BBC taking the world for a ride ;-)

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. ;)

Wrong question. Would you rob a bank that has 2 dollars in it versus the one with 1,000 dollars in it?

Iraq only has 2 dollars? It may not be in the top 5, but it is up there.

Iraq is # 10 on the list of countries producing the most oil.

They didnt go in for the oil that was made up by those against the war to undermine the government. They had no excuse to stop it so they tried to turn the people against the government with an oil argument :) :) :) :)