Your opinion on the iraq situation

Page 3/5
1 | 2 | | 4 | 5

By Latok

msx guru (3867)

Latok's picture

28-02-2003, 16:47

The longer this all takes, the more difficult I find it to legitimate the actions against Iraq, to be honest. At first, I was very pro war, but as days go by....I start thinking: why Iraq? Wasn't it Bin Laden they were after? And aren't there many more dictators around the globe who deserve some attention? Like Sander stated, it must have economical reasons. And I do have problems with that, yes.....Saddam is an easier target than Bin Laden. Is that the reason for this USA interest?

/me is confused what to think atm.....

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

anonymous's picture

28-02-2003, 17:05

Well...
We all invaded Yugoslavia for the war crimes going on there. Iraq has made more than 300.000 kurds disappear, so that alone would be reason enough!
Add to that the fact that they are still not disarming (after 12 years of constant pushing!!), I think the reasons become clearer by the day.

By Latok

msx guru (3867)

Latok's picture

28-02-2003, 17:16

Yes, but still.....They were after Bin Laden and from the moment they started on hitting Iraq, the attention on Bin Laden was gone.....The media hardly even mentions him!

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

anonymous's picture

28-02-2003, 20:58

The media still mentions him whenever a new tape (audio or video) is released. For the other part, his whereabouts are unknown, so what do they have to report about?!
Rest assured various intelligence agencies throughout the world are probably on the eye out for him 24/7.

By Latok

msx guru (3867)

Latok's picture

28-02-2003, 21:41

I heard yesterday, there are still some 16.000 american soldiers searching for him, yes......

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

28-02-2003, 22:19

I thikn they are targeting Iraq BECAUSE they can not get Bin Laden (yet). They got to keep the anti-terrorism engine running before people lose their attention (and thus their support) for it. And of course it are economical reasons. Remember the situation on Ambon about a year ago? People were slaughtering each other and the USA didn't want to intervene in this 'local problem'.

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

anonymous's picture

28-02-2003, 22:33

Uhm, IIRC that was not a case of a government against its own people. Which was the case in Yugoslavia and is the case in Iraq. Anyway... if you're going to start like that, then you might as well bring up Vietnam or whatever other situation the USA participated in.

It's a fact, choices must be made. You can't be everywhere all the time. You don't want that anyways! If you were the USA and three quarters of the world is complaining that you act as the world's policeman, you too would be very selective in what situations you're going to butt in.

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

28-02-2003, 22:36

Hmm so if the world expects them to be the policeman and asks them for help they do nothing and if the world doesn't ask a thing they trash the place? Sounds like real police to me! Tongue Tongue

By anonymous

incognito ergo sum (116)

anonymous's picture

28-02-2003, 23:01

LOL

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

25-03-2003, 14:43

anyway, the unevitable happened. I hear people say 'this will change the future of the entire world' and actually... I'm wondering if it really will. I'm also wondering... what's next? Because I'm afraid the USA is on a roll now....

Page 3/5
1 | 2 | | 4 | 5