Brits admit validity of Iraqi death toll

they didnt just "break a rule" they aggressively invaded and conquered a sovereign nation. i can't believe how quickly this is forgotten. we freed the nation they conquered, and then made an agreement that they could only continue to exist if they did what we told them. they didnt. case closed. if you know a kuwaiti, ask them about the rules iraq broke.

false dichotomy. you are overplaying your "can't have it both ways" routine.

an unstable iraq is bad for the world, not just iraq, you cant see that?

 

My support of the war has nothing to do with any empathy for the Iraqis. I personally feel like we are flushing the terrorist bastards out of their ratholes and killing every one that we can. I'd much rather do it over there, with Iraqis suffering the collateral damage, than over here.

 

we have been reapeating over and over that we dont favor staying in iraq for the sake of the precious iraqis, but CC cant seem to get it.

 

Global strategic positioning.

To set an example.

There are many reasons for the invasion besides caring about the Iraqis.

 

You completely twisted up that first statement. The 'rule breaking' only came after the conquering. Further, the consequences for the rule breaking did not authorize the use of force as a primary means.

Yes, I am intentionally overplaying it. And no, it's not a false dichotomy. Iraq wasn't unstable until we invaded it! Don't you understand that?

An example of what? How bad our administration misled us? You don't think that Afghanistan was enough of an example? And how strategic is it to handcuff yourself by getting involved in unnecessary conflicts, thus weaking your force?

 

Damn. Only 600,000? At this rate we'll be over ther forever. Come on guys..whatever happened to those M.O.A.B.'s? Drop a few more of those things.

 

An example of what happens if you are a terrorist nation, now given - we haven't really followed through with that example in some other cases yet.

We aren't handcuffed. If something had to happen with Iran, we could have a large force there in minimal time because of our location. And Iraq? Well, sorry guys, get your $h*t together & put together your government & police that we've given you plenty of time for.

 

We already had bases and a large military presence in the Mid-East. Iraq hinders what we may need to do in Iran.

 

they call it a cease fire for a reason. the fire resumes if the terms are not met. it couldnt be more explicit. we were prepared to take baghdad in 91. breaking a cease fire authorizes force.

of course it was. your premise was that if you do not care about iraqis you should favor pulling out. there are more options. you can not care about iraqis and still favor staying iraq for other reasons.

yeah saddam, real stable. he had already invaded and taken over a neighbor country and enjoyed slaughtering kurds. stable. stable leaders dont invade other countries. saddam only obeyed force, he was a maniac and totally unstable.

long term stability is a tough task, but saddam wasnt getting anyone there. democracy and reason may take a long time to settle in, but they are worth the wait.

(i am not opposed to a gradual pullout, i trust bush to decide what to do)

 

We had a military presence, but now we have a much larger one. Iraq only hinders what we need to do in Iran as long as we let it. As I said earlier, we could leave at the drop of a hat if need be.