War on Iraq survey

[yeahyeah]

Originally posted by Arnor
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" ?

Duh! Saddam knew that waaaaaaay before the gulf war started, he had to have inspectors come on and search for them (which, he managed to stall for months on end). Therefore, b4 these inpsectors came in he would have hidden these WMD's. He would have had to hide them somewhere totally remote so the weapon inspectors wouldnt find them, and due to the logistics of this didnt get the chance to use them.

 

[kaod]

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

What about all the countries where the U.S were not involved in the placement of a leader?

And I say again, as I have many times in the threads that occured at the time of the war:

Maybe they were wrong to back Saddam in the past; it would however be done for their best interests, and I urge you to name a country that doesn't act in it's best self interest.

Also, that doesn't mean you should be criticized for both that historical action and the future making ammends.

And all this: "America doesn't help here or there so why should they in Iraq etc?":
If there rest of the world got off it's ass and provided some support against such corrupt regimes the US wouldn't be the only one actively aiming at it, and they can, as mentioned above - select the ones that serve their best interests.

The U.S is far from perfect, it is however, in my opinion, closer to perfection than your anti-war solutions.

 

[Arnor]

Originally posted by yeahyeah
Duh! Saddam knew that waaaaaaay before the gulf war started, he had to have inspectors come on and search for them (which, he managed to stall for months on end). Therefore, b4 these inpsectors came in he would have hidden these WMD's. He would have had to hide them somewhere totally remote so the weapon inspectors wouldnt find them, and due to the logistics of this didnt get the chance to use them.

there was quite some time afaik from when the inspections officially stopped and till the us started its attack mac

 

[kaod]

Originally posted by Arnor
you think saddam said "I said these were for emergency only, and according to my information minister there is no emergency yet" ?

lmao. Now that's funny.

 

[kaod]

Originally posted by Arnor
there was quite some time afaik from when the inspections officially stopped and till the us started its attack mac

Did or did not the weapons inspectors state Iraq had illegal chemicals on previous inspections?

 

[Arnor]

Originally posted by kaod
Did or did not the weapons inspectors state Iraq had illegal chemicals on previous inspections?

if you by previous mean early/mid 90's iirc, then yes. but those were weapons they got from the us, and the shelflife on those had expired years ago.

 

[kaod]

Originally posted by Arnor
if you by previous mean early/mid 90's iirc, then yes. but those were weapons they got from the us, and the shelflife on those had expired years ago.

Did or did not the weapons inspectors state that a large number of the chemicals that Iraq had at the time of those inspections were unaccounted for, and Iraq would not provide evidence of destruction?

 

[Arnor]

Originally posted by kaod
Did or did not the weapons inspectors state that a large number of the chemicals that Iraq had at the time of those inspections were unaccounted for, and Iraq would not provide evidence of destruction?

they shoudlve just asked bush sr for the receipt then

 

[kaod]

Originally posted by Arnor
they shoudlve just asked bush sr for the receipt then

That's not the point.

 

[Ekydus]

Originally posted by yeahyeah
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.

Lol. You really are an idiot aren't you?

Right. First of all he is called Slim Shady. Now that has been said I'd like to justify my character's name because obviously you're a couple of pieces of fruit short of a fruit salad. My character is a Necromancer. This means that they turn into "Shades". Ahhh yes! Now we're getting somewhere. But before the last name comes the first name. As a typical Necromancer my Necromancer is an Inconnu. Yes, they look like little weirdos and infact if you knew some of the Necromancer spells you'd know that the name is fitting. Now, I didn't come up with the last name for a while. It is merely meant to be an amusing name; with pun intended.

 

[Sabu]

Originally posted by yeahyeah

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

You are talking about a finished war and i think that irakian resistence is kicking boy-scout asses everyday.

Originally posted by yeahyeah

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

Umm Bush is torturing people in Guantanamo Bay but maybe that´s not important cause they are arabs...
Ask the Red Cross about the tortures and human rights of this people.
The americans admited that they are torturing them btw, all day forcing them to hear music, privacy of vision, of food, of sleep etc...
And the funny thing is thet lot of them are innocents, but it doesn´t cares too much, the real bad boy was Sadam.


The problem is not that the americans make a war, they have been killing people from 1945 in all the world; the fucking problem is when they talk about DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, DICTATORS, LIBERTY, .....

Fuck them and fuck all the war-makers, and don´t try to convince us that your fucking wars are the best for the world.

Lol USA is the top seller of weapons in this world, USA doesnt wants to be in the International Court for the human rights, etc....

HYPOCRITS, you wanted a war, you will have one day a war too big for you, i really hope not, but you will.
If someone goes to USA and bomb something, dont cry later saying...why? why us? omg why?

 

[kaod]

Originally posted by Saburo.
Umm Bush is torturing people in Guantanamo Bay but maybe that´s not important cause they are arabs...
Ask the Red Cross about the tortures and human rights of this people.
The americans admited that they are torturing them btw, all day forcing them to hear music, privacy of vision, of food, of sleep etc...
And the funny thing is thet lot of them are innocents, but it doesn´t cares too much, the real bad boy was Sadam.

Food and sleep deprivation are not breaches of the Genevea convention afaik. Blindfolding and the playing of music aren't either - it's an "acceptable" form of torture and is not really what the word torture conjurs up.

The problem is not that the americans make a war, they have been killing people from 1945 in all the world; the fucking problem is when they talk about DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, DICTATORS, LIBERTY, .....

Yeah, all wars are started by and involve the U.S.

Fuck them and fuck all the war-makers, and don´t try to convince us that your fucking wars are the best for the world.

Don't have to. Seems that the people in power agree with us what they do is what we think is right.
So really, we don't care about your insults.

Lol USA is the top seller of weapons in this world, USA doesnt wants to be in the International Court for the human rights, etc....

HYPOCRITS, you wanted a war, you will have one day a war too big for you, i really hope not, but you will.
If someone goes to USA and bomb something, dont cry later saying...why? why us? omg why? [/B]

Easy to talk from your position though. Your are all "What-ifs" - you can conjur up any crap and say - "ah - thats because you did x,y,z."
We can all (including you) only speculate what would happen if the U.S followed your foreign policy, which gives you something of an advantage.

 

[Sabu]

Originally posted by kaod

Yeah, all wars are started by and involve the U.S.

I never said that, but just take a look about what you did in South and Central America for fighting the comunist in the 80' and 90'.


What is happening with war prisioners in Guantanamo is unacceptable, and you wouldn`t say the same if they were americans and not arabs.

Originally posted by kaod

Don't have to. Seems that the people in power agree with us what they do is what we think is right.

Nice argument...

Originally posted by kaod

We can all (including you) only speculate what would happen if the U.S followed your foreign policy, which gives you something of an advantage.

I don´t need to speculate, i will give you an exemple. Bill Clinton and the US army finished the Yugoslavian war.
That´s a perfect exemple of my ideal foreign policy.
According with international community, the public opinion, the common sense, etc the US finished the genocide of the bosnian people.

But seems that Bush preffers to start wars than finishing them.
And sadly Bush is a better exemple of the US-UK foreign policy that the Yugoslavian exemple.

 

[Sabu]

... someone will compare the Yugoslavian war with the actual Irak...

No sense in it....

 

[Ceap]

Originally posted by yeahyeah
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

I have previously listed about 15 incidents in which the US became involved. its the enourmous post on either page 2 or 3.

rather than repeat my self, i direct you to Noam Chomsky's Deterring Democracy.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099135019/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/202-6188338-3887021

or William Blum's Killing Hope: A list of US and CIA engaments since 1945

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099135019/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/202-6188338-3887021

also, read the essays on www.medialens.org

tbh yeahyeah, lets see some facts from you? i have repeatedly posted my sources on here, yet you still claim not to understand or even show signs of reading them. I'm sure your mates in the army are the greatest source ever, but others might argue that they are unable to see the woods for the trees. after all, it takes a certain mentanlity to join the army. nothin ginsulting meant by that, just implying that soldiers tend to be more pro war than the rest of us.

if you want further reading, try www.johnpilger.com . he is an incredible author / journalist

or noam chomsky's archive at http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm

i would post a list, if there is contention i might, have to go out now otherwise i would.

 

[Ceap]

Originally posted by Saburo.
I don´t need to speculate, i will give you an exemple. Bill Clinton and the US army finished the Yugoslavian war.
That´s a perfect exemple of my ideal foreign policy.
According with international community, the public opinion, the common sense, etc the US finished the genocide of the bosnian people.

Read Culture of Terrorism by Noam Chomsky, who cites international aid groups and a variety of sources within international governments and aid groups, catholic missionaries etc. There was one hell of alot more going on that the simple genocide stated here. Also, there is evidence that the atrocities taking place happened after the US invasion not before.

this, however, is no the issue and i am undecided on that war.

also, in the eyes of the international community it was illegal. No UN resolution.

 

[Ceap]

Originally posted by kaod
Did or did not the weapons inspectors state that a large number of the chemicals that Iraq had at the time of those inspections were unaccounted for, and Iraq would not provide evidence of destruction?

yes, including anthrax, which, if i remember rightly, has a half life of 3 yrs or so.

making it utterly useless now.

(Source: UN weapons inspectors)

can't remember excatly whr i read that, New Statesman i think

 

[greenfingers]

just kill em all... incl. US

 

[kaod]

Originally posted by Saburo.
I never said that, but just take a look about what you did in South and Central America for fighting the comunist in the 80' and 90'.

I never did anything, and I'm not American either.

What is happening with war prisioners in Guantanamo is unacceptable, and you wouldn`t say the same if they were americans and not arabs.

I do believe there's some brits there, and if they went off to fight for the Taliban then they deserve what's coming to them.

Nice argument...

It beats your very mature "Fuck you's" hands down IMO.
Why would anyone who's seeing things go the way they think they should worry about you giving them "Fuck you?" <tut>

I don´t need to speculate, i will give you an exemple. Bill Clinton and the US army finished the Yugoslavian war.
That´s a perfect exemple of my ideal foreign policy.
According with international community, the public opinion, the common sense, etc the US finished the genocide of the bosnian people.

But seems that Bush preffers to start wars than finishing them.
And sadly Bush is a better exemple of the US-UK foreign policy that the Yugoslavian exemple. [/B]

You mean the war that the US tried to get the UN to take some action in, and the UN said "uh-uh?" <shake of head>

My point is, that in this case - of Iraq - what-if speculation about innaction is an easier path to chose, shortterm - because the consequences appear further down the road.

Can't remember the last time I filled up with a tank full of Yugoslavian lead-free either for all those "only-for-oil" believers.

 

[yeahyeah]

Originally posted by Ceap
I have previously listed about 15 incidents in which the US became involved. its the enourmous post on either page 2 or 3.

rather than repeat my self, i direct you to Noam Chomsky's Deterring Democracy.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099135019/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/202-6188338-3887021

or William Blum's Killing Hope: A list of US and CIA engaments since 1945

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099135019/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/202-6188338-3887021

also, read the essays on www.medialens.org

tbh yeahyeah, lets see some facts from you? i have repeatedly posted my sources on here, yet you still claim not to understand or even show signs of reading them. I'm sure your mates in the army are the greatest source ever, but others might argue that they are unable to see the woods for the trees. after all, it takes a certain mentanlity to join the army. nothin ginsulting meant by that, just implying that soldiers tend to be more pro war than the rest of us.

if you want further reading, try www.johnpilger.com . he is an incredible author / journalist

or noam chomsky's archive at http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm

i would post a list, if there is contention i might, have to go out now otherwise i would.

So because some1 has written a book about it, it makes it true and is a FACT?? Is it bollox. To write a book about anything to sell is purely to make money. Unless you see or hear it with your own eyes then its always going to be subjective. I have no facts to back up what I say, none of us do. I just say what I think, and if its incorrect then fair enuff.

And as for sum1 having to have "a certain mentality" to join the army, ive never heard so much bollox in all of my life. So you're implying that people sign up for the army "cos they wanna kill stuff an that"? Horseshit. Pure and utter horseshit. A high percentage of any nations army are never gonna get to fire a loaded weapon other than in manouvers. One of my mates was an A star student at school. One of the nicest lads you would ever have the pleasure of meeting. Never got in trouble, never got into any rucks. Got 3 A's in his A levels and decided he wanted to join the para's. Not cos he wanted "to kill stuff". He wanted to travel the world and not be stuck in a mundane 9-5 job.

 

[kaod]

Originally posted by Ceap
yes, including anthrax, which, if i remember rightly, has a half life of 3 yrs or so.

making it utterly useless now.

(Source: UN weapons inspectors)

can't remember excatly whr i read that, New Statesman i think

So it might have been the beano?

Again, shelf life is not the point. They had to account for it, and they couldn't.
It was part of the UN resolution as a condition of ceasefire.

So, although the shelflife is true, that doesn't answer the question.

 

[Sabu]

US+UK are giving unuseful and stupid war to the world... that´s dangerous, don´t cry in the future if the world makes something.

(this is not an argument, only a feeling)

 

[yeahyeah]

Originally posted by Saburo.
US+UK are giving unuseful and stupid war to the world... that´s dangerous, don´t cry in the future if the world makes something.

(this is not an argument, only a feeling)

So your saying that because we attacked Iraq, the rest of the world is gonna declare war on us? Nah, bollox. 90% of the worlds wars (and for you clever cunts who get joy from proving me wrong, no, i have no facts to back that up, but 90% seems a high enuff figure) are "holy" wars which imo are the most dangerous and would happen wether the us/uk intervened or not.

 

[Ceap]

Originally posted by yeahyeah
So because some1 has written a book about it, it makes it true and is a FACT?? Is it bollox. To write a book about anything to sell is purely to make money. Unless you see or hear it with your own eyes then its always going to be subjective. I have no facts to back up what I say, none of us do. I just say what I think, and if its incorrect then fair enuff.

And as for sum1 having to have "a certain mentality" to join the army, ive never heard so much bollox in all of my life. So you're implying that people sign up for the army "cos they wanna kill stuff an that"? Horseshit. Pure and utter horseshit. A high percentage of any nations army are never gonna get to fire a loaded weapon other than in manouvers. One of my mates was an A star student at school. One of the nicest lads you would ever have the pleasure of meeting. Never got in trouble, never got into any rucks. Got 3 A's in his A levels and decided he wanted to join the para's. Not cos he wanted "to kill stuff". He wanted to travel the world and not be stuck in a mundane 9-5 job.

ROFL why don't you go check up on Noam Chomsky and William Blum. FYI Chomksy is recognised as having revolutionised the study of Linguistics, and then shifting his intrests towards the use of propoganda by the US government during the Vietnam war. he is probably THE most respected member of the anti-globalisation movenment, certainly the only one to have a major newspaper refer to as 'arguably the most important intellectual working in the us today'. (New York Times)

William Blum worked for the US state department until the Vietnam war, when he quit to pursue a journalistic career, again, in disgust at the actions of the US during Vietnam.

Both of these men live in the direct fire of the US government. as im sure you will understand, this means that any new book published will be recieved with great scrutiny. as yet, very few people have found Chomsky to be mis-representing facts or re-interptreting them.

So yes, just because it is written in a book doesnt make it true. what makes it true is the exhaustive list of references within the US government, State Dept, UN, NGOs, aid workers, Charities, etc etc etc referenced in these books... if you care to take the time to read them. As you say, you have no facts... so from what basis are you arguing?

And my comment re: the army was this. Ill make it v plain and simple for ya

how many pacifists join an organisation devoted to killing?

 

[yeahyeah]

Originally posted by Ceap
ROFL why don't you go check up on Noam Chomsky and William Blum. FYI Chomksy is recognised as having revolutionised the study of Linguistics, and then shifting his intrests towards the use of propoganda by the US government during the Vietnam war. he is probably THE most respected member of the anti-globalisation movenment, certainly the only one to have a major newspaper refer to as 'arguably the most important intellectual working in the us today'. (New York Times)

NERFI

 

[yeahyeah]

Originally posted by Ceap
how many pacifists join an organisation devoted to killing?

Prince Edward, Prince Andrew, Prince Philip. A lass from my college called Vicky.

 

[Ceap]

Originally posted by yeahyeah
NERFI

i can only assume this is whats known as conceding a point...

 

[yeahyeah]

not even remotley fuckin interested. Why would i wanna read books like that? If those kind of books "float your boat" fair enuff, but it aint for me. I have the sun newspaper for all my "war related information". Why would i wanna read a book 476 pages long (and in small print may I add) when the sun can some it up in one page, with pictures?

 

[Ceap]

Originally posted by yeahyeah
Prince Edward, Prince Andrew, Prince Philip. A lass from my college called Vicky.

lol...

 

[Ceap]

Originally posted by yeahyeah
not even remotley fuckin interested. Why would i wanna read books like that? If those kind of books "float your boat" fair enuff, but it aint for me. I have the sun newspaper for all my "war related information". Why would i wanna read a book 476 pages long (and in small print may I add) when the sun can some it up in one page, with pictures?

because the book has facts, and the sun has tits.....


and because u might like to make yer own mind up, not just believe what a newspaper tells you?