US military action likely caused birth defects in Fallujah, Iraq

[hiphop]

The one thing you continued to be wedded to is finding or not finding WMD weapons after Saddam's removal.

LOL

I remember you were fairly convinced that the troops would find WMD there. How many times did you insist on the fake US/UK WMD story to convince anybody in this forum that the US was right to declare war?

Also, since you seem to think there´s still any reason to LOL, you should probably have gone to serve your country instead of staying in front of your safe monitor to argue pro-war. I´m quite sure you wouldn´t think it´s a funny affair if you had been around. Ask the soldiers who came back maimed, or the mothers of the dead young soldiers.

 

[maycocksean]

Well, to use weapons of mass destruction against another country is considered in international relations to be a very serious and threatening action and has impacted most people's assessments on Saddam's regime.

No, it does not impact my assessment of the danger. Would there be any point in me explaining why?

Apparently not. You didn't even bother to answer my question as to whether it would be worth my time to explain my point of view. Just plunged back into the same old arguments.

*sigh*

Can you not see this is why you've been unable to sway anyone to your point view?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Also, since you seem to think there´s still any reason to LOL, you should probably have gone to serve your country instead of staying in front of your safe monitor to argue pro-war. I´m quite sure you wouldn´t think it´s a funny affair if you had been around. Ask the soldiers who came back maimed, or the mothers of the dead young soldiers.

Thank you.

I just find the whole thing unsettling because of how strongly he keeps pushing his case for the war-it's an obsessive fascination, I don't get it. Even a lot of people who originally supported this changed their minds after a while.

Yeah. Sorry, Strongbow, you can throw all the articles and statistics and whatnot at us all you want. I personally will never, ever be convinced that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do. I don't believe war is the way to settle a problem with somebody. I don't believe innocent people should have to be hurt or killed because a few leaders can't get their crap together and revert to immature, stupid behavior. Certainly there are violent people in the world who should be dealt with, but you can't possibly tell me, in this day and age, with all the technology and supposed superior "intelligence" we have, that there's no other less violent way we could deal with or get rid of people of Saddam's ilk. The war was a sham from the start, and its end needs to come NOW.

Angela

 

[Strongbow]

Good Lord, do you actually think I'm interested in debating this with you?? History has proven that utterly pointless.

Whats wrong? Don't think you could make a good case for Saddam over Malaki?

It's been seven years of you rationalizing this war. This may come as a shock, but your constant repetition of the same rationale over and over and over and over and over again has failed to sway my opinion.

By the same token, its been seven years of you defending keeping Saddam in power, which makes it a bit strange why you can't come up with any reasons why Saddam would be a better leader than Malaki for the Iraqi people, the security and stability of the region, and US interest.

 

[Strongbow]

60 army recruits killed, 125 wounded

Iraq suicide bomb hits army recruits, kills 60 - World - GMANews.TV - Official Website of GMA News and Public Affairs - Latest Philippine News

There´s a suicide bomber nearly every fucking day. No good life for Iraqi civilians with all those extremists around.

Saddam was a cruel dictator, but apparently had control by all means because those religious extremists feared him. US troops and new Iraqi troops are both unable to stabilize the country. Civil war for another, say, 10 years?

There was never any civil war, only the threat of one. Violence occurs in countries around the world every day. Over 16,000 people are murdered in the United States every year. Over 13,000 are murdered in Mexico every year.

The current murder rates in Mexico and Russia are well ahead of Iraq in 2010. The murder rate in February 2010 in Iraq was less than the murder rate in the United States.

Saddam's actions as leader of Iraq led to the deaths of over 1 million people, multiple wars, use of WMD on a mass scale and unexceptable danger to the global economy and global energy supply.

Iraq and the Persian Gulf today are far safer and secure than they were when Saddam was in power.

 

[Strongbow]

I remember you were fairly convinced that the troops would find WMD there. How many times did you insist on the fake US/UK WMD story to convince anybody in this forum that the US was right to declare war?
.

Those were not my reasons for the US and other countries for launching the war. My reasons were based on 17 UN Security Council Resolutions that Saddam was in violation of and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement that he was also in violation of. It did not rely on any claims of certain types of WMD located under Building A or C.

More importantly, the unravelling of the containment regime, mainly sanctions and the UN Weapons embargo, meant that containment, even if it could work, was no longer possible. That meant the only solution for dealing with Saddam was regime removal.

The cost and consequences of NOT removing Saddam, in terms of lives an money, would have only increased each year that Saddam remained in power with the sanctions and weapons embargo essentially gone. Leaving Saddam in power unhindered by any effective containment regime would only expose the region and the world to an increasing threat that would act just as it had done before, and this time with new weapons, strategy and tactics making the cost and consequences of dealing with Saddam far greater.

Removing Saddam has saved an enormous number of lives and removed threats to global energy supply and the global economy. The number of lives lost pales in comparison to the number of lives Saddam was responsible for taking while he was in power.

 

[Strongbow]

Apparently not. You didn't even bother to answer my question as to whether it would be worth my time to explain my point of view. Just plunged back into the same old arguments.

*sigh*

Can you not see this is why you've been unable to sway anyone to your point view?

I stayed on the subject matter. If you have something relevant to add, please do.

 

[Strongbow]

Thank you.

I just find the whole thing unsettling because of how strongly he keeps pushing his case for the war-it's an obsessive fascination, I don't get it. Even a lot of people who originally supported this changed their minds after a while.

It involves US national security as well as global security, so it is a very important issue. There are dozens of people in here that have pushed an opposing view, the overwhelming majority in fact. I used to oppose the removal of Saddam back in the early to mid 1990s. But certain events and circumstances changed my mind.

Yeah. Sorry, Strongbow, you can throw all the articles and statistics and whatnot at us all you want. I personally will never, ever be convinced that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do.

Do you believe it would be better to have Saddam as the leader of Iraq than Malaki? Do you think US security and regional security in the persian Gulf would be better with Saddam, rather than Malaki?

I don't believe war is the way to settle a problem with somebody.

In general? Do you think US involvement in World War II was wrong? Do you think self-defense is wrong?

I don't believe innocent people should have to be hurt or killed because a few leaders can't get their crap together and revert to immature, stupid behavior.

Have you ever thought about how many innocent people would die if Saddam had NOT been removed? Have you considered the cost and consequences of leaving Saddam in power?

Certainly there are violent people in the world who should be dealt with, but you can't possibly tell me, in this day and age, with all the technology and supposed superior "intelligence" we have, that there's no other less violent way we could deal with or get rid of people of Saddam's ilk.

Technology does not equal magic, and intelligence has never been perfect. Remember, were not talking about just one person, but an entire regime. Everything short of a military invasion to remove Saddam had already been tried and failed.

The war was a sham from the start, and its end needs to come NOW.

The war was a necessity and the removal of Saddam successfully occured despite the opposition. The rebuilding of the country has continued despite opposition to that necessary task as well. There is a new Iraq today that is developing and will one day have the peace and prosperity it should of had decades ago, but was denied it because of Saddam.

 

[anitram]

 

[corianderstem]

post # 9 of this thread.

And let's be honest - knowing FYM, I'm sure any discussion would rapidly devolve into the same posters posting the same back-and-forth arguments that pop up in any thread remotely related to the war.

Do I win a prize for predicting the inevitable?

 

[Diemen]

 

[Diemen]

Whats wrong? Don't think you could make a good case for Saddam over Malaki?

The reason why I'm not interested is because it's absolutely pointless trying to debate anything with you.

No one here wants to debate this with you. If you had any chance of convincing anyone you're right, it would've happened years ago. It's high time you drop it and move on.

 

[Strongbow]

The reason why I'm not interested is because it's absolutely pointless trying to debate anything with you.

No one here wants to debate this with you. If you had any chance of convincing anyone you're right, it would've happened years ago. It's high time you drop it and move on.

Or maybe you think its impossible to mount a defense of Saddam, you know the subject were actually discussing, vs the current leader of Iraq Malaki.

If your so convinced that leaving Saddam in power in 2003 was the best option for US national security, persian Gulf security, the welfare of the Iraqi people, one would think you would be able to make at least a few comments in defense of Saddam being the better leader of Iraq as opposed to Malaki.

 

[Diemen]

Or maybe you think its impossible to mount a defense of Saddam, you know the subject were actually discussing, vs the current leader of Iraq Malaki.

If your so convinced that leaving Saddam in power in 2003 was the best option for US national security, persian Gulf security, the welfare of the Iraqi people, one would think you would be able to make at least a few comments in defense of Saddam being the better leader of Iraq as opposed to Malaki.

You can bluster all you want about this and that, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is no argument I could present that you would find compelling (it should also be noted that there are more options than 1-invade Iraq and 2-leave Saddam alone). Not for lack of evidence, mind you, because in the past 7 years there have been plenty of arguments and evidence to refute your argument, but simply because you obviously wouldn't agree with it.

So, again, there is absolutely no point to it. Your argument won't convince me, and mine won't convince you.

Let me also take the time to remind you that constantly trying to goad others into arguments when they've repeatedly told you they're not interested in debating with you is a form of trolling.

So I ask you, yet again, to drop it.