Printable View
I've been watching Question Time the last couple of weeks.
One week was full of an audience against the war. The other week was an audience for the war.
What struck me as interesting was the fact that the majority of the people in the audience in the show against the war were western people. The show that was for the war had a majority audience of iraqi people.
Now that stikes me as a pretty overwhelming proof that the Iraqi people do want this.
Gary.Lowe thank you for bringing that the attention of these "War doesn't solve anything" groupies. The iraqi people want their freedom from saddam, and they know they can't do it by themselves. BTW it was the iraqi civilians that informed the coalition troops where PFC Jessica Lynch was being held captive.
Memnoch1207
Again another example thet the iraqui people do want thier freedom.
I also want to add the one of the main reasons Civillians are getting caught in the crossfire is the fact that the Sadam regime are using the Civillians as an aid in thier war tactics.
As a country that wanted to protect it's people you would think they would attempt to get thier people out of direct warfare. As we have seen though they are used as part of the warfare by the regime.
1- It's not for the oil. But if Irak produced carrots, would you invade them???
2- Bush, Dick Cheney and sweet Condoleezza Rice, are they still involved in the oil industry? Or they grow carrots?
3- You are going to set a democracy. What kind of democracy? Like the one you gave to Haití, Dominican Republic, or Nicaragua? You occupied Haití for 19 years and founded a military power that raised a dictator like Francoise Duvalier. Occupied Dominicana for 9 years end gave them Rafael Leónidas Trujillo. Occupied
Nicaragua for 21 years and founded the dictatorship of family Somoza. Please free us from your "democracy"
4- You encouraged the dictatorship of Noriega in Panama as long as he fighted "comunists". But when he tried to nationalize the Channel of Panama, ah! For God sake! Then you discovered he was a narco!
5- You say Saddam encourages terrorism. In Irak they have Hollywood movies, women wear jeans and they teached English in High School. Not a single 9/11 pilot was from Iraq, most of them came from Saudi Arabia. Also Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. But Saudi is a cgood friend for USA.
6- Irak violates the UN resolutions. Conceded. Does USA obey them? The USA has invaded 74 countries in the last century. It is the only country who dropped nuclears, and over civilians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets.
7- In the gulf war, Bush senior distroyed Irak. They said "the military power of Irak is completely defeated" What is left over?
8- Secretary Rumsfeld said that USA was going to use "non lethal gases". Are they the kind Puttin used in Moskow that killed 100 innocent hostages?
9- In 1898, president William McKinley declared that God gaved him the order to attack Filipinas. Bush assuresthat God is his side in the attack to Irak. What kind of God gives contradictory orders to Bush and to Pope Juan Pablo II??
10- If I had the cruelest dictator, and you came and bombed my cities and killed near a thousand civilians, including children, women, elders... would it be insane to fight?
11- Didn't Bush said there wouldn't be ANY dead civilians in this war? What about that "delicate surgery operation"
12- Plenderj I love you!
P.S. Answer me the very first question: What kind of animal commands this war?
Misdirection. Misinformation. Half truths. Misquotes. Irrelevent information. That is the modus operandi of you people and quite frankly no one is buying it!
I would invade a country for carrots though.. i must admit thatQuote:
Originally posted by Cander
Misdirection. Misinformation. Half truths. Misquotes. Irrelevent information. That is the modus operandi of you people and quite frankly no one is buying it!
eww not for carrots:o
1) The US is not going to control the oil, the UN is, to better have a handle on the oil for food program. And yes we would still have this war, it's not about the oil, its about saddams failure to abide by the UN resolutions and his oppresive regime.
2) And your point is???
3) People make mistakes, governments are run by people, therefore they too make mistakes. Besides your talking about a totally different adminstration, and totally different presidents.
4) Friends and Foes can come about at any time. Former Foes can become Friends (Russia), and former friends can become foes (Iraq)
5) Ansar Al-Islam a know terrorist group linked to Al-Queida has been protected, and aided by the Saddam regime in northern Iraq. Yes, Bin Laden is from Saudi, but before saddam ever thought about attacking the US, he was attacking the Saudi government, he only started targeting the US after the gulf war in 1991, why, because Saudi Arabia asked the US to come and assist them, letting the US setup camps for our troops, Bin Laden saw this as westerners invading muslim holyland, even though the saudi government asked the US to come in the first place, because they felt threatened by the Iraqi regime after it invaded Kuwait.
6) Name the 74 countries! Want to know why bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? READ THIS
7) We did not destroy Iraq. And with Saddam stealing money from his people (oil for food program) he used that money to recreate his army and their WMD's programs.
8) Provide me a link where this was stated.
9) Your quoting something from years ago, what relevance do that have to the situation at hand???
10) That would depend on if your whole family had been slaughtered by that dictator prior to us coming.
11) When the iraqi government is forcing the civilians into the line of fire, then yes, civilians will be killed, we are not targeting, they are being forced into those situations. The latest statistics show that about .01% of all missles and bombs launched, have missed their targets
P.S. A Lion, the king of the jungle.
I would only invade a country for carrots if they also had a surplus of ranch dressing...yummy...
Same here except it would have to be celery.
man i wanted to do that.. u just didn't have the patience to type back a response to all those stupid things :DQuote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
1) The US is not going to control the oil, the UN is, to better have a handle on the oil for food program. And yes we would still have this war, it's not about the oil, its about saddams failure to abide by the UN resolutions and his oppresive regime.
......
P.S. A Lion, the king of the jungle.
I think continuing the carrot portion of the thread is just as useful. Those little minature carrots, baby carrots, and ranch. Yum. C'mon, you can't deny that. We can all agree that baby carrots and ranch is good.
I would invade a country to get rid of Carrot Top!
but then how would you know how to dial down the center???? :DQuote:
Originally posted by Cander
I would invade a country to get rid of Carrot Top!
Id follow the cute angel and dial 1 800 Collect
Alyssa Milano is so hot. I'd take her over baby carrots and ranch any day.
Yes the US army has thousands of land mine sniffing bunny rabbits that need to be fed.Quote:
Originally posted by please
1- It's not for the oil. But if Irak produced carrots, would you invade them???
No they are not, they are employees of the US government as of now.Quote:
2- Bush, Dick Cheney and sweet Condoleezza Rice, are they still involved in the oil industry? Or they grow carrots?
The people in those countries you speak of asked for our help. Whose fault is it that they couldn't figure out how to make democracy work even after years of US help? BTW, how much OIL does Hati produce?Quote:
3- You are going to set a democracy. What kind of democracy? Like the one you gave to Haití, Dominican Republic, or Nicaragua? You occupied Haití for 19 years and founded a military power that raised a dictator like Francoise Duvalier. Occupied Dominicana for 9 years end gave them Rafael Leónidas Trujillo. Occupied
Nicaragua for 21 years and founded the dictatorship of family Somoza. Please free us from your "democracy"
The chanel was set to be nationalized. The US bought and paid formost of the chanel and had done this under contract stipulating the ownershi[p of the canal. Noriega got greedy.Quote:
4- You encouraged the dictatorship of Noriega in Panama as long as he fighted "comunists". But when he tried to nationalize the Channel of Panama, ah! For God sake! Then you discovered he was a narco!
First off Saddam has been on television offering money to the familys of suicide bombers to attack the "infidels". They get a bonus if the Infidel is an american citizen. Saudi arabia is NOT a good friend. They are a busisness partner.Quote:
5- You say Saddam encourages terrorism. In Irak they have Hollywood movies, women wear jeans and they teached English in High School. Not a single 9/11 pilot was from Iraq, most of them came from Saudi Arabia. Also Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia. But Saudi is a cgood friend for USA.
The US is the bulk of the UN's military force. I have lost many friends and have nursed injured family members who got that way by enforcing the Fooking UN's policy. PS on behalf of my fallen friends "Go fook yourself"Quote:
6- Irak violates the UN resolutions. Conceded. Does USA obey them? The USA has invaded 74 countries in the last century. It is the only country who dropped nuclears, and over civilians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets.
Anthrax, VX gas, and a dictator in charge of them who pays people to commit terrorst acts against american people.Quote:
7- In the gulf war, Bush senior distroyed Irak. They said "the military power of Irak is completely defeated" What is left over?
No they are called smoke gernades. They produce a cloud of gas similar to the kind they spray into the crowd at Metallica concerts. completly harmlessQuote:
8- Secretary Rumsfeld said that USA was going to use "non lethal gases". Are they the kind Puttin used in Moskow that killed 100 innocent hostages?
LMFAOQuote:
9- In 1898, president William McKinley declared that God gaved him the order to attack Filipinas. Bush assuresthat God is his side in the attack to Irak. What kind of God gives contradictory orders to Bush and to Pope Juan Pablo II??
*** are you babbeling about?Quote:
10- If I had the cruelest dictator, and you came and bombed my cities and killed near a thousand civilians, including children, women, elders... would it be insane to fight?
No, he never said that. It's kicking the sheit outta The republican Guard as we speak. What about it?Quote:
11- Didn't Bush said there wouldn't be ANY dead civilians in this war? What about that "delicate surgery operation"
:rolleyes:Quote:
12- Plenderj I love you!
[/quote]Quote:
P.S. Answer me the very first question: What kind of animal commands this war?
An animal smart enough to graduate from one of the toughest colleges on the planet. An animal in charge of the most powerfull military machine on the planet right now. An animal who cares enough about his bunny rabbits to invade an entire country so they can have the biggest freshest carrots on the planet
:rolleyes:
Where were we 1 year ago, 5 years ago,10 years ago? As was said earlier "giving peace a chance", which is what you and your like keep claiming that we refuse to do.
The Iraqi people did Invite us into thier country to take out saddam a few years ago. Do you think living conditions in Iraq have improved so much that they have changed thier mind?
You say we shouldn't war against Iraq but we should support a coup. Isn't that the exact same thing? We currently have 10,000's of Kurds armed and fighting against Iraqi soldiers. The Leader of the Shiites has just told his people not to interfere with the Western coalition's actions. There have been several uprisings in different cities. All the Iraqis i've seen on the news(That aren't soldiers) have been cheering the coalition soldiers and waving American flags. So what's the difference between a U.S. lead war and a U.S. lead Coup? The main difference from what i can tell from your discription would be that the coup would have ALOT less fire power and therefore be doomed to lose. But that's exactly what you want isn't it?
I saw alot of Iraqis leaving Turkey to come back to Iraq to supposedly fight against the coalition. That is REALLLY F'IN FUNNY. The whole reason they are in Turkey is because they fled Iraq because of Saddams brutal regime! Yet now they want to go back and defend the very thing they fled from? Hahahaa... poor brainwashed idiots. I really do feel sorry for them.
Ohh yah the point of the thread was animals.
Using Chickens to detect Gas is stupid. Because the way VX gas works is the bigger you are the faster you die. A Human would die a long time before a chicken would. Not to meantion the fact that even if the cheicken did die first you would already be exposed to the gas so it's too late for you too. Americas army has incredibly accurate sensors that detect any nerve agents long before they are harmfull to humans, so again using chickens is pretty stupid. I did here that some army guys were using chickens though..go figure.:confused:
As far as the dolphins go, i've seen them on TV and they are never in any danger. They do not actually touch any mines.. they simply locate them with thier built in sonar and drop a marker beuy next to them so the divers can go and disarm them. Those dolphins are really cool. Also the dolphins are never kept in cages, they are free to roam the oceans thier entire life and they always come back of thier own will. I have heard that few a have taken unexpected extended vacations though:D
no it is Jamie presley now... oooo sooo fine...Quote:
Originally posted by run_GMoney
Alyssa Milano is so hot. I'd take her over baby carrots and ranch any day.
although Alyssa Milano provides stiff competition... lol stiff... sorry i crack myself up sometimes..
http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/1785...823860_400.jpg
Vs.
http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Events/1485...532091_400.jpg
speaking of coup. There would be a HELL of alot more civilian casualties during a coup!
anyone notice that Gary.Lowe's avatar looks like that guy from "Will and Grace"?
baby carrots and ranch dressing...mmmm
jamie presley and ranch dressing...mmmmmm
Jamie presley without any dressing....ooohhhooooohhooh....I need a cigarette.
Whatever you say now does not matter anymore.
We are at war now
What does matter now is that Saddam is gotten rid with few civillian deaths as possible.
Also now it is more what happens after the war and how the country is rebuilt by the Iraqi's.
But that sounds likes such a cop-out for future transgressions by the US.Quote:
Originally posted by Gary.Lowe
Whatever you say now does not matter anymore.
We are at war now
What does matter now is that Saddam is gotten rid with few civillian deaths as possible.
Also now it is more what happens after the war and how the country is rebuilt by the Iraqi's.
Just ignore the public, goto war with a country, then let people say "well we're at war now so no point in complaining about now".
It's not a cop out Jamie. This would have happend last October but Saddam was given more time again and and did nothing to or very little to prove to the rest of the world that he was a diplomatic leader and had his countries interest at heart.
If you think there was any way that the Saddam regime would fall into line with world policy I feel you are being a little naive.
People are always banging on about human rights and aid support to iraq. The Iraqi people have no rights and lot of Saddams palaces are built on western aid.
There were are a lot of countires that support the war but none of them had the balls to stand up and do it.
I do admit the US tend to get a bit gung ho but the fact that our goverment are also involved should make sure the US don't do anything too rash.
The main point that needs to be addressed is that just becasue the US have gone in does not give them any right as to how the country is run.
The whole point of this war is to give Iraq back to the people.
I do hope the UN step in and take the diplomatic role in rebuilding the country once Saddam is gone.
I don't think Saddam was going to step into line with world policy, but, there are other ways of getting rid of him.
For example a coup, incited and supported by the coalition.
Let the people take back the country themselves.
That way everyone comes out smelling of roses.
But this way the US is going to be hated for years.
And about the US running the country - they'll install a puppet government - that is of course after the military government they install has left - after of course US companies have made millions in the rebuilding of the Iraq the US army bombed.
Oh yeah and did you read that it has been written into some bill just passed in the states that the French, Germans and Russians cannot benefit from any rebuilding work done in Iraq.
That smacks of complete childishness.
Blair cannot stand up to Bush. Not now, and probably not ever.
To quote : http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...279751,00.html
Reports have suggested that the US wants to put a military administration in place, with its own officers in key roles and American firms carrying out lucrative work restoring Iraq's battered infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
To quote : http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...279751,00.html
Reports have suggested that the US wants to put a military administration in place, with its own officers in key roles and American firms carrying out lucrative work restoring Iraq's battered infrastructure.
If that was to happen then I think there would be world uproar.
I think that is most probably press mongering.
Well the US military will definitely occupy the country and control things until they feel it necessary to setup a government.
There's going to be uproar no matter what happens.
ValidQuote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Well the US military will definitely occupy the country and control things until they feel it necessary to setup a government.
There's going to be uproar no matter what happens.
The same thing happened in Afganistan and they ahve had no problems so far.
They will have to tred very carfully though and they know this. Other wise a lot more faith in them will be lost which lets face will be the rest of the world that doesn't hate them already.
Afghanistan's a warzone still. Warlords vying for power.Quote:
Originally posted by Gary.Lowe
Valid
The same thing happened in Afganistan and they ahve had no problems so far.
They will have to tred very carfully though and they know this. Other wise a lot more faith in them will be lost which lets face will be the rest of the world that doesn't hate them already.
And opium production has tripled which'll end up with a country full of druggies.
Its a mess!
The americans though still have a presense there which is lot more than they have done in similar instances previously.
I don't agree with war but I also don't agree with sitting back and letting people suffer.
The UN is the right way to approach things but when you dealing with someone who has no regard for human life and world polotics what do you do.
It would be far easier to sit round a table an discuss things which everyone knows the Saddam Regime will not agree too.
The regime is all to quick to show 100's of innocent people dying for injured rom warfare. What you won't see is the 1000's upon 1000's of people he has killed because they did not agree with him.
The UN should have occupied Iraq - not a unilateral force making up reasons for doing it as they go along.
agrred but I think the warfare would have still been inevitable at some point.
As we have seen in past UN inspectors were just kicked out when what they were doing wasn't to Saddam liking.
This time they weren't given a chance. Iraq was co-operating with the inspectors.
But the US wouldn't give them enough time.
I think that was more a last minute attempt by Saddam to look like he was co-operating as he knew this time the crying wolf trick wasn't going to wash
Okay even if it was just to save his own skin, the inspectors weren't being interfered with and they were getting the job done.
That's what counts at the end of the day.
The US pushed for a military solution, when a peaceful one was working.
You managed to destroy two Muslim countries.
GOOD
But it wasn't at the end of the day he started to cooperate...It was at the end of 12 years, when he was finally being threatened with war.Quote:
Okay even if it was just to save his own skin, the inspectors weren't being interfered with and they were getting the job done.
That's what counts at the end of the day.
The US pushed for a military solution, when a peaceful one was working.
This would have never happened...The UN can't unanimously agree on anything when it comes to Iraq, and when it did (the UN Resolutions) it didn't back them up (the consequences for violating them). How is it unilateral (UNI means 1) there are 3 countries that have troops over there (US, UK and Austrailia), plus there are 49 other countries supporting the effort in other ways...So explain to me how this is UNILATERAL.Quote:
The UN should have occupied Iraq - not a unilateral force making up reasons for doing it as they go along.
And everyone wants to point the finger at the US. What about the UK or Austrailia? Nobody put a gun to their heads had made them go there...They're doing it, because it is the right thing to do.
And let me explain why a coup wouldn't work.
1) Take a look at the general population of Iraq. They're farmers, not soldiers. They're not trained in anyway for combat. And even if coalition forces went in to train them, a war would have broken out anyway. Saddam would have tried to stop any rebellion with force, killing civilians as well as coalition forces. Which would have led to an all out war against him.
2) He would just gas them like he did the Kurds. He will have to think twice about using WMD's against the current coalition for a couple of reasons a) We are trained in the detection, protection and decontamination of them b) Hate to say it but, there would be a good chance we would nuke baghdad if he did use them.
That's why a coup wouldn't work.
we wouldn't need to... if saddam did use a WMD (other than a nuke) and whipped out our forces there...he would also whipe out ALL the civilians.. and since the only reason we haven't bombed the crap out of baghdad is because we are preserving the city for the civilians... we would just bomb it to hell... we wouldn't have to use nukes.. a few moabs would do the job anyway... but other than nukes... i dont know if it would matter if he does use chem weapons.. other that to kill all the civilians.. because we have protection from checmical and biological agents he might useQuote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Hate to say it but, there would be a good chance we would nuke baghdad if he did use them.
Iraq was only partially cooperating because there were 250,000 troops parked outside his border. If they were not there Saddam would have just thrown the inspectors out again just like in 1997.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
This time they weren't given a chance. Iraq was co-operating with the inspectors.
But the US wouldn't give them enough time.
Not enough time???? 12 years is not enough time??? He wasn’t disarming he was REarming thanks to countries like France, Russia, and Germany.
Come back to reality. I can't believe you can't see this and you actually believe Saddam was cooperating with inspectors. No one is that naive.
X