™Mommy To Micah And Shawn!™
Thanks For The Amazing Tag Pyro!
The American and British planes were patrolling the no-fly zones created after the first Gulf War when they were being shot at (there has always been little skirmishes in the no-fly zones since the end of the first gulf war, so the shootings weren't anything new). Also, Iraq claimed not to recognize the zones because they were created by the Americans and Brits, and weren't enforced by UN resolutions, so the zones aren't internationally accepted by all countries. So teeechnically (a bit of a stretch), under international eyes the Iraqi's could possibly shoot at anything flying through there. It was highly highly stupid of them though, because that was simply asking for trouble at some point. However, the shootings had been going on for over a decade, and served no real threat. But like I said, it was still stupid of them, because eventually one of those planes was gonna drop a bomb (and they have between the first gulf war, and the second....the U.S and UK planes have shot down several planes, vehicles, etc in the no-fly zones).
However, the big issue that really needs to be fixed ASAP for this debate, is that Saddam and Iraq had NO involvement in 9/11 whatsoever. The 9/11 attacks were committed solely by Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam had absolutely no involvement. The Bush government did try to find some sort of link that they could pin on Saddam, but the closest they got was that Saddam absolutely hated Al-Qaeda and Osama. Saddam and the Baath party were a secular government, so they opposed the views of Al-Qaeda as Al-Qaeda is composed of radical fundamentalist Sunnis, so Iraq wanted nothing to do with them. There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq.The same goes for Iraq we did not ask for them to come over here for the 9/11 attacks.
The first reason America went to war with Iraq because they said that 'Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.' They proposed this invasion to the United Nations, who didn't agree with the invasion because there was no reliable evidence to support the claims (and low and behold, there were no WMD's). The U.N and Iraq came to an agreement, and Saddam allowed the U.N to send in weapon inspectors to see that he had no weapons. This was a problem for the U.S, because they couldn't launch an invasion while U.N workers were looking at bunkers the U.S was about to bomb. Suddenly the 'WMD's' were now being hidden in moveable trucks, and buried underground where no one would find them. The U.S government banned U.N weapons inspectors from entering Iraq, and said they would do their own search. Obviously Iraq wasn't happy with that, and the U.S claimed that Iraq wasn't complying with their demands to search for weapons, so they used that to officially launch the invasion.
So, low and behold, like everyone had been saying, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, but to save ground the U.S tried to link Iraq to 9/11 making it seem like the invasion was justified. As with the WMD's, no link between Iraq and 9/11 was found, so now the reason for the invasion was to 'liberate the Iraqi's.' However, trying to 'liberate' the Iraqi's has now created a civil war, so even 'liberating' the Iraqi's is failing and it doesn't look like the scenario will fix itself anytime soon, which is why the military is in a rut. It can't leave, because the government will just be overthrown by radicals, which will create even more religious friction, and there will be a new dictator. But people don't want the troops to stay in Iraq because of so many losses.
Now, as for the military part, I support the troops, but when you sign up for the military, you are signing up to do what the government and military tells you to do, without questioning. If the government says 'attack this country,' you're job is to attack the country. It's not a question of whether the soldiers wanted to or not. They were told to. Therefore they did. Now, if a soldiers objects to the war, they can apply to be a conscientious objector. What that does is the military lists you down as not agreeing with the war. It doesn't mean you get out of service though. The military stations you in a non-combat unit, where you aren't fighting at the front lines. You're still working for the military, but you're no longer an offensive force, playing mostly a defensive role. It's certainly a shame that the soldiers are over there dying, but unfortunately when signing up with the military you're not supposed to question commands, only follow them. Hopefully your brothers will return home safe though.
So to conclude, the main point to reitterate is that there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq. I can't say that I agree with Flawed about lumping all those who have died in the war as wanting to assert themselves somehow. Unforunately the military deaths are simply soldiers dying for their country. They signed up to serve their country, and their country said attack Iraq. A soldier does not have much control in the military, (there's a reason why they're referred to as 'grunts'), but those who have died were not asserting themselves. They were doing their job.
I don't support the Iraq war, but I DO support the troops, and I certainly have respect for anyone who serves in the military. You can't lump the U.S government and the U.S military as being one entity, because they are not. The two are seperate entities, but the military is a tool of the government. Unfortunately if the government tells the military to invade, whether it's justified or not, the military has to invade. So the soldiers who have been killed have died for their country, and they deserve the utmost respect for doing their job.
Last edited by Chubz; Jan 07, 2007 at 02:09 AM.
Many Thanks To SasuraiHell For The Sig!
im glad he is dead. why?, because he kille many people in iraq and showed no mercy, not even to the children. he was a cruel, and heartless dictator that need to be killed. so saddam can go to hell and burn. yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Born to rule, raised to lead, taught to establish: The African Queen
you know...when a guy is hanged its takes about 15 min of suffering. so i wonder why would the UN want to make a guy suffer and the U.S has allot to do with this. i am sure that everyone watched the video. and pretty much all of them is the U.S. doesn't any one feel like fishy? and especially if you read the newspaper. Saddam hassun said that he died for the enemy. so i think U.S has allot to do with this.
that is true but sometimes it doenst brake the neck and he dies a slow and very painfull death. Usally the cut the rope and try again with another one.
92% of teens moved to rap. I am one of the 8% rebelions
Well to tell you the truth I wish they would have had to do it a couple of times. You know he needs the torture since he did that to others.
™Mommy To Micah And Shawn!™
Thanks For The Amazing Tag Pyro!