War on Iraq survey

[Ekydus]

Originally posted by Repent Reloaded
btw Yeahyeah, i dont who or what the fuck you are, dont use my words u little mo-hung-fucktard!!!!

OMFG!
I'm siding with Repent. :\

yeahyeah is just too much of a twat and TBH you are trying to be Repent for some reason. Only one person can be crowned forum gimp.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Originally posted by Arnor
reporter: "who is the prime minister of india by the way mr-president?"

bush: "umm, isnt that....wait.....umm..no"

Who cares? Was he talking to him at the time or was staring at a huge banner of the Prime Ministers name?

All that proves is at that time he didn't know the name. Big deal.

Like a lot of the "Bushisms": Throwaway mistakes.

 

[Ekydus]

OK, so he doesn't know about the people he is working with. No, no; you're right. It doesn't matter that he doesn't know the names of the people he is working with.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Originally posted by Ekydus
OK, so he doesn't know about the people he is working with. No, no; you're right. It doesn't matter that he doesn't know the names of the people he is working with.

Not really no.

I bet he has to try to remember a stackload of names of people that he actually works with, and those that he has to meet or be in contact with reguarly and those that are on the boundary of that contact, where the name of said person is only important (barely) when you are addressing them - and names are probably the most irrelevant area of what he has to actually remember.

If the guy was infallable then I'd begin to worry.

 

[Tumbleweed]

So in essence:

People who are pro-war think that something had to be done.

People who are anti-war think that those that are pro-war are talking out of their ass and believe too much TV/Hollywood hype, and the information they have - from undisclosed or equally ambiguous sources - is in fact correct and pro-war people are retards.

 

[old.Dillinja]

Originally posted by Ekydus
OMFG!
I'm siding with Repent. :\

yeahyeah is just too much of a twat and TBH you are trying to be Repent for some reason. Only one person can be crowned forum gimp.

Technically you aren't, because I have come to a conclusion that Repent is yeahyeah, and that it is just another one of his attention-seeking schemes. Either that or it is his twin brother.

 

[Ekydus]

I doubt it's Repent. Repent is more likable and yeahyeah is more arrogant, ignorant and intelligent.

 

[old.Dillinja]

I just thought it strange that as Repent left for a little while I saw this annoying yeahyeah person posting crap everywhere. It got me thinking today when I saw Repent's posts and yeahyeah's posts they looked very similar. So, it all just seemed to fit into place.

 

[Ekydus]

Nope, if you read all of his posts, he talks about stuff with more common sense then that of Repent. Even so, it is very little, being the huge twat that he is, it is still noticeable. Then, we have Repent. He is so blissfully unaware of how moronic some of his ramblings can be that he thinks everybody loves him, but yeayeah seems to like to piss people off. Especially Coim-. For fuck knows what reason yeahyeah has a huge dislike for Coim- and is stalking him throughout the forum and posting the trademark flames of BW aimed at him.

 

[Ceap]

Originally posted by Tumbleweed
So in essence:

People who are anti-war think that those that are pro-war are talking out of their ass and believe too much TV/Hollywood hype, and the information they have - from undisclosed or equally ambiguous sources - is in fact correct and pro-war people are retards.

See my quote containing references to the information i was quoting. Ex-US state department (Rogue State - William Blum) and one of the most well respected intellectuals working within the united states (Noam Chomsky).

k, here is a quote from Rogue State. The man being quoted is US Brig. General William Looney, a director of the Iraq operations between the wars:

"If they turn on their radars we're going to blow up their goddam SAMs. They know we own their country. We own their airspace... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need".

The quote comes from the Washington Post, August 30, 1999, p3.

I believe that says enough about the situation.

 

[old.Dillinja]

Originally posted by Ekydus
Nope, if you read all of his posts, he talks about stuff with more common sense then that of Repent. Even so, it is very little, being the huge twat that he is, it is still noticeable. Then, we have Repent. He is so blissfully unaware of how moronic some of his ramblings can be that he thinks everybody loves him, but yeayeah seems to like to piss people off. Especially Coim-. For fuck knows what reason yeahyeah has a huge dislike for Coim- and is stalking him throughout the forum and posting the trademark flames of BW aimed at him.

Yeah, but who doesn't like to piss Coim- off?

 

[Ekydus]

Yeah, but this yeahyeah dude does it in a way that he thinks is cool with the "OT'ers" and, well it just pisses me off. I think... No wait, I have added yeahyeah to my list of forum gimps.

Let it be known, I proclaim from this day forth, yeahyeah is a forum gimp. Disrespect him and go forth my army of OT'ers!

 

[old.Dillinja]

I was just thinking, why is it that 90% of threads in OT end up in a discussion involving how stupid Repent is?

 

[Ekydus]

Correction, from today it is Repent AND yeahyeah.

 

[Coim-]

Originally posted by old.Dillinja
Yeah, but who doesn't like to piss Coim- off?

Nerf, I'm actually good for something.

 

[Coim-]

Originally posted by Ekydus
Especially Coim-. For fuck knows what reason yeahyeah has a huge dislike for Coim- and is stalking him throughout the forum and posting the trademark flames of BW aimed at him.

I think he's jealous of my l33tness tbh.

 

[yeahyeah]

Originally posted by Ekydus
Nope, if you read all of his posts, he talks about stuff with more common sense then that of Repent. Even so, it is very little, being the huge twat that he is, it is still noticeable. Then, we have Repent. He is so blissfully unaware of how moronic some of his ramblings can be that he thinks everybody loves him, but yeayeah seems to like to piss people off. Especially Coim-. For fuck knows what reason yeahyeah has a huge dislike for Coim- and is stalking him throughout the forum and posting the trademark flames of BW aimed at him.

Nope, wrong again. I have a huge dislike you for. Any1 that feels the need to name one of his chars after a crappy white rapper is a totaly wanker. Coim aint that bad, at least he's funny and the same goes for dillinja. Repent is even funny to a certain degree. Do u really think more than 5% of his posts are serious? Nope. He prolly writes the crap and sits back waitin for you to flame him and then pisses himself at home with all the replies. Repent doesnt think people love him, hes taking the piss thats all cos unlike u, mr "ima gonna pop a cap in yo ass mr shriek shady in da hood etc etc" repent has a fuckin sense of humour and i for one find him hilarious.

 

[yeahyeah]

Originally posted by Ekydus
No wait, I have added yeahyeah to my list of forum gimps.

Your confusing me with somebody that gives a shit

 

[yeahyeah]

Anyway, back onto topic. We can all argue wether the war was about oil and wether there are any wmd's but one thing that we know is true is that Saddam tortured and raped his own people. Should we of just sat back and let him continue doing that? I suppose we will never know what the general concessus (is that how u spell it b4 i get flamed?) was within the iraqi people about the us/uk gettin involved. Then there is the subject of 9/11. I dare sare a high percentage of you lot where for the coalition forces going to afghanistan but there is evidence (ok, it was in the Sun newspaper and prolly in all the other papers so draw your own conclusions) that saddam was invloved to a certain degree so if that eveidence was correct then surely something had to be done about saddam aswell as bin laden? This could of all been avoided i feel, if the original George Bush who was in his term in the first gulf war would of had some balls and ordered the SAS (or whoever it was) to take saddam out when they had the chance. Instead, his arse went and he said no. Im not that well educated on european/world legislation but was it ilegal or something and thats why Bush said no?

 

[Arnor]

Originally posted by yeahyeah
Anyway, back onto topic. We can all argue wether the war was about oil and wether there are any wmd's but one thing that we know is true is that Saddam tortured and raped his own people. Should we of just sat back and let him continue doing that? I suppose we will never know what the general concessus (is that how u spell it b4 i get flamed?) was within the iraqi people about the us/uk gettin involved. Then there is the subject of 9/11. I dare sare a high percentage of you lot where for the coalition forces going to afghanistan but there is evidence (ok, it was in the Sun newspaper and prolly in all the other papers so draw your own conclusions) that saddam was invloved to a certain degree so if that eveidence was correct then surely something had to be done about saddam aswell as bin laden? This could of all been avoided i feel, if the original George Bush who was in his term in the first gulf war would of had some balls and ordered the SAS (or whoever it was) to take saddam out when they had the chance. Instead, his arse went and he said no. Im not that well educated on european/world legislation but was it ilegal or something and thats why Bush said no?

your first point is not valid im afraid, it would have been had the us not cooperated/helped other dictators do the same. If they had hunted down and killed all dictators that torture etc ppl then it would be ok.

there has NEVER EVER been a proven link between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq. (no, i dont take bush's word for it, weird huh?)

THe reason bush sr. said no to killin saddam the last run was that they'd rather have a weakened saddam in control then a strong anti-american shia(or sunni or some middle east faction) government. afaik

 

[Ceap]

Originally posted by yeahyeah
Anyway, back onto topic. We can all argue wether the war was about oil and wether there are any wmd's but one thing that we know is true is that Saddam tortured and raped his own people. Should we of just sat back and let him continue doing that? I suppose we will never know what the general concessus (is that how u spell it b4 i get flamed?) was within the iraqi people about the us/uk gettin involved. Then there is the subject of 9/11. I dare sare a high percentage of you lot where for the coalition forces going to afghanistan but there is evidence (ok, it was in the Sun newspaper and prolly in all the other papers so draw your own conclusions) that saddam was invloved to a certain degree so if that eveidence was correct then surely something had to be done about saddam aswell as bin laden? This could of all been avoided i feel, if the original George Bush who was in his term in the first gulf war would of had some balls and ordered the SAS (or whoever it was) to take saddam out when they had the chance. Instead, his arse went and he said no. Im not that well educated on european/world legislation but was it ilegal or something and thats why Bush said no?

Gulf War 1 - Bush calls for people's uprising to overthrown Saddam. leftist coalition allies with the kurds, and marches on Bagdhad. they arrive at the US military base, seeking weapons / food / support. The US sends them to the French base, where they are again turned away. the US bombs the uprising in one of its bombing sorties. then the republican guard gets to them. these, aid workers believes, are the bodies that lined the mass graves we were shown.

also, i was against Afghanistan. why? because the Pakistan government made a deal with the Taliban at the last minute to put Bin Laden on trial at the International Criminal Court (which amercia doesnt recognise). US said no. Also, how did Afghanistan help our 'war on terror'? the majority of funding / support comes from organisations inbeded in Saudi Arabi. but saudi has the worlds largest oil fields, so we can't bomb there. Afghanistan was a diversion, an easy target for Rumsfeld's Shock Troop tecnique. It was the same with this war. time and time again we hear mention of 'rumsfeld's methid' or similar - mentioned in many news reports - which is a small number of heavily armed forces using a kind of spear concept... psuh them back to the capital within 2-3 weeks, after bombing everytarget before hand. (yes, for those of you with a knowledge of history, its called a blitzkreig)

we put saddam in power. we funded the mujahadien (sp). until america stops funding dictators, there will be no peace.

this is how we should have handled Saddam:

1) Weapon's Inspections
2) Ending of Sanctions (500,000 children have died since 1991 - UNICEF - due to lack of adequate medicine etc)
3) Immediate aid to rebuild the country in the form of aid workers, not money given to saddam
4) as the nation rebuilds itself, it becomes more able to overthrow him. tbh, Iraq needs a secular government (as its people seem to want), not the Iraqi National Congress who have no support in the country. The people we are putting in power are westrern style biusiness people with no support in their country, to the extent that they have to tell people who they are ^^

 

[kaod]

Originally posted by Ceap
this is how we should have handled Saddam:

1) Weapon's Inspections

No need surely? Most of you still think there never were any weapons.

2) Ending of Sanctions (500,000 children have died since 1991 - UNICEF - due to lack of adequate medicine etc)
[/B]

Same ol' same ol'. After what happened in '91, it's unlikely a lot of the money would have made it to the people anyhow.
They were given the oil for food program, look how that worked out.

3) Immediate aid to rebuild the country in the form of aid workers, not money given to saddam
[/B]

Yeah, I could see that working a treat. Saddam isn't underhand in any way at all.

4) as the nation rebuilds itself, it becomes more able to overthrow him. tbh, Iraq needs a secular government (as its people seem to want), not the Iraqi National Congress who have no support in the country. The people we are putting in power are westrern style biusiness people with no support in their country, to the extent that they have to tell people who they are ^^ [/B]

This simply would never happen. They are too many factions who want their own people in and don't recognise others, are ruled by religion and wield power by religion.
This is why Arab states are able to have dictators like Saddam, and others who are/were as bad or close: the muslim "brothers" only fight external anti-muslim targets together.
Rest of the time they just squabble amongst themselves and are so under the thumb of the regime and it's religious rule, they won't break out.

Its a real tired discussion/argument now anyhow, all the points of view have come up, all the conspiracy theories and counter theories etc - more than once.

Time will reveal more evidence for/against, some points that help the argument for/against will now never come to fruition and some things will just remain hidden for many years to come.

 

[Arnor]

still clinging to "war is the answer" ey?

since they have found no wmd's has it occurred to you that that is because there ISNT any?

45minute strike capability with wmds were we told, why the fuck didnt iraq use that when they were being bombed/invaded by the us?

 

[kaod]

Originally posted by Arnor
still clinging to "war is the answer" ey?

since they have found no wmd's has it occurred to you that that is because there ISNT any?

45minute strike capability with wmds were we told, why the fuck didnt iraq use that when they were being bombed/invaded by the us?

We've been through this already Arnor, I really don't want to get into another argument about it so please re-read the thread of some time ago if you want to freshen up on my response.

 

[yeahyeah]

Originally posted by Arnor
since they have found no wmd's has it occurred to you that that is because there ISNT any?

Imagine i hid a motor car sum where in Norway and then yourself and 99,999 other people had to try and find it. Reckon it would be easy? Nah. Of course it wouldnt. Iraq is a big country with vast deserts. They could be anywhere. Just like you believe your "conspiracy theories", i am a firm believer that there are wmd's. You can use however many quotes and stories you want that contradict there being these wmd's but you wont convince me. If there arent any wmd's why where there rockets found that could hold nuclear warheads and lunch them over "x"miles?

The war happened. We (uk and usa) kicked ass. Sadam is gone. Right or wrong its over.

 

[Ceap]

Originally posted by kaod
This is why Arab states are able to have dictators like Saddam, and others who are/were as bad or close: the muslim "brothers" only fight external anti-muslim targets together.

the reason arab states have dictators is that America puts them in power in the first place, then they naturally swing to the opposite extreme once (if) they get rid of them

 

[Ceap]

Originally posted by yeahyeah
The war happened. We (uk and usa) kicked ass. Sadam is gone. Right or wrong its over.

IT IS FAR FROM OVER

 

[yeahyeah]

Originally posted by Ceap
the reason arab states have dictators is that America puts them in power in the first place, then they naturally swing to the opposite extreme once (if) they get rid of them

Ok, honestly now, im not taking the piss or trying to prove you wrong, could u tell me what dictators the us has put in power? I serioulsy dont know lol. Cheers

 

[yeahyeah]

Originally posted by Ceap
IT IS FAR FROM OVER

A few of my mates, have been invloved in peecekeepin duties in Kosovo, Bosnia etc, and there has been countless times when they got fired upon. Does that mean we are at war with Kosovo and Bosnia?

 

[Arnor]

Originally posted by yeahyeah
Imagine i hid a motor car sum where in Norway and then yourself and 99,999 other people had to try and find it. Reckon it would be easy? Nah. Of course it wouldnt. Iraq is a big country with vast deserts. They could be anywhere. Just like you believe your "conspiracy theories", i am a firm believer that there are wmd's. You can use however many quotes and stories you want that contradict there being these wmd's but you wont convince me. If there arent any wmd's why where there rockets found that could hold nuclear warheads and lunch them over "x"miles?

The war happened. We (uk and usa) kicked ass. Sadam is gone. Right or wrong its over.

the main reason i believe there are no wmd's is simply because if there were, you think iraq wouldnt have used em? they were being bombed and invaded, you think saddam said "I said these were for emergency only, and according to my information minister there is no emergency yet" ?