Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4698251.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4692589.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4691979.stm
Basically it shows that what has happened in Iraq is exactly what those who opposed the war stated would happen.
Civilians killed in huge quantities and terrorism increased, meaning the risk to all of us increased.
Why was it such a good idea again?
*sigh* It wasn't a good idea at all...Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
There is already a thread about the second story that answers your question too jag. read it
yep jag, this war was a BIG mistake.. :embarassed:
Read some of it, seemed to get totally diverted by a few posters who can't handle the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Two days ago, on a SINGLE DAY in Iraq, over a 100 people were killed. That is nearly double than those who died in the London attacks. Yet you people do not believe that over the course of 2 years there hasn't been 25,000 dead? I am just surprised there hasn't been more - and there probably has been. Especially when this figure only looks at direct fatalities and not indirect ones such as the hospitals getting even worse and not being able to treat people and save them from things which even an average hospital could handle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4696993.stm
An article from today on the state of hospitals in Iraq.
Need another article?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4692881.stm
An article written by John Simpson, a hugely respected and by no means a part of any political movement, stating today how Iraq is descending into a quagmire and it is going to be very hard to stop. He has covered hundreds of conflicts, I trust his judgement.
Another? Read about the Iraqi constitution writers who were killed today?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4696869.stm
Iraq not only is a mess, but a dangerous out of control mess, which is creating a situation which directly endangers the lives of everyone inside and outside Iraq.
bbc is biased i couldn't find one good thing about the war on there...god for bid the media shows something good about anything :embarassed:
Which 'good' things were you hoping for in the war?Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Lets see there are elections now the people are free from a dictator.
Iraqis dont have to fear being thrown in an underground prison if they voice an opinion against saddam
The eletricity is back in most of iraq
running water is back in most of iraq
Biological and chemical weapons and even uranium artillery shells too. have been found.
Saddam is out of power
saddam will stand trial for his crimes
And more
http://www.truthorfiction.com/index-war.htm
bbc is biased ~D ~D ~D
Does anyone remenber the "Biased BBC" topics from a while back ?
Someone posted a load of links to show just how biased it was .
Half the links said it was biased in favour of the war and half said it was biased against the war .
Which 'good' things were you hoping for in the war?
Nice interesting footage of modern munitions doing amazing things with spectacular results and some really good flag waving commentary .
editThe eletricity is back in most of iraq
Are you sure about that one ~;)
Try again ~D ~D ~D
So Cesar, you cannot argue the points raised, so you go for the old 'bias source'. Unfortunately this is the BBC, it is recognised pretty much world wide as the least bias news source in the world. They have the reputation for a reason, clear, brilliant journalism with no political angle.
If they are so bias, show me in the articles where the bias shows? What in the articles is bias? Come on, show us.
They are not bias, you simply do not agree / cannot accept the fact that this is reality. Wake up! More people are dead, will be dead and are suffering because of this war, in Iraq and in the western world. What the hell are we doing there?!
For how longQuote:
Lets see there are elections now the people are free from a dictator.
But, they do have to fear terroristQuote:
Iraqis dont have to fear being thrown in an underground prison if they voice an opinion against saddam
They had these beforre the war..Quote:
The eletricity is back in most of iraq
running water is back in most of iraq
You could hardly call the things found WMD'sQuote:
Biological and chemical weapons and even uranium artillery shells too. have been found.
Again, another dictator will likey come up as soon as US troops leave or shortly ther after.Quote:
Saddam is out of power
saddam will stand trial for his crimes
And more
http://www.truthorfiction.com/index-war.htm[/QUOTE]
As i stated before attack on Iraq was a grave mistake.This a purely a tragedy. :bow:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
They dont show ANY of the good that has come from iraq only the bad. But i cant really blame them all the news networks seem to do this about everything
They had these beforre the war.
Atlantis , which war ~:cool:
ceasar was partially correct , the electricity supply did improve overall for a while , and it has improved dramatically in Northern areas , but the figures speak for themselves , they did get generation up to 5,600MW which exceeded the pre-war(this one) figure of 4,400MW , then it dropped to 3,600MW after several bombings and stations being taken off line for refurbishment , it is back up to 4,100MW .
All of which are way below the pre-war (first one) figures of 9,000MW .
I wonder if it is a good time to examine his running water fact or fiction claim ~;)
The Iraqi Ministry of Planning and Development Co-operation should be good for a laugh , or are they too biased ~D ~D ~D
They dont show ANY of the good that has come from iraq only the bad. But i cant really blame them all the news networks seem to do this about everything
Well why not look at Governmental and International bodies reports instead of the News media , there is some good news out there , but not much .
If the US is to be blamed for the actions of cowardly terrorists who kill innocents in Iraq, you must also give credit to the US for stopping Saddam's torture and killing chambers.
Posting the first article acts as though abuses were strictly limited to the Iraq war, and had the British Army fought in some other war, all the soldiers would have been perfect and not abused anyone.
The second one is from a biased group- peace activists who have a vested interest in making the civilian body count seem as large as possible- and makes no mention of Saddam's mass graves, in which hundreds of thousands are buried.
For the third one, it is foolish to think that terrorists wouldn't have attacked Britain even if they hadn't gone to war. The fanatics want to destroy all of western civilization. Appeasement, as one famous Brit said, is the tactic of throwing others to the crocodile first and hoping he gets full. It has never worked.
Crazed Rabbit
If the US is to be blamed for the actions of cowardly terrorists who kill innocents in Iraq, you must also give credit to the US for stopping Saddam's torture and killing chambers.
Yes full credit for stopping Saddams torture and killing chambers .
Isn't it a pity that they have been replaced with the new governments torture and killing chambers :dizzy2: Ask your government for confirmation if you think other sources might be too biased . It has all been published by them . It makes parts of Georges speech look a bit silly doesn't it.......
"We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near. "
The second one is from a biased group- peace activists who have a vested interest in making the civilian body count seem as large as possible- and makes no mention of Saddam's mass graves, in which hundreds of thousands are buried.
Actually Rabbit they say the figure is higher , but the only include deaths that they confirm from two sources , two of the sources they use are the Iraqi government and Iraqi mortuary reports .
It makes no mention of Saddams mass graves because it isn't a report on Saddams mass graves , so why would it mention it ?
So this new gov't has torture chambers? Please. Abu Gharib wasn't even torture. Abuse, but not torture.Quote:
Isn't it a pity that they have been replaced with the new governments torture and killing chambers Ask your government for confirmation if you think other sources might be too biased . It has all been published by them . It makes parts of Georges speech look a bit silly doesn't it.......
The figure they have is from a statistical survey that covers such a broad range (95% probability of the real number being between 8k & 200k) as to be useless, not to mention of questionable surveying.Quote:
Actually Rabbit they say the figure is higher , but the only include deaths that they confirm from two sources , two of the sources they use are the Iraqi government and Iraqi mortuary reports .
It makes no mention of Saddams mass graves because it isn't a report on Saddams mass graves , so why would it mention it ?
I mention Saddams graves because, although the terrorists have killed many people, it is less than how many Saddam killed a year. A net improvement. Except some act as though people are killed deader when the US is around trying to liberate Iraq than when 'good ole boy Saddam' is just killin' his own people.
Crazed Rabbit
So this new gov't has torture chambers? Please. Abu Gharib wasn't even torture. Abuse, but not torture.
Did I mention Abu Gharib or any of the coilition run detention facilities ?
No I said the new Iraqi government .
The figure they have is from a statistical survey that covers such a broad range (95% probability of the real number being between 8k & 200k) as to be useless, not to mention of questionable surveying.
Which survey are you talking about ? The IBC one or the one from the Lancet ?
I mention Saddams graves because, ...
You mention Saddams graves because it is irrelevant .
The war in Iraq was neither a good or bad idea, it was a necessary action.Quote:
Why was it such a good idea again?
The government of Iraq broke the ceasefire of the 1991 conflict repeatedly, causing the US/UK to continually have to use military action to stifle this misconduct. Up until the week before the war Iraq was continually firing on US/UK aircraft enforcing the UN dictates resulting from that situation.
The government of Iraq subverted the sanctions levied on it and bribed the UN. It used the UN sanctions to make money of the starvation of its own oppressed majority.
The government of Iraq used and pursued weapons of mass destruction against its own people and its enemies. This perusal continued after the 1991 conflict. The government created a climate in which the international intelligence community believed it had WMDs, which flew in the face of the UN and the sanctions placed against it.
The government of Iraq supported terrorism. This support was not only in the form of supporting palestinian terrorism in the same form as what occurred in London recently, but also with more internationalist terrorists.
The government of Iraq tried to assassinate a United States president.
The government of Iraq, embodied by Saddam Hussein, betrayed the trust of the US/European leaders who helped him gain power with his genocides.
In essence JAG, Saddam Hussein was a thorn in the eye of America and Europe. It goes against all we have learned to allow an aggressive dictator to remain in power, but we did. While in power during the time after 1991, Hussein did not make any attempts to clean up his act. His constant "antics" required the US to use military action against him in 1996. He played coy with weapons inspectors and created an image of his capabilities he hoped would protect him, but made him a danger to the international community. His sanction skirting could not be addressed in a bribed UN. Even after 1991 he didn't clean up his act. His continued willingness to subvert America in particular - including trying to kill a US president - could not stand after 9/11.
Finally, he was a horrible mistake. He was put into his position to fight Islamic extremism and create a secular modern country in the middle east. This went terribly wrong when hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were butchered, and continued to be butchered and starved into the 21st century. Unlike other dictators tacitly supported by the West, Saddam was of our making and that blight could not be allowed to continue if we truly believed in what we said, ie freedom and civil rights.
You may think the lack of WMDs and the violence isn't worth it, but if Iraq succeeds it will be. (And plenty of people in the anti-war crowd who are screaming now believed well and good he had WMDs)
As ironic as it seems, we owed it to the Iraqi people to give them a chance at their own government.
The question you and I both should be asking is how this war is being conducted. Are we fighting it correctly? Not if it was right for Saddam to go.
I think anyone who looks at the situation can see that Saddam was a danger and had no intentions of changing his ways. The war was legal and right simply on the grounds that he broke the 1991 treaty continually.
Unfinished business left unfinished only creates more problems.
Care to explain why it is 'irrelevant? I believe I showed its relevance:Quote:
You mention Saddams graves because it is irrelevant .
Crazed RabbitQuote:
I mention Saddams graves because, although the terrorists have killed many people, it is less than how many Saddam killed a year. A net improvement. Except some act as though people are killed deader when the US is around trying to liberate Iraq than when 'good ole boy Saddam' is just killin' his own people.
Iraq is covered with unexploded cluster bombs for kids to take home as souvernirsQuote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
Iraq is covered with unexploded landmines for people to walk on
Iraq is covered with unexploded munitions for kids to play with
Iraq is covered with DU rounds and dust to ensure cancer in later generations
Yep war is great ~:confused:
But Kiwitt the oil, the oil!
Look at how the prices have gone down and so has the gold price!
War is never great. I would like to ask how many of you here would rather live in Iraq under Saddam than the way it is now?Quote:
Iraq is covered with unexploded cluster bombs for kids to take home as souvernirs
Iraq is covered with unexploded landmines for people to walk on
Iraq is covered with unexploded munitions for kids to play with
Iraq is covered with DU rounds and dust to ensure cancer in later generations
Yep war is great .
I personally couldnt say as i have experinced neither..Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
For starters christians(and other religons) were given freedom to worship in Iraq, now anybody wearing a cross would surley be a fine target for a terrorist.
back to the original point,
at least they had life under sadam, now they have choas.
And if i didnt like how i was living i would try to change things, join the local rebellion......of course if my fellow Iraqis would join me.
This war was a bloody mistake. Even the neocons now this by now, even though they would never admit. Worst thing is that we have to fight at two fronts now. Does anybody remember Bin Ladn? :embarassed:
Did they? Dont dodge the wuestion. Going by what you know now would you rather live in Iraq under Saddam or live there now.Quote:
at least they had life under sadam, now they have choas.
I dont know as hes been holed up so long. I think he is just a figure head at this point.Quote:
Does anybody remember Bin Ladn?
Have we gotten it down to two? My this is progress. ~:)Quote:
Worst thing is that we have to fight at two fronts now.
I really dont think it would be fair for me to say. The question is what the Iraqies want. Many of them would probably tell you that they prefered sadam..Quote:
Did they? Dont dodge the wuestion. Going by what you know now would you rather live in Iraq under Saddam or live there now.
Btw, i didnt dodge the question i answered that i would want either and would want to try and change it, obviously that makes me differnt from the Iraqies so it would be hard to tell what they would want, which is really the question at hand..
What do you call many? A majority? The Bathists? I can tell you uneqivacly Id rather live there now. I ave a hope for freedom and a decent futre for my children. Whats to look forward to under Saddam. I dont think most of you can appreciate what its like to live in absloute fear of your government 24-7. All this crap about religous freedom there under Saddam. I thought thats why he and Bin Laden didnt get along. Oh thats right he only repressed most of the population.Quote:
I really dont think it would be fair for me to say. The question is what the Iraqies want. Many of them would probably tell you that they prefered sadam..
No, Now they have fear of being thrown in an underground prison if they voice an opinion against the Bush. Or because they passed in front of a pissed of U.S officer, or a drunk one... I am sure the Iraqi people really appreciate this refreshing change of reason they can be thrown to jail for...afterall you need to have diversity in life.....Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
I dont know about the WHOLE of IRAQ but, as we have all seen, in Abu Graib prison electicity is up and running and used for the entertainment of the inmates...Quote:
The eletricity is back in most of iraq
Which somehow explains why infant mortality ( highly correlated by the quality of water ) has skyrocketed?Quote:
running water is back in most of iraq
Of course Uranium Artillery Shells have been found! The U.S army is using them ffs! So what now? We attack the US? We all saw WMD's was a joke, snap out of it allready!Quote:
Biological and chemical weapons and even uranium artillery shells too. have been found.
( By the way they claim they are harmless but they never approach a DU destroyed tanks without masks to prevent uranium from entering the lungs and causing cancer, Iraqi children on the other sides, do not believe in cancer and play next to those tanks unprotected )
Saddam was put in power by the CIA, he is responsible for the death of thousants of people while being a US ally. The people who put him in power are equally responsible.Quote:
Saddam is out of power
If Iraq was not stil a quesling dictatorship with a 'government' of no real power, Saddam's first accusation would be ' Consiring with foreign ( U.S ) agents to seize power in Iraq ~DQuote:
saddam will stand trial for his crimes
....Some people never change...but the arguments for this war have and are getting sillier by the day....No wonder so few people think that the war wasnt a mistake today...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
You dont think people in Iraq still live in fear? I hardly see a chance that another dictator wont be able to come to power in Iraq.
maybe you should provide evidence before you call something crap..Quote:
All this crap about religous freedom there under Saddam.
I have seen a picture of a church in the middle of Baghdad with a huge cross on it(took up a whole side of the building). I sall this picture from the man who took it. He is a very respected photographer/preacher that even meet the pope in person. He said that before the war people were very eager to have their pictures taken and were extremely friendly. Sadam and bin laden dont get along cause they are opposing islamic forces, much like protestant and catholic fuedes.
From a man that actually went deep into iraq i learned that Iraq was not a dark a place as they media made them out to be.
I will trust a man whos been to Iraq and meet the people to know what life was like there and yes by all means it was life.
A very different kind of fear. Again now at least they have hope.Quote:
You dont think people in Iraq still live in fear?
Read the rest of your post after that quote. You just said the samething I did. He repressed the majority of Muslims in his country. Thats why those on the left tell us they could never work together.Quote:
maybe you should provide evidence before you call something crap..
Quote:
Sadam and bin laden dont get along cause they are opposing islamic forces, much like protestant and catholic fuedes.
Represtion of other islamic sects is very prevelant in the middle east as it was in medieval europe, hardly a feature of Iraq.
and anyways you alawys seem to skim over a large point in my post..
IRAQ was not a place of fear as you seem to point out. I left plenty of evidence of this in my previous post.
Why because they allowed churches. Come on you have shown no such thing. It seems you have no comprhension at all what life was like under Saddam. I guess those 300000 mass graves dont indicate anything. Naive dosent begin to describe what your saying. Maybe you would have liked to live in the USSR or Nazi Germany.Quote:
IRAQ was not a place of fear as you seem to point out. I left plenty of evidence of this in my previous post.
? Did i only talk about churches? The man i talked about went into great detail about how friendly the people were and even kind to a westerner. Was Sadam nice-hell no, but his people did live in overwhelmin fear, they simply lived as they knew how, that is why there was no Iraqi civil war, the people were satisfied with the only way the knew to live, now the live on true fear as the cant live their normal lives.
-What man truly fears is the unkown-
I suspect the issue is that depending on if you were a Sunni, Shia or Kurd affected much of the oppression.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
AFAIK most (all?) massgraves are on Kurds or Shia muslims, so if you were a Sunni, not complaining on the goverment you were relativly safe, while not being a Sunni increased the odds for you getting murdered increased quite much. While with the current chaos, it's more random.
To use your Hitler/Stalin comparation. If you were German and not openly against the Nazis, you were quite safe, but if you were Jew, you were doomed. While in Stalin's USSR none were safe. Case B is scarier for the "safe" group(s), while A is scarier for the unsafe group(s).
Notice that this comparation is only used for the principle as the situations is very different.
BTW is there any fresh massgraves (as in from 1998- forward) found?
... and here I am, still wondering why the US didnt invade Saudi-Arabia!? :dizzy2:
gha! the world doesnt make sense! ~;)
Put it this way...We are there, what you going to do? leave and let a bloody Civil War break out? I don't think so. We stay until the job is done...unless any of you got a better idea?
I don't agree with the war, but we took on the job and we had damn well better finish it
Yeah lefties listen to ahdut. IF our countries messed their lives up so much, dont we owe it to them to make their country stable.
Yes we do owe it to the Iraqis to stay until the job is done. The question originally posed by JAG was 'Why was it [the war] such a good idea again?' i.e. 'why did we start it in the first place?', not 'quick, let's get the hell out of there'.Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
The best result so far of the Iraqi war was to remove US troops from Saudi Arabia. This was a large source of tension and friction between the US and the Arab nations. Getting "the infidels" out of the Muslim holy land removed one of AQs primary objectives. They probably would be happier if they had forced the US out through terrorist action, instead of the US voluntarily moving them, uh, a little north and east...
What's done is done. It is now the responsibility of the US to leave Iraq in as good a condition as we can get it. If we leave a violent mess we will look bad in the eyes of the international community, alienate a region that, frankly, has us by the short hairs, and potentially create a situation worse than Saddam's regime.
It's obvious! Because Nuder didn't want to lose tax money. ~;) The slow way works much better... ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Lazul
Care to explain why it is 'irrelevant? I believe I showed its relevance:
Would you really like to examine the relevance of the mass graves Rabbit ?
Feel free to start .... where do you want to go ?
Who is in them ? when were they put in them ? for what reasons were such despicable actions taken ? who was supporting the people who ended up in them ? who was supporting the people who were putting the bodies in them ?
.....So go ahead , tell me the relevance to this topic of crimes commited by an ally of the West ?
... and here I am, still wondering why the US didnt invade Saudi-Arabia!?
...and here I am , wondering why the US didn't invade Pakistan ~:cheers:
IM just wondering why we didnt call for a new crusade and invade every Muslim nation ~D
IM just wondering why we didnt call for a new crusade and invade every Muslim nation
ah , thats because the military was only geared up for 1:4:2:1 actions , and they have found out that they couldn't even manage that ~:cheers:
Yeah we should have just nuked the entire Middle east on 912. No more problems ~:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah_dut
I dont think anybody wants to just pack up and leave, but this war was a bad idea.
Well Im getting a bit tired of posting cliches here but ( yes here comes the Butt Monkey)Quote:
I dont think anybody wants to just pack up and leave, but this war was a bad idea.
War is always a bad idea.
Yeah, but there are wars you can/should avoid and this was certianly one of them.
Quote:
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
You did see the big smiley did you not. Yes just like Ann I like to say outragous things to tweek the opossition. I truly believe the world would be a far better place if this were done. I hardly condone such a radical solution though.
I don't agreee with the war...quote me. We are there now are we not? We can't turn back time can we? Let's just try and do the best wth what we can in our present situationQuote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
Sigh..
Why is it that my well thought out replies get no response but my heated one-liners will create a firestorm? :shame:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ah_dut
? Never said you did. People were arguing if the war was good or not and you made your statment that were there and we cant leave. I agree with you that we cant leave as I have previously said.
since our leaders(BUSH...) got us into a horrible situation were supposed to just sit along and not question his motives. That is all anybody has been doing, showing evidence that this was a poorly chosen war. I still fail to see your argument as I, nor anybody in this thread has said anything against your post.
Sorry PanzerJager, I would reply...but to agree with you. That does not take too much.
The hand-wringing liberals cannot stand war. But just how many of their leaders opposed the war in the first place?
And JAG, how about the segeant I heard on the radio this morning on the way to work? He is from the 151st artillery battalion of the Minnesota national guard. He is home right now on a two week furlough. The news casters actually played him saying (approximately) this:
"What I don't like is that the good things that are happening don't get reported. Two of my officers are in charge of obtaining school supplies for a newly reopened school in our area. A week ago, my battery helped to finish off an addition to the school, along with some small houses for teachers to live in. Another battery has been working to get the sewers and water mains back online to the town (sorry, I can't remember the towns name). Right now they are at about 75% of capacity. A local grandmother and her family has been cooking special meals for that battery in thanks for having running water again.
"But no one ever hears about that. The only thing that ever gets reported are the bad things. The suicide bombers and the innocents they destroy. I guess what we do just isn't news."
I felt so bad for the guy. Because he is right. Most of the good things I have heard about the war come from e-mail chains written by people (usually officers) who have just gotten back and want to dispel some of the myths of the war. They also want us on the homefront to know that a few bad apples don't ruin the whole bushel.
It makes me sad to know my friends over there are not being appreciated by so many people at home. And all for political gain. :embarassed: The Iraqis sure do love them though!
Azi
Most cant stand wrong warsQuote:
The hand-wringing liberals cannot stand war.
Your right and i find these people quilty as well.Quote:
But just how many of their leaders opposed the war in the first place?
I appreciate the soldiers 100% not the leader that sent them.Quote:
It makes me sad to know my friends over there are not being appreciated by so many people at home. And all for political gain. :embarassed: The Iraqis sure do love them though!
So why do you keep trying to destory their morale by telling them what they are doing is wrong? You think they like being here? My friends are incensed at the media for continually harping on their failures. And yes, this includes the BBC. I love BBC world, but they are just as liberal as CNN, CBS, NBC etc. But the BBC is not focused (at least that I saw) on Michael @#$*% Jackson or any of our other worthless celebrities.
Three stories do not 'sayd' it all about Iraq. Add one more, about how the majority of the troops are improving the standards of living for those people. Another for how the terrorists keep slaughtering those who should be their countryment. One more for how many people would be dead over these past 27 months under Hussein...and you might, just might, have a point.
But good luck finding stories like what I want to see!
Azi
The war is wrong, but they are just following there nations orders cause they want to protect their families. I cant say there is much a nobler thing than that, but that doesnt mean the war is horribly the wrong one to fight.Quote:
So why do you keep trying to destory their morale by telling them what they are doing is wrong?
King, I would like to know:
What is a 'right' war?
Woohoo! Time to eat!
Azi
Why is it that my well thought out replies get no response but my heated one-liners will create a firestorm?
On the whole a good post Panzer , but this passage with the link ...
The government of Iraq supported terrorism. This support was not only in the form of supporting palestinian terrorism in the same form as what occurred in London recently, but also with more internationalist terrorists.
Is based ariound an article that is full of rubbish that has been disproven many times over , and other ties to groups that are currently , or have been funded , protected and supported by the West .
The main thing I disagree with from the post is ....
The war in Iraq was neither a good or bad idea, it was a necessary action.
If it was a good or bad idea is just a matter of opinion , what matters and what is having a long lasting effect is the way in which it was done , the lack of thought that went into the action , and the complete lack of post invasion planning .
Oh , and I don't think it was a necessary action at all .
Cube Ann Coulter already did.
did you miss that idiot republican politician this week ? spouting the same stupid inflammatory crap on the radio that Lowry did at the time that Coulter came out with her "valuable insight" .
Nuke Mecca , that'll teach them a lesson . :dizzy2:
Wrong the only thing that matters is the end result. If there is a free and democratic Iraq can you truly say it wasnt worth it?Quote:
what matters and what is having a long lasting effect is the way in which it was done , the lack of thought that went into the action , and the complete lack of post invasion planning .
So Gawain you subscribe to ORC?
hey Gawain , can you edit your post and make the word "IF" stand out in really big bright letters , because that is a bloody big if . ~;)
OK ill bite. Whats ORC?Quote:
So Gawain you subscribe to ORC?
No more so than your onesided view of things. You just have a different IF. If things go as bad as you say yadda yadda yadda.Quote:
hey Gawain , can you edit your post and make the word "IF" stand out in really big bright letters , because that is a bloody big if .
IF it does work out then what will you have to say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azi Tohak
surly the allies fighting back nazi germanies attempts to rule the world could be considered "right". War is never good, but it can be neccesary. The war in Iraq is not neccesary.
Its one of the acronyms that I use regarding self improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
ORC = Only Results Count.
FAB = Focus Achieve Become.
GIT = Guru In Training ~D
Niether was US involvment in Europe during WW2. No war is neccesary.Quote:
surly the allies fighting back nazi germanies attempts to rule the world could be considered "right". War is never good, but it can be neccesary. The war in Iraq is not neccesary.
Yeah I figured that it was something like the end justifies the means. No I dont subscribe to that theory. Again I was opposed to invading Iraq for the very problems we face today. However as has been said its too late now. Im just saying dont count your chickens until they hatch. No one knows where this will lead in the end. All this doom and gloom from the left only helps prop up the enemy.Quote:
Its one of the acronyms that I use regarding self improvement.
ORC = Only Results Count.
FAB = Focus Achieve Become.
GIT = Guru In Training
English/russian/etc... inlovment in ww2 was neccesary, unless of course you mena they should have let the nazis conquer them and purge their populations. U.S involment was good though as leaders the Axis of Evil really were evil.Quote:
Niether was US involvment in Europe during WW2. No war is neccesary.
Im beginning to think that the moral we're being taught here is that the only wars worth fighting are the easy ones... 'What? You mean this war isnt a sure thing? Well, why even bother then- lets all just go home.' With today's attitudes, we may as well sat out WW2 as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Im beginning to think that the moral we're being taught here is that the only wars worth fighting are the easy ones...
Correct , lets attack a country with no allies , a demoralised mainly conscript army , no effective air force or navy , anti government terrorists already in place armed and ready , a population that is mainly hostile to its own government and it will be defeated very quickly and easily .
You hit the nail on the head there Xiahou ~:cheers:
Its a pity that the easy war didn't result in an easy post war .
You see he cant or wont answer your questions but just keeps up his nonsensical wise ass remarks all the time. Maybe he thinks hes a funny man. He really has developed this into an art form ~D
Poor France... :drummer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
~:joker:
Thank you. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Indeed, many supported the war when it was just as you outlined. The fact that so many shift their views to "it wasn't worth it" once it gets more difficult is disheartening to me and speaks to my previous point.
Hey not only France but most of the world. Africa night be a good place to start or South America as the logistics are much easier.Quote:
Poor France.
I just saw this which is at least somewhat reassuring.
I think statements like these are important- particularly to the morale of our troops. Also, even though both votes were largely along party lines, a sizeable number of Democrats did cross over.Quote:
The measure, approved 291-137, says the United States should leave Iraq only when national security and foreign policy goals related to a free and stable Iraq have been achieved.
"Calls for an early withdrawal embolden the terrorists and undermine the morale" of U.S. and allied forces and put their security at risk, the amendment to a State Department bill reads.
-snip-
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., author of the Iraq provision, stressed that calls for an early withdrawal were counterproductive to security aims in Iraq.
"Words matter," she said. "Incessant calls for an established date for withdrawal from Iraq have a negative effect. ... Do we want to send a message to the terrorists that their war of attrition is succeeding?"
"To establish such a deadline," added House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay, R-Texas, "all but ensuring disaster, would be morally and strategically indefensible."
500 London Bombings.
Over 8, 9/11's.
Yet it is interesting to see the responses of those who are the most vocal about these attorocities, laugh, joke, poo poo and support this slaughter. It is no wonder we get bloody bombed, you people sometimes make me feel like we ask for it and we probably do.
Do we ask for it? Is there any real dialogue or is it my way or the highway kind of attitude.
Either belong to a fundamentalist religion or die. Die anyway if you do and become a martyr.
If you bother to look at the stats two very interesting things occur:
A third are dead from criminal activity.
10% are dead from suicide bombers.
Cross reference that with 90% of the dead are adult males.
If it was purely civilian deaths of adults then the ratio of the males to females would be higher and closer to 1:1. Also the ratio of adults to children would be higher.
This points to a significant part of the dead being purposely in the wrong place at the wrong time.
[Edited by Ser Clegane]
The sanctions on Iraq, WORKED.
Your own bloody reports, and my own governments stated how the sanctions meant Saddam was UNABLE, to get his hands on any parts needed for WDM, they SUCCESSFULLY, restrained him from being able to get close.
Since when was the pretending to have WDM a reason for invasion a country? We knew they had no WDM, a year before the invasion your own government was declaring they had no WDM! Our intelligence services, it has now come to light, never stated to our heads of state that they thought Saddam had WDM, they merely were unsure. That is why we sent in the INSPECTORS. Do you forget that?! We sent in Hans Blix and he told us before the invasion Saddam had NO WDM. He stated he needed more time to search everywhere, but he stated Saddam's regime was increasingly more co operative, yet we invaded anyway.
There are a billion reports, including more government reports from my govt and yours which states that there was NO link between Saddam and AQ and other terrorism. We also know that Saddam disliked them and did not allow them in his country. LOOK at the situation NOW.
You state the same old tripe, peddled out like an old woman PJ, that is why people do not respond and ignore you, it is all bollocks, and it is only the die hard pro war people who actually still believe it. The rest of us, including a growing and majority of people in your country - find the present situation abominable and can see the reality, that this has been a huge mistake.
Now, need I remind you of my links and not of my parting comment in the threads starting post?
No one has addressed them, simply because you cannot handle the reality of the situation over there. Go on, tell me how all the links are crap and how the UK government is so bias against the war!!!!
You are kidding right? A majority are men because they specifically target police officers, politicians and their aides / other government officials and most importantly they target the mass lines and queuing areas for the Iraqi army, police force and other government areas. Men are the only ones found in all these places.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
We created all this, a hotbed of terrorism, a training and recruiting sargent for the terrorist organisations... it goes on and on. We created it all. We also act no better than terrorists by our actions either by our politicians or soldiers... We do paint a target on our backs.
Oh boy - and should someone say the same about you. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Now that is not the complete truth and we all know it. Care to explain the missiles that exceed the cease fire range?Quote:
The sanctions on Iraq, WORKED.
Care to explain the precuser found in the desert. Care to explain the inconsistency in the records as mentioned by the Duelfer Report, care to explain the actions of Iraq in their intelligence operation, also confirmed in that report, to lead the world to believe they were pursueing WMD.Quote:
Your own bloody reports, and my own governments stated how the sanctions meant Saddam was UNABLE, to get his hands on any parts needed for WDM, they SUCCESSFULLY, restrained him from being able to get close.
When you focus on only one thing - you get burned every time.Quote:
Since when was the pretending to have WDM a reason for invasion a country? We knew they had no WDM, a year before the invasion your own government was declaring they had no WDM! Our intelligence services, it has now come to light, never stated to our heads of state that they thought Saddam had WDM, they merely were unsure. That is why we sent in the INSPECTORS. Do you forget that?! We sent in Hans Blix and he told us before the invasion Saddam had NO WDM. He stated he needed more time to search everywhere, but he stated Saddam's regime was increasingly more co operative, yet we invaded anyway.
Care to explain the bounty paid by Saddam to palenstine terrorists who blow themselves up in Israel?Quote:
There are a billion reports, including more government reports from my govt and yours which states that there was NO link between Saddam and AQ and other terrorism. We also know that Saddam disliked them and did not allow them in his country. LOOK at the situation NOW.
And the polls show what - a population who is discouraged with the current circumstances - that is really all it truely shows.Quote:
You state the same old tripe, peddled out like an old woman PJ, that is why people do not respond and ignore you, it is all bollocks, and it is only the die hard pro war people who actually still believe it. The rest of us, including a growing and majority of people in your country - find the present situation abominable and can see the reality, that this has been a huge mistake.
Not me - I been rather enjoying the snide comments being passed along by many,Quote:
Now, need I remind you of my links and not of my parting comment in the threads starting post?
I haven't address them because I recoginze the reports for what they are - reports. I can draw my own conclusions from them.Quote:
No one has addressed them, simply because you cannot handle the reality of the situation over there. Go on, tell me how all the links are crap and how the UK government is so bias against the war!!!!
Or the billions of dollars in kickbacks and corruption- unless he considers that "working". Also, lets not overlook the fact that many wanted to end the sanctions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Or the 500 tons of uranium that has been found in Iraq...Quote:
Care to explain the precuser found in the desert. Care to explain the inconsistency in the records as mentioned by the Duelfer Report, care to explain the actions of Iraq in their intelligence operation, also confirmed in that report, to lead the world to believe they were pursueing WMD.
Or why the 9/11 commission said "there was no question in our minds that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." :bow:Quote:
Care to explain the bounty paid by Saddam to palenstine terrorists who blow themselves up in Israel?
Jag didn't the oil for food program cost about 60,000 childrens lives per annum while Saddam syphoned off the money and so did people in the UN.
So 25k mainly adult males vs 120,000 children over a two year period.
I think the invasion wins hands down.