Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - WAR IN IRAQ

kandayin · 11-10-2003, 07:22 PM

Actually I think the situation in Baghdad is probably closer to Beyrouth than what it was in Vietnam.
Especially since most attacks are in a relatively small area (Tikrit Baghdad Faloudjah).

As for the main question, I still think that the Bush administration should have come clear on their goals and their reasons if they wanted anything more than a personnal benefit.
They prepared fake reasons to go to war, hoping their economic, military and politic weight would grant them the support of the UN, Europe and most of the rest of the world but it did not work out as they intended and they got stuck in their rethoric.
If they wanted to set the Iraqi people free, why not telling everyone the truth, flat out, I'm sure they would have gained more support from both the states and the populations.
If it was to fight terrorism ( which is a nonsense in itself, curing symptoms is stupid in my opinion ) then why attack Iraq with so little evidence.
Iraq was certainly no threat to the US, then why choose that particular point to try and gather support for that war.

There's something completely obscure in this, and I think Bush should come clear with it if he wants to stabilize the situation in Iraq.

To sum it up, Saddam should have been gone back in 91. Since it has not been done, he deserved to get kicked but within the boundaries of international law and with the support the US should have been getting if they had come clear with it.
And certainly not in such a hurry, I fail to see the emergency with that war in Iraq.

11-10-2003, 07:22 PM	#24 (permalink)
kandayin Upright	Actually I think the situation in Baghdad is probably closer to Beyrouth than what it was in Vietnam. Especially since most attacks are in a relatively small area (Tikrit Baghdad Faloudjah). As for the main question, I still think that the Bush administration should have come clear on their goals and their reasons if they wanted anything more than a personnal benefit. They prepared fake reasons to go to war, hoping their economic, military and politic weight would grant them the support of the UN, Europe and most of the rest of the world but it did not work out as they intended and they got stuck in their rethoric. If they wanted to set the Iraqi people free, why not telling everyone the truth, flat out, I'm sure they would have gained more support from both the states and the populations. If it was to fight terrorism ( which is a nonsense in itself, curing symptoms is stupid in my opinion ) then why attack Iraq with so little evidence. Iraq was certainly no threat to the US, then why choose that particular point to try and gather support for that war. There's something completely obscure in this, and I think Bush should come clear with it if he wants to stabilize the situation in Iraq. To sum it up, Saddam should have been gone back in 91. Since it has not been done, he deserved to get kicked but within the boundaries of international law and with the support the US should have been getting if they had come clear with it. And certainly not in such a hurry, I fail to see the emergency with that war in Iraq.