the evil Iraqi regime and getting control of Iraq's oil supplies. USA is clearly winning the war on terrorism. Just a few more years and the war on terrorism will be all but won.

And having 100000s of innocent Iraqi citizens killed in the process is just collateral damage? Besides, there were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion.


 100,000 innocent Iraqi citizens, where do you hear this crap.  What about the thousands that Sadam had murdered on a regular basis.  I guess you did not care about them.  There were no terrorists there?  You must live in a dream world.  There is proof that there were terrorist training camps in northern Iraq, and Sadam regularly gave money to support terrorist groups.


Please don't tell me you still believe Al Qaeda was present in Iraq when Saddam was still there. And I never said there weren't horrible crimes against the Iraqi people when Saddam was still in charge. I'm saying that the US wasn't prepared to lead Iraq after conquering it and made some terrible decisions which laid a foundation for the massive violence erupting afterwards, while this possibly could have been prevented by making the right decisions. After conquering the country the US became responsible for the safety of the people in Iraq and they failed miserably in providing it. You shouldn't compare the situation of Iraq under Saddam and Iraq under the US, you should really compare Iraq in its current condition with how Iraq should have been if the US government took their responsibilities correctly.

Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist group in the world, and there were terrorist training camps found in Iraq.  I do not care who the terrorists were that were there.  You can deny facts if you want.  To say that Saddam was just a peace loving non terrorist supporting regime until the US came in is just laughable.  Besides, saving the people of Iraq from Saddam was a good enough reason to go in there, and you would be hard pressed to find a majority of Iraqi's that feel different.  I agree that things could have been done differently, but so could a lot of things that have been done by many leaders.  It is very easy to sit back after the thing is done and criticize the one who did it with no pressure on you to handle something that big in scale.  There were things done wrong and there were things done right to.  The violence over there has gone way down after the surge, so saying the condition is just so horrible now is just foolish.  What do you think it was like when Saddam was in power?


I know there are different terrorist groups as well, but some unknown group where both you and I don't even know if they pose any threat to the US won't be a reason to invade Iraq. And are you implying I said Saddam was just a peace loving non terrorist supporting regime? Please show me where I said those words.

I agree that getting rid of Saddam in itself was a positive thing, problem is that it wasn't the reason the US invaded the country, nor did they plan how to govern Iraq after conquering it. That itself is such a huge misstep, and such an obvious one, that the people responsible should be held accountable for it. They freed Iraq from a dictator, but instead of helping the country forward they just put it in another, possibly even bigger, mess. Of course it is always easier to judge about a situation afterwards, but are you seriously saying they couldn't have known they had to govern the country after occupying it?

About the surge, I'm not sure it really made the country safer. Maybe less US soldiers are getting killed, but I don't know how many Iraqis are getting killed now and before the surge.