BBC taking the world for a ride ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
*shakes head in disbelief*

no matter how minuscule, your country sold him the stuff. Do you think you can justify it by calling it minuscule ? The sale went on until '92 even after we all know what he did with it ...

---

No I can say that the US and UK both made mistakes. The US thought that by backing Saddam it could buffer the region against Iran. Sounded like a good idea at this time in history no? I assume if they could look into a crystal ball and see Saddam gassing his own people, invading Kuwait and shooting scuds at Israel they might have thought differently about helping Saddam.

What I am saying is that the Russians, Chinese, French, and Germans are the ones who are most responsible for Iraq's WMD programs. Who were also STILL selling weapons to Iraq even after the UN imposed restrictions.

Your focus on an understandable miscalculation of foreign policy that occurred before Saddam was recognized for mass murdering dictator he was is baffling. Where is your ire at the Russians who up until the US went into Iraq in this past war was still providing intelligence, weapons, and even instructors? Or your anger at the Germans and French who were still circumventing the UN ban on weapons sales to Iraq up until this last war occurred?

I have to say that I am shaking my head in disbelief as well at your one sided vision of the true facts.

Also the US/UK as far as I know didn't sell anything to Saddam after he invaded Kuwait unlike the French, Germans, and Russians.

X

Why do you assume I'm not angry at those other countries ? Why do you assume I don't know that they didn't supply ? Why do you assume to know so much about me and accuse me of one-sidedness ?

Fook mate, if there's one one-sided person then it has to be you. I'm not the one trying to downplay mistakes here. Your government knew damn well what he was going to do with those supplies. He was at war ffs. Didn't it occur to you why he sought to buy these supplies ?

Good grief, and then you have the audacity to lecture people. What the hell did you think he was going to do ? Make lollypops ?

Yes all the rest supplied him with arms, technology and advice. Yes all the others are equally as guilty and yes I blame the others too. But all the others didn't go about covering their mistakes under a carpet of bombs, did they ? All the others didn't go about compiling dodgy dossiers and scaremongering the world, did they ?

You make it all sound as if the US was one big world guardian angel who, in all its infinite wisdom, has the right and the duty to go and lecture the world on what it ought and ought not to do.
"And oh yeah, we made some mistakes but hey, we'll shovel it under the carpet by saying 'well everyone is doing it'".
Fooking hypocrites. The whole lot of you. The whole of the UK, US, French, German, Chinese, Russian government.
The former two for exaggerating and press ganging the world for a non event, the latter for exactly the same reasons approached from the other side. I'm sick of it.

With that said, I knew there was a reason I put you on ignore. Thank you for reminding me. :)

Quote:

---

Why do you assume I'm not angry at those other countries ? Why do you assume I don't know that they didn't supply ? Why do you assume to know so much about me and accuse me of one-sidedness ?

---

One can only make the assumption as to what one sees. I never saw anyone here bash the Russians, French, or Germans for still selling arms up until this last war but I did see people contently bashing the US for selling arms to Iraq pre-Gulf War. I see people frequently saying how it’s the US’s fault and how the reason Saddam had WMD’s was because of the US selling arms to Iraq in the first place which is the furthest thing from the truth. My point was to continue to rebuke this obvious falsehood being repeated over and over.

Quote:

---

Fook mate, if there's one one-sided person then it has to be you. I'm not the one trying to downplay mistakes here. Your government knew damn well what he was going to do with those supplies. He was at war ffs. Didn't it occur to you why he sought to buy these supplies ?

---

Of course. It was well understood that weapons are meant to kill. The US sold those weapons to Iraq in the hopes they would kill Iranians. This would keep the delicate balance inside the region by holding the fundamentalist Islamic regime of Iran in check. A fairly sound strategy given the information they had at this time in history.

Quote:

---

Good grief, and then you have the audacity to lecture people. What the hell did you think he was going to do ? Make lollypops ?

---

Like I said weapons were made to kill. And I don’t lecture people just try to point out inaccuracies in their views and try to make them see that there are more facts beyond those which they have chosen to embrace.

Quote:

---

Yes all the rest supplied him with arms, technology and advice. Yes all the others are equally as guilty and yes I blame the others too. But all the others didn't go about covering their mistakes under a carpet of bombs, did they ? All the others didn't go about compiling dodgy dossiers and scaremongering the world, did they ?

---

Sorry but I still think removing the largest mass murdering dictator that was still alive in the world was a good thing. As far as the whole media firestorm about supposed poor intelligence information, if you are referring to the Iraqi’s seeking nuclear material in Africa this still hasn’t been disproved. The British government still stands by this report and it is still backed by French intelligence. Also documents uncovered in Iraq point to ongoing weapons programs up until the coalition invaded. I suppose this isn’t good enough for the doubting Thomas’s who choose not to believe until they are able to roll around in a barrel on anthrax but for me its proof enough that Iraq has long been hiding and concealing its weapons programs under the nose of UN inspectors.

Quote:

---

You make it all sound as if the US was one big world guardian angel who, in all its infinite wisdom, has the right and the duty to go and lecture the world on what it ought and ought not to do.

---

I don’t make the US out to be anything what it is, a country looking after its own self interests. The same thing every other nation is doing. Call it evil, call it wrong but its reality I would get used to it.

Quote:

---

"And oh yeah, we made some mistakes but hey, we'll shovel it under the carpet by saying 'well everyone is doing it'".

---

The US choose to support Iraq with weapons in response to the fundamentalist revolution inside Iran, not because “everyone else was doing it” as you put it. Wasn’t the most intelligent thing to do looking back at it but I have yet to see any nation that doesn’t make mistakes.

Quote:

---

Fooking hypocrites. The whole lot of you. The whole of the UK, US, French, German, Chinese, Russian government.
The former two for exaggerating and press ganging the world for a non event, the latter for exactly the same reasons approached from the other side. I'm sick of it.

---

I never said the US was perfect. I know very well the US has made some horrible mistakes in the world. I’m not here to absolve the US of any wrongdoing I’m not so naive that I think the US is perfect and does no wrong, I just like to point out that the US isn’t as bad as some people make it out to be.

Quote:

---

With that said, I knew there was a reason I put you on ignore. Thank you for reminding me. :)

---

I know its hard listening to another point of view but in your lifetime you are going to run across people who don’t agree with you. Better that you get used to dealing with it rather than hiding. It will make you a more rounded person.

X

oh I can deal with it allright. And I can see other points of view, I have even learnt from it. Perhaps not the lessons you'd expect but nevertheless.

Quote:

---

Of course. It was well understood that weapons are meant to kill. The US sold those weapons to Iraq in the hopes they would kill Iranians. This would keep the delicate balance inside the region by holding the fundamentalist Islamic regime of Iran in check. A fairly sound strategy given the information they had at this time in history.

---

Just found it funny that you said "hope to kill Iranian fundamentalists Islamic forces". So obviously there's a justified use of WMD's after all. As long as it is used to stop the "enemy" it's allright. As long as some intangible balance is set right. I presume you're referring to "If we let them those Iranians had run over Iraq, grabbed its vast oil fields, possibly spreading their fundamentalist religion to the Saudi's and oh ****, that means they'd be in control of our oil !".
And it's a sound strategy for you that Western countries sell him the tech, virus stams and whatnot so that he has a chance to stop those Iranian fundamentalists.
But it's not so sound when when he uses it on hapless Kurds who mistakenly believed they were going to be backed up in their rebellion. Bit of a dichotomy there.

That's basically the same as giving support to the school bully as long as he beats up that kid who's picking on you but as soon as that bully turns on someone else he's a loathesome figure.

In other words : as long as it suits your self interests anything is justified, even the use of chemical weaponry. The end justifies the means. You can twist and turn your words but that's the gist of it.

Hmmm.

Oh well, keep it up. Perhaps you'll teach me another lesson some time in future.
Please be so gracious as to letting me decide what that lesson should be eh. Imagine me accusing you of lecturing people ...

Still defending Saddam ehh HB?

I don't give a damn if there were WMD's there or not, IRAQ is a much better place today than it was a few months ago before we attacked and it will only improve from here.

If America ever attacks a country that really didn't deserve it then I could see why you would be whinning but Saddam had this coming for a long time and he brought it on himself.

You probably defended Milosevic when we invaded Yugoslavia too. And you probably thought America was being a big bully when we took out the Taliban in Afghanistan too huh? Becasue God knows the world was MUCH better off with these governments than it is today.:rolleyes:

BOOOMMMMM


Right fellas start searching the remanents of this err 'Wally Pips' house and find me that nuke.


:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

loads of people are responsible for him getting chemicals in the 80's and early 90's!!!!

The fact is Saddam was a threat not only to other countries but to his own people. Why do you object to the removal of an evil dictator who has no shame????

You seem to be reading papers and jumping to conclusions too much. They always said it would take time to find the WMD's becuase Saddam had a long time to hide them, Britain still stands by its African intellegence and both countries still believe he had WMD's. In What way were they decieving us??? They still beleive what they said!!! :confused: :confused: :confused:

talk about jumping conclusions : where exactly did I say I object to the removal of a brutal dictator ?

I'm not objecting to the removal of the regime. I'm objecting to the way they scaremongered us into believing that he could cause armageddon at the drop of hat and to the way they are now twisting their words again, finding scapegoats to suit their purposes. I'm objecting to the poor planning in post-Saddam's Iraq. I'm objecting to the fact that they insist that all is allright in Afghanistan while people there are still being killed and still waiting for their infrastructure to be rebuild. That's why I said I wanted a third option in the other thread.

And 'loads of people responsible' doesn't justify it in one case and not in another. You either justify the use of chemical and biological weapons or you don't. There are no exceptions with such dreadful weaponry, these aren't ordinary bullets and shells as Mr. Powell painstakingly pointed out to us in his presentation. They shouldn't have been sold in the first place, Saddam would've lost and you wouldn't have to deal with him now. But then again, you would have to strike deals with Islam fundamentalists which was/is apparently a bigger threat than an evil dictator with no shame.

Of course they believe what they said. The opposite would mean removal and a public distrust. Their careers would be over double quick. You better believe they stick by their words.

And maybe they will find evidence, maybe they will be cleared after all. Maybe. Maybe not. We'll see in the coming months whether it is so.
I'm prepared to accept that I was wrong and they were right.
Are you prepared to accept that they may not be cleared and that they have exaggerated their claims for whatever reason ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arc
Still defending Saddam ehh HB?

I don't give a damn if there were WMD's there or not, IRAQ is a much better place today than it was a few months ago before we attacked and it will only improve from here.

If America ever attacks a country that really didn't deserve it then I could see why you would be whinning but Saddam had this coming for a long time and he brought it on himself.

You probably defended Milosevic when we invaded Yugoslavia too. And you probably thought America was being a big bully when we took out the Taliban in Afghanistan too huh? Becasue God knows the world was MUCH better off with these governments than it is today.:rolleyes:

---

You don't give a damn whether WMDs were there or not because now you KNOW there are NO WMDs to be found, and that the entire war is about to be proven totally unjustified, amounting to invasion of a foreign and soverign country instead of the so-called war against terror. The US didn't have any interest in Iraq than the oil which it can now control. And now the US is caught in a mess because it can't leave Iraq and it can't maintain it. It's trying once again to internationalize the Iraq invasion by involving peace-keeping forces from other nations, and frankly I don't see any reason why other nations should involve themselves, or what right the US has to ask other nations to help out. They didn't heed the others before going to war, they have kept the loot for themselves and they are incapable of administering Iraq. If the US thought the war was justified, let the US soldiers die for that justification. America has no moral or any other right to even request assistance from others.

.

Quote:

---

Just found it funny that you said "hope to kill Iranian fundamentalists Islamic forces". So obviously there's a justified use of WMD's after all. As long as it is used to stop the "enemy" it's allright. As long as some intangible balance is set right. I presume you're referring to "If we let them those Iranians had run over Iraq, grabbed its vast oil fields, possibly spreading their fundamentalist religion to the Saudi's and oh ****, that means they'd be in control of our oil !"......Bit of a dichotomy there.

---

As I have stated the US supported Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war to stop the spread of fundamentalist Iran. At this time in history Iran posed a large threat to the stability of the region. Supporting Iraq was in the interests of not only the US but also the world. If you know anything about Iran at this time they were not the biggest supporter of human rights and freedoms for their people. I can see the need to prevent Iran from dominating the region and controlling most of the worlds oil supply from a humanitarian/freedom aspect and also an economic one.

Maybe it’s just me but I see a huge difference in stopping the spread of Iranian fundamentalism and the gassing of innocent women and children. I see no dichotomy as you put it.

Quote:

---

That's basically the same as giving support to the school bully as long as he beats up that kid who's picking on you but as soon as that bully turns on someone else he's a loathesome figure.

---

Well if the bully suddenly turns and murders someone or uses chemical weapons on his own family lets say then yeah I would think that would qualify him as a loathsome figure.

Quote:

---

In other words : as long as it suits your self interests anything is justified, even the use of chemical weaponry. The end justifies the means. You can twist and turn your words but that's the gist of it.

---

Wrong. There are of course things that should not be done simply to support your own self-interests. I don’t think I twist and turn anything I am attempting to be very straightforward. I took one instance in time and try to explain the justifications for it. At that point in time it was a valid policy to stop the spread of Iranian fundamentalism to the whole Middle East. I did not advocate and end’s justifies the means policy by any means sorry if you got that impression.

If you look at things from a purely humanistic point of view you have to concede that all killing is bad. But is it ever justified in your mind? Was slaughtering the Germans in WWII to drive them from the whole of Europe a bad thing? Or should everyone have just not fought thus sparing innocent lives on both sides? In your mind is there any justifiable war or support for war? What is the point at which you say yes this is justifiable?

Quote:

---

Oh well, keep it up. Perhaps you'll teach me another lesson some time in future....

---

I’m not here to teach you any lessons nor preach to anyone. If you felt I was then maybe you saw a ring of truth in what I was saying. You seem to be a bit more reasonable than most when it comes to looking at all sides of an issue. My only hope is that people will continue to look at things from another point of view and try to look at all facts involved in an issue not just pick and choose facts to support your view.

X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
You don't give a damn whether WMDs were there or not because now you KNOW there are NO WMDs to be found,..

---

What about the ones Saddam admittied to having after the Gulf War? He didn't present any proof they were destroyed. Where did those go HB?

X

They are in my back yard.......


Oh Oh No you tricked me you b**tard................... Oh nuts that a chopper and some dudes with SAS are jumping out.





AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


*BANG

I never said you didnt beleive it WP i was talking to HB :) :)


Oh and just for the record i dont like tony i voted for the other guy ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

What is it about this war on Iraq that has everyone so bumfuzzled? All this finger pointing is not getting us anywhere. It's simply distracting the world from the growing threats we now face around the globe. How about we come back to whether or not Bush lied after we deal with N. Korea's nuclear program, world hunger, poverty, crumbling schools, troubling crime rates, and the many problems that plague Africa?

My point is that for the first time in history we have the power to both destroy the world and feed it. I for one am for the latter.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WiKiDJeFF
What is it about this war on Iraq that has everyone so bumfuzzled? All this finger pointing is not getting us anywhere. It's simply distracting the world from the growing threats we now face around the globe. How about we come back to whether or not Bush lied after we deal with N. Korea's nuclear program, world hunger, poverty, crumbling schools, troubling crime rates, and the many problems that plague Africa?

My point is that for the first time in history we have the power to both destroy the world and feed it. I for one am for the latter.

---

For one, the war in Iraq has brought forth a bigger threat than perhaps terrorism: The US. :rolleyes:

Xanith, those WMDs were eaten up by the Iraqi top-brass, don't you know? :p

And just because Saddam didn't present any proof of destroying whatever WMDs he had doesn't mean the US can go and invade Iraq without having sufficient proof about the existence of the WMDs. Don't try to justify your mistakes by calling attention to someone else's mistakes.

And Tony Blier has accepted now the WMDs may never be found, if we are to go by his address in the US. Shameless bloke!

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
For one, the war in Iraq has brought forth a bigger threat than perhaps terrorism: The US. :rolleyes:

---

For petty dictators and thugs maybe :)

Quote:

---

Xanith, those WMDs were eaten up by the Iraqi top-brass, don't you know? :p

---

Ohh yeah :p

Quote:

---

And just because Saddam didn't present any proof of destroying whatever WMDs he had doesn't mean the US can go and invade Iraq without having sufficient proof about the existence of the WMDs. Don't try to justify your mistakes by calling attention to someone else's mistakes.

---

If they were not destroyed and Saddam admitted to their existence doesn’t mean they still exist? Especially when all Saddam had to do to avoid war was to prove that?

Quote:

---

And Tony Blier has accepted now the WMDs may never be found, if we are to go by his address in the US. Shameless bloke!

.

---

That doesn’t mean they didn’t or never existed. All that means is that he might believe they were very well hidden or they were destroyed just shortly before the war. In either case these 2 conditions all came about because the coalition invaded Iraq.

X

Dont want to be too blunt but the war is over (More or less:rolleyes:) Saddam who was a evil wa**er has been removed and if there was any threat that has also been removed.

If the claims of WMD's were false then the people responsible should apologise and resign. otherwise the removal of Saddam was worth the effort. :) :) :)

I'm glad to see that Xanith and HB read my post. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WiKiDJeFF
I'm glad to see that Xanith and HB read my post. :rolleyes:

---

Start a new thread about any of those topics you brought up if you want to discuss it :)

X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
Start a new thread about any of those topics you brought up if you want to discuss it :)

X

---

Ok.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
You don't give a damn whether WMDs were there or not because now you KNOW there are NO WMDs to be found, and that the entire war is about to be proven totally unjustified, amounting to invasion of a foreign and soverign country instead of the so-called war against terror. The US didn't have any interest in Iraq than the oil which it can now control. And now the US is caught in a mess because it can't leave Iraq and it can't maintain it. It's trying once again to internationalize the Iraq invasion by involving peace-keeping forces from other nations, and frankly I don't see any reason why other nations should involve themselves, or what right the US has to ask other nations to help out. They didn't heed the others before going to war, they have kept the loot for themselves and they are incapable of administering Iraq. If the US thought the war was justified, let the US soldiers die for that justification. America has no moral or any other right to even request assistance from others.

.

---

No most people use this logic: The scientific method.

The first weapons inspectors seen x amount of chemical weapons. They had their lives threatened, was kicked out of Iraq, and finally gave up on getting Saddam to cooperate with them.

4 Years Pass….

Saddam says he no longer has this X amount of weapons but cannot explain what happen to them. He had that x amount of weapons so we have to assume he still has them unless he shows us otherwise. That is big reason number one and number two is even with 250,000 troops parked in his backyard, he wasn’t fully cooperating.

War begins with a major blow to the head of the Iraqi military.
War is over….

The only significant thing that happen during the war to note is Iraqi troops was issued atropine and gas masks. The major blow to Iraq at the start of the war may have prevented a catastrophe.

One major after war fact:
Saddam still had a nuclear program. It was just being paused until the UN lifted sanctions. A scientist whom worked for Saddam led us to the nuclear supplies. He said that Saddam ordered him to bury them in his garden until the sanctions was lifted. Thus his program can resume right where it left off. So Saddam was still seeking nukes, there is no way you or anyone else can rebuke that now.

Someone else in Iraq may very well come forward and show us where some vx for example is buried, like in their garden. But if you think that we or any other country in this world has the resources to just dig around till we get lucky in a country the size of California, your nuts! What you have is the equivalent to a gold rush. Everyone wants to find the gold as soon as possible but the chances of hitting it by sheer luck alone is slim to none. We will find this though means of intel collected from people we capture and people who use to be associated in that government. Regardless, until we find evidence of where those weapons went, we still have to assume the weapons are located in Iraq.

US Supplying Iraq:
Iraq use to be a very civilized nation, it didn’t have the appearance that it has now. Leading up to the Iran-Iraq war, Iran invaded our embassy and took every single person there hostage. That would put a lot of countries in the position of war if it had happen to them. But Saddam fell into our lap when those two went to war. We did the most obvious thing to do at the time, make sure Saddam doesn’t lose. Our hostages were release a little over a year after their capture.

I still say that just because he failed to give evidence of destroying the chemicals or other objectionable materials doesn't give the US the right to invade Iraq. The war has failed to unearth any evidence that could suggest Iraq was as immediate and serious a threat as Bush and Blair claimed to be. They had no evidence then, and they don't have any evidence now. If they can invade Iraq without fully justifying their decision, I don't think they deserve any better consideration than Saddam Hussein. They are as guilty and as murderous as the dictator they have removed.

And why is the US seeking a UN mandate now? It didn't bother to heed the UN advice before going to war. Or is the most powerful nation not powerful enough to rebuild Iraq? Maybe Bush and his team didn't fully anticipate what they were into when they decided to go to war. And their stupidity has cost the Iraqi people dearly.

At least Saddam let them live with food and electricity. So much for 'liberating' Iraq :rolleyes:

.

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

He was proven guilty and had a chance to declare where those weapons went but he didnt.

He was guilty as hell and blew the chance to clear his name!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
He was proven guilty and had a chance to declare where those weapons went but he didnt.

He was guilty as hell and blew the chance to clear his name!!!!

---

Which one of his crimes are we talking about here?

He was found earlier to hold illegal weapons and nobody could really deny that Saddam was working towards a nuclear weapon in some form.

His responsibility was to clear his name by telling us where the old weapons are or what he did with them, he chose to try and hide the truth which was the wrong move. You only hide something if you are guilty!!!!! :) :) :)

Sanctions by the UN on Iraq were violated and the UN did nothing, it just shows a weakness that could one day sacrifice a lot of innocent lives.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
...
At least Saddam let them live with food and electricity. So much for 'liberating' Iraq :rolleyes:

.

---

No food, No Lights, no heat, no water.

Just the clothes on their backs, and the garbage in the cans.

If only Saddam,
If Only...

;)

Quote:

---

At least Saddam let them live with food and electricity.

---

I think the problem was that he wasn't letting everyone live...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WiKiDJeFF
I think the problem was that he wasn't letting everyone live...

---

As if it's gonna improve now that the US doesn't know how to administrate the country, and it's going to take away the only source of revenue for them, the oil :rolleyes:

Iraq and Afghanistan should actually serve as examples that show how short-sighted and selfish political leaders of superpowers ruin lives of millions of innocent people just to claim victory for their 'principles' and 'justice'.

But as we all know, 'might is right' :(

North Korea is another interesting issue yet to unfold. I would like to know what was so urgent about Iraq, what with no WMDs or even any sophisticated weapons, that North Korea has been completely sidelined. Or why Blair and Bush, while claiming in public speeches that North Korea should not pursue and should not be allowed to pursue nuclear weapons programmes are not doing anything to meet the North Korean demand of direct negotiations with Washington. The obvious reason which has been revealed by the events so far seems to be Iraq has oil which the US benefits from, while North Korea has nothing that will please Uncle Sam. Except for this reason, the North Korean crisis has been more serious and more real than the Iraq threat.

.

Quote:

---

As if it's gonna improve now that the US doesn't know how to administrate the country, and it's going to take away the only source of revenue for them, the oil

---

I love it how people think that a government can just pop up in a few months after a war. It took years to get new governments going in Japan and Germany after WWII. I guess in this day and age when people expect things to happen right away they forget the reality of the situation. Two weeks into the latest Iraqi war opponents were already saying what a “quagmire” it had become. Another 2 weeks later and it was all over. I would think you people would learn from being wrong all the time but I guess you will never learn.

Quote:

---

Iraq and Afghanistan should actually serve as examples that show how short-sighted and selfish political leaders of superpowers ruin lives of millions of innocent people just to claim victory for their 'principles' and 'justice'.

---

The majority of the Afagni people and Iraqi people are happy that the US is there. Not only have oppressive governments been removed the people now have more freedoms to express themselves and have a voice in their governments. I would hardly call that ruining their lives :)

Quote:

---

But as we all know, 'might is right'

---

No removing government’s that suppress freedoms and harbor terrorists is right.

Quote:

---

North Korea is another interesting issue yet to unfold. I would like to know what was so urgent about Iraq, what with no WMDs or even any sophisticated weapons, that North Korea has been completely sidelined. Or why Blair and Bush, while claiming in public speeches that North Korea should not pursue and should not be allowed to pursue nuclear weapons programmes are not doing anything to meet the North Korean demand of direct negotiations with Washington. The obvious reason which has been revealed by the events so far seems to be Iraq has oil which the US benefits from, while North Korea has nothing that will please Uncle Sam. Except for this reason, the North Korean crisis has been more serious and more real than the Iraq threat.

---

The argument over Iraq can be fought over and over but you still have to understand some simple facts. First of which being that Iraq had WMD’s, this has been admitted by the Iraqi government and has been shown by numerous intelligence agencies around the world. Second of which is the nature of Saddam himself, he has already proven his brutality and hostility not only to his neighbors but to his own people as well. You have already admitted you believe Saddam to be a “bad man” responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, if you had any compassion for the Iraqi people and actually care about what happened to them you would applaud the removal of Saddam by coalition forces.

Also the North Korea issue has not been completely sidelined. Just because the media is not focusing on that particular situation at this time doesn’t mean nothing is going on. China, Japan, South Korea, and the US are all attempting to deal with the situation at this time. It is in the interest of the entire world that this situation is dealt with not just the United States. I am sure everyone is well aware the threat that North Korea poses but every situation is different and must be dealt with in accordance with those differing circumstances. The old “how come you don’t attack North Korea like Iraq” argument is only used by the ignorant and those who don’t understand the circumstances surrounding that current crisis. The situation is being dealt with as we speak, just because your media is telling you it isn’t being dealt with doesn’t make it true :)

X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
I love it how people think that a government can just pop up in a few months after a war. It took years to get new governments going in Japan and Germany after WWII.

---

So, till a 'new government' is put in place, who is responsible for the suffering of the Iraqis?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
I would think you people would learn from being wrong all the time but I guess you will never learn.

---

I wish some people admitted they could be wrong :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
The majority of the Afagni people and Iraqi people are happy that the US is there. Not only have oppressive governments been removed the people now have more freedoms to express themselves and have a voice in their governments. I would hardly call that ruining their lives :)

---

Even if you are putting those regions in complete anarchy?? Afghanistan is still a mess because the warlords are not going to listen to Karzai much, Pakistan is trying to create a foothold in Afghanistan and I think the US troops have only been in and around Kabul, not overseeing the entire Afghanistan (which you will surely claim is "impossible", but that's something your government should have thought about before the attacks :rolleyes: )
Iraq is a mess, basic facilities such as electricity have not been restored (but I hear many oil wells have started pumping oil already :rolleyes: ), there are increasing attacks on the US military so the war is far from over, and since "a new government could take a long time to settle down", there's not much hope anything good will come the ordinary Iraqi's way. Hardly a favour!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
No removing government’s that suppress freedoms and harbor terrorists is right.

---

China is suppressing freedom, and the US doesn't talk about attacking China. And your government has not managed to produce any evidence about the so-called 'Al Qaeda' link, so the talk of terrorist connection is quite far from the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
Iraq had WMD’s, this has been admitted by the Iraqi government and has been shown by numerous intelligence agencies around the world.

---

Iraqi government admitting to having WMDs?? When did this happen, after the US invasion was complete? Because before that I have certainly not seen anything of the sort. As for the US claims of WMDs, everybody knows what happened to the claims, how weapons got transformed into programmes and then into products, and who were admitting the '45 minute' claim was wrong. Numerous intelligence agencies probably are the British agency and perhaps even the CIA. I haven't read any reports of any other country's intelligence agency saying they had evidence Iraq had WMDs. Of course if there had been any such evidence with any country, it would have been made public before the Iraq war, so there's no reason to believe any other government had this intelligence. Or perhaps the others don't forge documents to support their claims?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
Second of which is the nature of Saddam himself, he has already proven his brutality and hostility not only to his neighbors but to his own people as well. You have already admitted you believe Saddam to be a “bad man” responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, if you had any compassion for the Iraqi people and actually care about what happened to them you would applaud the removal of Saddam by coalition forces.

---

I would applaud the coalition forces if they invaded China for the Tienanmen square killing of student protesters. But I don't see your president talking of China being a suppressor of human rights or freedom. Obviously the US doesn't want to take on a mighty foe, and besides there are rich dividends to be reaped in Iraq :) Any argument by the US about Saddam being a bad man in power must be regarded with suspicion. Because if Saddam was a bad man, he was a threat to the Iraqis, not the US, and the US doesn't surely have the right to eliminate all the bad guys from the world. Besides the US is picking and choosing the bad guys that suit its other interests.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
China, Japan, South Korea, and the US are all attempting to deal with the situation at this time. It is in the interest of the entire world that this situation is dealt with not just the United States. I am sure everyone is well aware the threat that North Korea poses but every situation is different and must be dealt with in accordance with those differing circumstances. The old “how come you don’t attack North Korea like Iraq” argument is only used by the ignorant and those who don’t understand the circumstances surrounding that current crisis. The situation is being dealt with as we speak, just because your media is telling you it isn’t being dealt with doesn’t make it true :)

---

Great. Would you be levying sanctions on to Pakistan for nuclear proliferation? Because Pakistan supplied the nuke technology to N Korea in exchange for missiles, which I think your intelligence agencies should also have acknowledged. But Pakistan is "an ally of the US" :D I find it ironical that the US doesn't say a word about nations which pretend to be toeing its line of argument, but are a source of terrorism. Pakistan is a glaring example in this regard. I have yet to see a single action from the US government that punishes the Pakistani government for its terrorist activities (and that's not just the cross-border terrorism India is facing).

.

A) Money is needed to rebuild Iraq and that was made clear before hand. That is why oil is flowing.

B) You forget the fact that many people didnt have these facilitys before or they were unstable and unreliable

C) Years of neglect have left it needing extensive repairs

D) India and Pakistan are always arguing and making up bulls*** about one another.

E) A War with China would be devistating for the world (Nukes) and China is talking to America.

F) Negotiations are occuring succesfully with all other 'threatening' nations whereas Saddam would not talk.

G)http://members.lycos.co.uk/terrorism...orea-nukes.htm

H) Alot of people in China are happy and they significantly out weigh those who dont like it.

This war:

1) Got rid of one of the most brutal dictators in History. A dictator that murdered thousands of people. Think of those people. Think about their families.. Think about how it feels to be tortured... think about how it feels to be burried alive... think...

2) Gives hope to millions on Iraqis to leave in a democratic, free, modern Iraq. Don't believe me? Let a decade go by and you'd see an Iraq where poverty doesn't exist and probably the most developed country in the Gulf

3) Removes a grave threat to the world. If he doesn't have WMD now, he was all set to acquire them when the sanctions were lifted. This has been proven. He was poised to restart a nuclear weapons facility. Do you think that Saddam would have ever change? Do you think Saddam would have ever given up his ambitions to acquire WMD? Do you?

Everyone has an opinion.

The outcome of these events won't be fully understood for years, maybe even decades...So forming an opinion right now would be complete speculation and a waste of time.

I believe about 2000 years ago people were thinking something like "Can you believe this guy Jesus??? He thinks he's the son of god...What an loony!"

Or in 1945 When Hitler decided to exterminate the jews?
"Hey, I gotta good idea, let's kill every jew in the country...They own everything, so why don't we just kill all of them and make it ours???"

Most of the German Population: "Hey, that sounds like a solid rational idea"

Don't form your opinions too quickly....You may end up regretting them.

I agree time will tell and those that attacked should may it there duty to ensure Iraq becomes what its people wants and not what they want.

Iraq has a powerful assett 'Oil' and should do very well for itself as long as a stable government is formed. They can become a very prosperous and thus stable country as long as they realise this. :) :) :) :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BodwadUK
I agree time will tell and those that attacked should may it there duty to ensure Iraq becomes what its people wants and not what they want.

Iraq has a powerful assett 'Oil' and should do very well for itself as long as a stable government is formed. They can become a very prosperous and thus stable country as long as they realise this. :) :) :) :)

---

Yeah, Iraq has a powerful asset 'Oil' and that's what attracted the US to it. After admitting the intelligence on several reasons for the Iraq war was 'murky' the government is now trying to shamelessly defend its decision (Paul Wolfowitz!). When you can't even establish the Iraqi regime was a direct and immediate threat to you, you still think it's right to go on and destroy the country, and then try to justify it saying you couldn't wait for concrete evidence?? It's incredible to hear these arguments from the nation claiming to have upheld democracy. At the end of the day, one soverign nation stands destroyed and occupied, the reason for which is known to nobody.

And now in the frenzy of finding Saddam the US soldiers have started killing innocent civilians :rolleyes: Or maybe they are so jumpy after the repeated attacks on them, they shoot first and ask questions later, don't they? And what created this situation in Iraq? 'Murky Intelligence' which wasn't enough to convince anybody of the war, and the impatience of the US government because they wanted the Iraqi oil.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
It's incredible to hear these arguments from the nation claiming to have upheld democracy. At the end of the day, one soverign nation stands destroyed and occupied, the reason for which is known to nobody.

---

Try reading those 17+ UN resolutions against Iraq and the last one 1441 that calls for "serious consequences" to occur if Saddam didnt comply. Why does it not surprise me you have conveniently forgotten about them.

X

You are making alot of assumptions HB. America never said it was going in for the oil but did say they will manage it until Iraq can cope. Money is being spent on Iraq and that is likely to be coming from the oil. America has not made any profit for its self from the oil or can you show me otherwise???:( :( :(

We went for the oil??? you must be diluted!

The world's top five crude oil-producing countries are:
1. Saudi Arabia
2. FSU (Former Soviet Union)
3. United States
4. Iran
5. Mexico

I don't even see Iraq on there??? and I don't see us invading any of the other countries on the list either!

hmmm...maybe it isn't about oil after all?

Maybe it was really about ridding the world of a ruthless dictator and his sadistic offspring, who enjoyed torturing people so much that they watched people be forced into wood chippers head first.

Or maybe it was about removing a regime that committed genocide on its own people who stood up against it.

Or maybe it was about removing a regime that willfully used chemical weapons on women and children.

Or maybe it was about removing a regime that lined its pockets from kick-backed cash from the oil for food program while it's countries citizens starved to death.

Or maybe it was just about removing a government that didn't want to play nicely with other governments and wouldn't comply with the suggestions and demands of the worlds governing bodies.

pick one....but to say it was about oil is an extremely thin arguement at best. Especially, when the United States produces more oil than Iraq does.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
We went for the oil??? you must be diluted!

The world's top five crude oil-producing countries are:
1. Saudi Arabia
2. FSU (Former Soviet Union)
3. United States
4. Iran
5. Mexico

I don't even see Iraq on there??? and I don't see us invading any of the other countries on the list either!

hmmm...maybe it isn't about oil after all?

Maybe it was really about ridding the world of a ruthless dictator and his sadistic offspring, who enjoyed torturing people so much that they watched people be forced into wood chippers head first.

Or maybe it was about removing a regime that committed genocide on its own people who stood up against it.

Or maybe it was about removing a regime that willfully used chemical weapons on women and children.

Or maybe it was about removing a regime that lined its pockets from kick-backed cash from the oil for food program while it's countries citizens starved to death.

Or maybe it was just about removing a government that didn't want to play nicely with other governments and wouldn't comply with the suggestions and demands of the worlds governing bodies.

pick one....but to say it was about oil is an extremely thin arguement at best. Especially, when the United States produces more oil than Iraq does.

---

They think it is about oil because they got duped by the oil companies and gas stations gouging prices during the Gulf War when the oil fields caught fire. Therfore people thoughrt we had a world oil shortage. And now they still believe Iraqi oil is important.

If I wanted to rob a bank, would I necessarily rob one of the biggest banks in the world? Maybe I would go for one that was smaller and had bad security. ;)