greg1917 Posted March 16, 2003 Posted March 16, 2003 Its no wonder the iraqis hate the west. the british government puts saddam and his thugs in power. they sell him weapons some of which he uses on his own people. in response to saddam invading kuwait they kill and maim thousands then LEAVE saddam in power. they impose sanctions which effectively give saddam the power to distribute food and also lead to thousands of iraqi children dying. despite UN weapons inspectors claiming iraq is cooperating more and more, the US claims its under threat and decides to kill and maim thousands AGAIN in order to free the iraqi people, or the real case which is to get their hands on iraqi oil supplies. they probably invade without the UN resolution that makes it legal and with the majority of the world firmly against it. Britain tags along in toe watching its young lads be killed by american bombs then gets landed with the peacekeeping role afterwards when the US finds another country to bomb in attempt to show they're winning the war on terror.
Sayonara Posted March 16, 2003 Posted March 16, 2003 The US Government sponsored Hussein's rise to power, not the UK. Can we all please stop referring to him by his first name? He's not some cuddly uncle.
PogoC7 Posted March 16, 2003 Posted March 16, 2003 To all the people bashing the U.S. Lets just leave Saddam in power so he can continue to arm himself as he's done for 11 years now. After the Gulf War ended in 1992 was he supposed to rebuild his military? Saddam not disarming just shows his lack of cooperation. Can all you haters please be quite. I still haven't seen one comment on a resolution for Iraq. All you girls do is bitch about America's pressure towards Iraq. I still have questions. Should Saddam be in power in Iraq or not? Why hasn't Saddam disarmed? The U.N are losers who have proved in the past that they cannot handle a situation. The U.S. does not follow to the U.N. Other way around. If Saddam wants to rule his people. He can fully disarm. Give proof and rule with an iron fist in peace. P.S. We have been attacked. Iraq has been firing at Allied Aircraft in the No Fly Zone for the past ten years. Plus, we don't attack any country we want. Saying that makes no sense. You could be saying this because you’re just jealous of the U.S, but I don't like to say that. Satellite photos have shown commercial aircraft and training camps in the Iraq Desert. I see the reason for training camps, but commercial aircraft. Umm, wonder what those are for? If you’re against Bush, against Saddam. Then you’re for a peaceful resolution. So what are your Resolutions? Should we just leave Saddam alone? Should we give him a deadline to become a peaceful, cooperative ally? Should they ask him to leave power? You haters should realize that Saddam will not be in power for much longer and the real issue is the rebuilding of Iraq. You know, what $$$France and Russia are scared of.$$$
PogoC7 Posted March 16, 2003 Posted March 16, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ The US Government sponsored Hussein's rise to power, not the UK. Can we all please stop referring to him by his first name? He's not some cuddly uncle. IN THE PAST. If he was smart, he would be a $$great ally to the U.S. by now.$$
greg1917 Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 Im not bashing the US here, im just opposed to a completely futile war. America has common interests with Briatian and I hope our history of cooperation in armed conflicts continues but this is different. And if by US basing u mean being scared of American 'friendly' fire then i think im bloody justified as a certain canadian didvision in afghanistan will tell you.
fafalone Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ The US Government sponsored Hussein's rise to power, not the UK. Can we all please stop referring to him by his first name? He's not some cuddly uncle. Sure he is, haven't you seen the video Uncle Saddam? ...and to refer to him by anything else would be more respectful... can't allow that.
Glider Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 Another point I think, is that all this could have been avoided had Desert Storm been carried to its logical conclusion. There was an opinion at the time that Hussein should be arrested and tried for crimes against humanity for his attempts to anihilate the mountain people. Does the way Desert Storm ended strike anyone else here as odd? At the time, when there was wholesale surrender of Iraqi troops and allied troops were advancing easily, everything suddenly seemed to come to an abrupt halt. I remember at the time thinking "What the hell's the point of that?....The job's not finished". I don't remember the reasons for it, but by any measure of a military operation, it was incomplete. It would have been like the Normandy invasion pressing through Europe, but stopping short of Berlin and then withdrawing, or, like wiping out all opposition up to, but not including Goose Green. Even on a section level, if troops need to take a command post, they have to take out the defences, but they don't stop there...they take the post and then secure the entire area. Just seemed odd to me.
Radical Edward Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Well, we're a sovereign nation who can do what it pleases too, and right now it pleases us to attack. note however that attacking people is illegal. NK has not done this.
LuTze Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by PogoC7 P.S. We have been attacked. Iraq has been firing at Allied Aircraft in the No Fly Zone for the past ten years. Wrong. That would be Iraq defending itself from Allied aircraft invading it's airspace whilst enforcing a no-fly zone that has never been sanctioned. Originally posted by PogoC7 Satellite photos have shown commercial aircraft and training camps in the Iraq Desert. I see the reason for training camps, but commercial aircraft. Umm, wonder what those are for? Shock horror! An arab country has airliners? Oh my god, they must be planning on crashing them into the ships in the Gulf! They can't be there to move people about or anything, oh no. Originally posted by PogoC7 If you’re against Bush, against Saddam. What? Originally posted by PogoC7 Then you’re for a peaceful resolution. So what are your Resolutions? Should we just leave Saddam alone? Not necessarily, i'm against any 'solution' that involves the US and UK ignoring the framework of the UN and going it alone. Originally posted by PogoC7 You haters should realize that Saddam will not be in power for much longer and the real issue is the rebuilding of Iraq. You mean the rebuilding that only US contractors have (already, I might add) been allowed to bid for?
Sayonara Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone Sure he is, haven't you seen the video Uncle Saddam? ...and to refer to him by anything else would be more respectful... can't allow that. No I haven't - moustachioed fat old guys don't do it for me faf. I don't feel Saddam is disrespectful enough, what with it being his name and all.
Matzi Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by PogoC7 [...]P.S. We have been attacked. Iraq has been firing at Allied Aircraft in the No Fly Zone for the past ten years. Plus, we don't attack any country we want. Saying that makes no sense. You could be saying this because you’re just jealous of the U.S, but I don't like to say that.[...] Again, what are your damn aircrafts doing there? Jealous of the USA? Wonder how that works (especially now)...
Sayonara Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Matzi Again, what are your damn aircrafts doing there? Jealous of the USA? Wonder how that works (especially now)... I agree, but please don't feed the troll.
Radical Edward Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Glider Does the way Desert Storm ended strike anyone else here as odd? It stopped because of whingeing arabs.
atinymonkey Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward It stopped because of whingeing arabs. Careful, that's not the reason it stopped. Threaten the nation of Islam and you will cause a widespread retaliation. American troops in the middle east are a very large threat to those countries. Has no one else been worried by Hussains intention to bring the war to the west. This will not be a distant CNN war that you can watch during the MTV ad breaks, this will involve direct attacks on the US and the UK. A direct attack on America is almost assured. This seems to have degenerated into a cat fight, thanks to Pogos mindless drivel. The war, no matter how neccecery, is still illegal and therefore morally wrong.
Deslaar Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward a direct attack? how? Abusive telegrams???
Radical Edward Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 I'm just waiting for someone to say "all the undeclared WOMD that he has given to Al Qaeda so they can bomb us"
LuTze Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by atinymonkey Has no one else been worried by Hussains intention to bring the war to the west. This will not be a distant CNN war that you can watch during the MTV ad breaks, this will involve direct attacks on the US and the UK. A direct attack on America is almost assured. It's difficult to see how. He has no Navy, no Air Force (that is worth speaking of) and no easy way to get troops outside his own border.
Radical Edward Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 remember Hussein is full of propaganda. He said that the citizens of Iraq will fight to the death in the streets to resist the american forces... however in reality they will probably surrender immediately, in the hope that they will get shipped to a nice detention camp and actually get fed properly, as one Iraqi soldier said annonymously.
blike Posted March 17, 2003 Author Posted March 17, 2003 a direct attack? how? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html ::adds fuel to the flames::
blike Posted March 17, 2003 Author Posted March 17, 2003 I'll admit, one man's interview is hardly conclusive evidence, but it is something to think about.
PogoC7 Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Glider Another point I think, is that all this could have been avoided had Desert Storm been carried to its logical conclusion. There was an opinion at the time that Hussein should be arrested and tried for crimes against humanity for his attempts to anihilate the mountain people. Does the way Desert Storm ended strike anyone else here as odd? At the time, when there was wholesale surrender of Iraqi troops and allied troops were advancing easily, everything suddenly seemed to come to an abrupt halt. Well, IN AMERICA, there was a presidential election months away and the American people did not support Bush going into Baghdad to out Saddam. They though America's agreements for Saddam to disarm and no longer be a threat to his neighbors would hold (LOL). Plus, our mission in the Gulf War was to out the Iraqi Army from Kuwait. Planes in the Desert to TRAIN TERRORISTS TO HIJACK AIRCRAFT. The U.N. is a JOKE. America in the No Fly Zone IS LEGAL. Protecting others who live in Iraq from Saddam is a 24/7 hour, 12 year mission (Turkish-Kurds). http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ ----FACTS
Sayonara Posted March 17, 2003 Posted March 17, 2003 If Pogo were a book, it would be "Curious George and the Hanta Virus".
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now