can you please provide dates that a mosque was destroyed in Iraq while Saddam was in charge. Also note the time civil war and rampant instability blanketed the region with saddam?
that kind of info would certainly prove me incorrect.
that kind of info would certainly prove me incorrect.
Ooooooh. I see--you were specifically referring to major religious mosques (especially ones that are named Askariya) getting destroyed. Not "this kinda shit"--as in the use of torture chambers, human shredders, mass graves, chemical weapon attacks, and body part removals. I understand now.... clearly Saddam's reign was an ideal situation, and we ruined it completely.
Who elected us world police? See now you are shifting to the "worlds better off without him" arguement when the reality is we went in there for WMDs. Don't cut and run on why we are there. Don't you think the families of dead servicemen deserve to not be lied to and know the true reason we went there?
True, I don't need to shift to any other topics to argue that your original statement is wrong.
There were five reasons to invade Iraq that were given in speeches. One of them was WMDs. I'm not going into the old "invade Iraq" argument again, like you now want to do here, because it's pointless.
So those pictures are what you are saying we went there for?
please clear up my confusion. I distinctly remember talk about smoking guns being a mushroom cloud, uranium from Nigeria, and mobile weapons labs. If you say we went there to be world police, please provide the pre war justification proof that this was the main reason we were there. Also provide the time date and nations that deputized the United states to be world police
One of those five reasons was the humanitarian one you're asking for. So yes, those pictures are one more reason to invade Iraq. If people actually paid attention to political speeches, they'd have realized that.
Not that this is relevant to the topic, because your original statement that nothing bad ever happened in Iraq before we went there is still wrong.
I am sorry you feel that way, but my statement stands. We have destabilized a region and made many enemies the world over. What have we gained and why can't we try Saddam fairly if the evidence is so cut and dry?
Just because he is in a cage does not make him guilty
Or did we switch to "guilty until proven innocent" or "he must be guilty because that is Bushs justification of the week."
What does this have to do with your incorrect assertion that "this kinda shit" never happened before in Iraq? Nothing, but I'll give a short response anyway. It's my own fault for providing a way to veer the thread off topic.
Feel free to question Saddam's guilt, but I wouldn't do it anywhere near a crowd of Iraqis, they'd probably lynch you. Some of the evidence is already in this thread. You really think Saddam might be proven innocent in a "proper" court huh? That's some imagination...keep it up. Who knows maybe the trial will prove that the Iraqis were singing for joy before our murderous oil-hungry armies arrived? I've yet to see those photos, though.
The problem is this administration has been so decietful, so manipulative, so coniving and underhanded, that it is impossible to trust them on any level
and yes, Iraq is in a much worse way than before we got there. We have created a MAJOR terrorist spawn point. I am sorry if you disagree, but Saddam hasn't been proven guilty at all. If you want justice, don't allow the perversion of the justice system
Ahh, so now you say Iraq is just "much worse". That's not the same as "this kinda shit never happened". So, I accept your admission that your original assertion is incorrect, and admit that your new statement that things are worse makes alot more sense. (At least it's a defensible position.) If you would not have been afraid to appear wrong in the first place and simply said this, maybe this thread would be on page three of the forum by now.
You do leave out the part of the story where we've attracted the attention of major terrorist groups and killed or captured large numbers of non-Iraqi "Jihad activists", but I'll leave that to other flame wars here.