When is too far, too far?

[Lester]

<Iraqui information minister>

This thread does not exist.

You will all be smashed in the servers.

You came for a bit and you didn't stay. You came under our pounding and now you are buried in your computers.

Errr.... Is THIS your card?

Glass bottle, bottle glass.

<IIM>

 

[nath]

Thing is, I bet there are people out there, watching BBC/CNN and the ilk, and laughing their ass off at the blatant lies that we're lapping up too

 

[Guest]

were not really in iraq, its all done on a sound stage at pinewood.

 

[dysfunction]

Originally posted by brooky
Also, who cares that he lived a life of luxury whilst the rest of the population were starving, thats all over the history books in other countries even the uk in the times of old.

******

im sorry if my opinion differs from yours, but i can freely state wtf i like tbh, and i feel that point was a valid one. the tv reporting atm is showing his luxury lifestyle, its almost like there saying "well, theres fuck all weapons but didnt he live like a king"

What you are saying is that because it has been done in the past its ok to do it now?

 

[Gef]

Anyone know where I can find some reports from that Iraqi minister bloke? They make me giggle ..

 

[Guest]

Im not saying its ok to do it now, the point is that theres no weapons of mass destruction been found yet, and all we are seeing is the tv reporters saying that he lived like a king, so what, it makes no difference, so why show us, if he has these weapons then he deserves everything he gets, but what happens if he was actually complying with the old un resolution and did actually get rid of the weapons the un inspectors said he had. That would mean that operation iraqi freedom should not have happened. Because Bushs dad didnt get him in the last war and they want a free flowing extra lot of oil then that maybe why this all started in the 1st place.

im not that nieve that i think saddam is a saint, but theres other countries that are donig worse and the americans do fuck all about them. (North Korea)

 

[dysfunction]

Originally posted by Gef
Anyone know where I can find some reports from that Iraqi minister bloke? They make me giggle ..

From Sky News:

Iraq's Information Minister has said it has no intention of surrendering to US forces which have seized parts of Baghdad.

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf said Iraqi troops had the situation under control.


"We are going to tackle them and going to destroy them," he told reporters.

"We will not surrender," he said. "The US will surrender or we will burn their tanks.

"Baghdad is bracing to pummel the invaders."

Al-Sahaf claimed the Coalition was deliberately targeting civilians and the offices of television companies.

He said US troops were "isolated and bombing from a distance" and in an "hysterical state".

 

[Maljonic]

his reports also seem to suggest that the Americans have bombs that are able to seek out women, children and old people.

 

[Durzel]

Ok, trolling aside - this is what I personally think about the war..

I think a lot of this realistically relates directly to 9/11 - that event proved that no matter how secure you think a country is, there is always the possibility that hardline anti-Westerners are able to cause serious devastation. Whether you believe Iraq was ever likely to start a war of its own volition or not, theres plenty of evidence to suggest that 9/11 could happen again and again.

Now, I don't personally think the motivation for the US going to war with Iraq was down to WoMD. I personally think the US was "fed up" of Iraq flouting the UN resolutions and being evasive, and wanted to teach them a lesson. I actually really think its pretty much as simple as that. All this talk of liberation, etc, and even WoMD to an extent (although I suspect the US/UK is genuinely concerned about chemical/biological attacks in the same scale as 9/11) is largely - imo - just faux reasoning. The UK, for its part, I believe just tagged along for the ride.

Ultimately - no war is justifiable in the strictest sense of the word. But that doesn't mean to say that wars aren't a solution to a problem that has no other solutions. They are, and have proven to be countless times in the past.

If you think about it, wars aren't too dissimilar from playground fights. If you rub someone up the wrong way for too long, they're likely to hit you. Are wars ultimately not this same principal on a larger scale?

 

[Maljonic]

pretty much, only with the lying and the postering and the killing...

 

[nath]

The thing with the 9/11 rationale, is that surely attacking Iraq is just going to breed more hatred for the western nations (well US/UK) so making another attempt at such an attrocity all the more likely?

 

[dysfunction]

Originally posted by Durzel
If you think about it, wars aren't too dissimilar from playground fights. If you rub someone up the wrong way for too long, they're likely to hit you. Are wars ultimately not this same principal on a larger scale?

Except when you plan to take over the world.



I agree with your entire statement there. Saddam has been playing silly buggers for 12 odd years now annoying the Americans and 9/11 was the last straw.

 

[nath]

Originally posted by Durzel
Ok, trolling aside

fucker

 

[xane]

Originally posted by nath
The thing with the 9/11 rationale, is that surely attacking Iraq is just going to breed more hatred for the western nations (well US/UK) so making another attempt at such an attrocity all the more likely?

Nope.

You need to read history and find out how, in the Arab view, the western nations, and the UK in particular, have been oppressing the Arabs since the Middle East was divided up after WW1. Nothing will change after this, as long as Israel exists and the western nations bankroll them, you'll always have a fierce resentment.

I'm afraid that amongst the Arab leaders Iraq had few friends, after invading two other muslim nations, thretening others, and attempting to scupper trade agreements on oil numerous times, secretly many are quite happy he is going, however, that does not mean they are happy with a huge American influence in the region.

If America does overplay it again, like they did in Iran, they'll have a fundementalist revolution on their hands.

 

[Maljonic]

Originally posted by xane

If America does overplay it again, like they did in Iran, they'll have a fundementalist revolution on their hands.

surely they are aware of that.

 

[Gumbo]

It'll also be interesting, assuming it happens, what effects the second democracy in the region will have, maybe we'll see a bit of a domino effect like we saw in Eastern Europe.

I doubt it, but who knows?

 

[Guest]

so its all Hitlers fault?, historically the americans have had a low key view of controlling what went on in the arab world, but after 9/11 they have decided to sort everyone out. there are alot of other coutries in the world, so y did we have to wait for 9/11 for someone to do anything about iraq. America just got a wakeup call, it was ok for saddam to do wtf he wanted until then.

 

[Maljonic]

Originally posted by Gumbo
It'll also be interesting, assuming it happens, what effects the second democracy in the region will have, maybe we'll see a bit of a domino effect like we saw in Eastern Europe.

I doubt it, but who knows?

that would be nice

 

[Gumbo]

Where does Hitler come into this discussion, or have I missed something?

 

[Tom]

Amazing, how many people here have no understanding of history.

Also, who mentioned Hitler? Didn't know WW1 was anything to do with him, I thought he was painting pictures at that time.

 

[Maljonic]

some are comparing the Saddam situation to Hitler; before WWII Hitler was on the rampage in neighbouring countires and it took ages for anyone to do anything about it... nipping Saddam in the bud before it gets out of hand.

 

[Guest]

As you know Hitler killed alot of jews, the rest were homeless and after the end of the 2nd world war, the state off israel was born (the original members of the un security council decided that they should sort them oput a place to live all together) , giving them a home, thus starting all this crap off in the 1st place.

 

[Maljonic]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
Amazing, how many people here have no understanding of history.

Also, who mentioned Hitler? Didn't know WW1 was anything to do with him, I thought he was painting pictures at that time.

pretty shite pictures at that, he was also sleeping on park benches and living like a tramp; a real rags-to-reich story

 

[xane]

The eastern european "democracy revolution" was largely fuelled by Soviet Russia going down the pan, without Big Brother behind them there was little reason to fear the dictatorships.

Arab countries are largely divided between those ruled by nationalist parties, and those ruled by tribal dynasties, with the exception of Turkey although they are still subject to military rule.

I can't see any of the dynasties giving way to democracy although there could always be the possibility of a "constitutional monarchy" involving some element of power sharing with an elected assembly, but like in the UK, the unelected Head of State having supreme power.

Others are fiercely nationalistic, it is difficult to see them becoming a democracy as most already have an element of democractic representation and are nowhere near as oppressive as the government of Iraq was. Besides, if they did adopt a more open electoral approach then this simply gives a route for the fundementalists to gain power, most of the Arab nations have restrictions on Islamist parties.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by brooky
As you know Hitler killed alot of jews, the rest were homeless and after the end of the 2nd world war, the state off israel was born (the original members of the un security council decided that they should sort them oput a place to live all together) , giving them a home, thus starting all this crap off in the 1st place.

Go read history.

The state of Israel, and most of the middle eastern Arab countries (including Iraq), were being decided after WW1 when the area was previously occupied by the Ottomans, they being defeated after siding with the Germans.

Jews started to emmigrate to British Palestine (as it was then) because of pogroms and persecution in Europe, this caused resentment from the existing Arabs in the region and it soon flared into violence.

Most Arab countries gained independence during the 1930s, the last remaining disputed area was Palestine, which after WW2 was under a UN Resolution as to how it exactly was to be divided into Arab and Jewish states.

WW2 and Hitler were a mere blip on another continent as far as the Middle East was concerned, the problems extend way beyond that.

 

[*Exor*]

Originally posted by nath
Since when is taking copious amounts of ecstasy legal, Mr Buckley?

Do you see me protesting against wars though?

I'm allowed to break the law as far as I am concerned. I pay tax, therefore I part own the government. Seeing as war protestors are all unemployed, or students, I have many more rights than they do.

 

[Guest]

oh dear, the aliens have landed.

exor owns, but he smells of stale wee, like bodhi

 

[Durzel]

brooky is so dense, light bends around him.

 

[Guest]

Im going for the title of most retarded person on Quakenet.

Originally posted by bodhi
Oh christ, the most retarded person on Quakenet is back. I for one am jumping up and down at the prospect.

looks like im getting there.

 

[dysfunction]

what do you mean getting?