US launches 17 airstrikes inside pakistan since mid-august

All I can say is that it is precisely this kind of behaviour that gives terrorists thier reasons for attacking the west, it is insanity of the highest degree,
Interfering in other countries business is always going to be a dangerous precedent and is guaranteed to make enemies , it has been going on for far too long.
The west has no right to invade any country in order to place a puppet goverment in power and I strongly suspect that is the whole purpose of the "terror war" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"Iraq attacked Iran and they fought for 8 years"

- that was in the 1980's, with the support of the united states government...are you suggesting that the usa invaded iraq in 2003 to protect iran from something that ended in 1988?


"then saddam attacked kuwait"

- that was in 1991 with US permission, and we kicked his ass out of kuwait in quick order...are you suggesting that the usa invaded iraq in 2003 to protect kuwait from something that ended in 1991?


"then again hit him over lies in 2003"

- what lies? are you suggesting that the usa invaded iraq in 2003 to protect america from lies? saddam was a criminal and a monster, but iraq was no threat to anyone in 2003:
No 10 knew: Iraq no threat | Politics | The Guardian

CIA Intelligence Reports Seven Months Before 9/11 Said Iraq Posed No Threat To U.S., Containment Was Working

CNN.com - Scott Ritter: Case against Iraq is speculation - September 13, 2002

Iraq dumped WMDs years ago, says Blix | World news | The Guardian



"it was justified to attack saddam in early 90s when he stupidly invaded kuwait
it was justified to take him out then... we never did, does anyone know why????"

- george bush senior explained why he didn't take out saddam by saying:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
- George HW Bush, 1998, proving that the apple sometimes falls farther from the tree


if you think it would be justified to take out saddam because he invaded kuwait (with prior permission from the US ambassador to iraq), then would you say it is justified to take out george bush after he invaded iraq? or take out bill clinton after he bombed the crap out of yugoslavia? or take out george bush senior after he invaded panama? or take out ronald reagan after he invaded grenada? or take out richard nixon after he secretly carpet bombed laos and cambodia? or take out lyndon johnson after he lied about US forces being attacked in the gulf of tonkin to get authorization to invade vietnam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

"Iraq attacked Iran and they fought for 8 years"

- that was in the 1980's, with the support of the united states government...are you suggesting that the usa invaded iraq in 2003 to protect iran from something that ended in 1988?


"then saddam attacked kuwait"

- that was in 1991 with US permission, and we kicked his ass out of kuwait in quick order...are you suggesting that the usa invaded iraq in 2003 to protect kuwait from something that ended in 1991?


"then again hit him over lies in 2003"

- what lies? are you suggesting that the usa invaded iraq in 2003 to protect america from lies? saddam was a criminal and a monster, but iraq was no threat to anyone in 2003:
No 10 knew: Iraq no threat | Politics | The Guardian

CIA Intelligence Reports Seven Months Before 9/11 Said Iraq Posed No Threat To U.S., Containment Was Working

CNN.com - Scott Ritter: Case against Iraq is speculation - September 13, 2002

Iraq dumped WMDs years ago, says Blix | World news | The Guardian



"it was justified to attack saddam in early 90s when he stupidly invaded kuwait
it was justified to take him out then... we never did, does anyone know why????"

- george bush senior explained why he didn't take out saddam by saying:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
- George HW Bush, 1998, proving that the apple sometimes falls farther from the tree


if you think it would be justified to take out saddam because he invaded kuwait (with prior permission from the US ambassador to iraq), then would you say it is justified to take out george bush after he invaded iraq? or take out bill clinton after he bombed the crap out of yugoslavia? or take out george bush senior after he invaded panama? or take out ronald reagan after he invaded grenada? or take out richard nixon after he secretly carpet bombed laos and cambodia? or take out lyndon johnson after he lied about US forces being attacked in the gulf of tonkin to get authorization to invade vietnam?

---

no no no

i think we totally had a misunderstanding. i thought u were sayin saddam didnt deserve this by sayin he posed no threat, cuz he not only did pose threat, he turn them into action!

by lies, i meant the WMD lies

justified: Moral justification that most rational people anywhere in the world would 'agree' on

about bill clinton and yoguslavia, dude there was a massacre there, ethnic cleansing, that bitch is now facing court over it in holland

and thanks for mentioning G H bush's comments, but i always think there is more than the cover of story, like the 90s iraq actually owning a lot of chemical weapons that were destroyed under int'l pressure and UN inspections in the next decade, thus totally risking a massive human-life factor in the region for American troops and non-americans as well

I think G.W Bush and people who facilitated this war should be sued at least in a civil court for merely lying to everyone and deception that led to many lost lives from both sides, i wouldnt go as far as calling him a war criminal the same way i call milochevich a war criminal, but Bush certainly violated some laws domestically and internationally

all in all, i do not agree that we should be policing the world at all, but there needs to be an effective UN to do this job, cuz someone must be able to stop lunatics in power when its absolutely needed to protect innocent lives

this is not happening yet, its kind of pick n choose on what world powers and mainly US wants, we turn a blind eye on darfur and arabs there and we turn a blind eye on Israel's mistakes. we act not for the good intention only, but we think about our money (read all those interests involved, whether its business money or not) first and foremost. we are down with completely undemocratic KSA while condemning others for being undemocratic. We are a republic and perhaps one of the worse types of representative democracies, but we keep banging on drums of spreading democracy all over the world, even with wars at the expense of other's lives. these are the inconsistencies I'm talking about that I have a problem with