.Orger
war on iraq
what do you think? Should we be fighting or not?
I think it's the right thing to do. People give George Bush a bad name but no one can possibly imagine what a hard job it is being President. People say "Why should America rule the world?" I'd rather America rule the world than Iraq. There's no point saying "Nobody should rule the world!", you might aswell say "There should be no racism in the world" and "I think we should have equal rights and no wars". None of that's ever going to happen. Afghanistan sentenced people to death for walking their dogs and Iran sentenced a young girl to death because she had a child outside marriage but she was raped and that's how she became pregnant. Would you like to see these people rule the world? At least America don't sentence people to death for believing in what they want. These terrorists need to be wiped out. Islamics want everyone to follow their religion or die. Iraq had those weapons and I believe that's what they were preparing to do. It's a tragedy that people are kidnapped and be-headed but we can't give in to these animals' demands.The pay is UNBELIEVABLE for care workers to go to Iraq, think about that. And the cruelty by American/British troops to Iraqi prisoners...iraq would do alot worse to us if given half the chance.
Would you still be against the war in Iraq if they bombed your house?
Didn't think so...
1K.Orger
I don't believe journalists should be at the battlefront, a 24 hour delay in reporting would help the troops enormously. Reporters just get in the way and they edit their reports just to be controversial. They aren't interested in the truth, only a story.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
.Orger
i understand wot u mean. it's nice to know whats going on tho.
ther woz a bit on the news a week or so ago and it showed american troops enter a mosq they had just finished attacking. there were quite a few dead iraqi terrorists on the ground and there was one that was alive. an american soldier shot him. and then kicked of a bunch of people saying that was inhumane! it's bizarre! what the hell do these people think happened to all the other terrorists lying on the ground? were they sleeping? what were the americans supposed to do, give hospital treatment to this injured terrorist (paid for by us) then set him bak out 2 iraq 2 kil some more of our troops.
bizarre!
1K.Orger
I agree, he was feigning death but he could have had a live grenade under his clothing, the troops were right.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
Re: war on iraq
Firstly, I belive they would want you to call in the War In Iraq.
Secondly, random hero. Do you read your newspapers, do you watch the news, do you listen to the radio, do you speak to people, do you go on the internet?
NO THEY DID NOT!!!!!Originally Posted by random_hero
The ISG delivered a report not to long ago saying there were none. Not even "a teaspoon" of anthrax.
It's terrible that the world is being run by a group of men that all they are interested in is filling their own filthy oil stained pockets. That is why Colin Powel left, he was not one of those men. If they were so intent on fighting the war on terror, WHERE IS OSAMA? They didn't find any Al-Qaeda or even their caves in Afganistan. But they did find a ?Haliburton? oil man and made him predidant of Afganistan so they could build the oil pipe line that the Taliban would not allow.
You may say George Bush thought that the Taliban were nasty men, which they were. But why then did George have them stay at his ranch in Texas to discuss the building of the afore mentioned pipe line.
Then Iraq, what did it have to do with 9/11. Saddam electrocuted terrorists and put them out on public display, dont you think they deserved it? Now Iraq is the terror hot bed of the middle east. But the oil is flowing and thats all that matters.
It doesn't matter that millions of ordinary Iraqis that were safe to walk down the street and lived prosperous and safe lives (as long as they did not speak out against Saddam) are being killed at twice the rate that Saddam killed his people.
If Bush really wanted to defeat terroism he would go to Sudi Arabia. But then, they pay Dubya and his chronies millions and millions of dollars every year.
George Bush makes about $400,000 a year for being president but he makes $millions every year from all the oil barrons of the middle east. "Where do you think his priorities lie" - Micheal Moore.
But because being president is such a hard job he should be excused for not reading the report that said America WAS going to be attacked, because he was playing golf. A little mistake that cost 3000 lives.
Remember Bush didnt even win the election in the first place. The right wingers in the court made him president and he has taken American minds and created the atmosphere of fear he needed to get re-elected. And hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives was a price worth paying.
Did anyone see that program on BBC2, The Power Of Nightmares
Random Hero here is just a few things I think you should read and watch:An organised group called Al-Qaeda with spinter cells all over the world simply does not exist.
1. Film -Farenhiegt 9/11
2. TV series- The Power Of Nightmares (I think I have a bit of it taped somewhere)
3. Book - American Dream Global Nightmare
4. Book - Dude Where's My Country
5. Book - Stupid White Men
And if you live in America, dont listen to what they say. They give the Bush admin millions of dollars every year.
And lastly, have you ever heard of an American President that is quoted in the press every week saying something totaly stupid.
http://www.dubyaspeak.com/
.Orger
sorry, that WAS silly of me. I forgot presidents had to be faltless in every way. you've said a number of stupid things but they don't release it in the papers, do they?
Michael Moore-he's an idiot. All he has to say is 'i hate bush' and he's got film and book deals. I've seen farenheight 9/11. it was a one sided jab at bush. how do they make it work? having people cry. "i've lost my son in the war" that happens in war. did they think that if there son joined the army he'd never be exposed to gunfire? bush played golf instead? supposed ud know that. what with your extensive relationship with bush, or im sure your on first name basis with him now OR was it because you watched a biast movie?
did Bush say he was going to Iraq to find osama? no he didn't. he was going to find a known terrorist and threat. sadam. believe it or not 'godfather', osama isnt the only terrorist leader in the world. the weapon of mass destruction was saddam hussein and all who follow him.
innocent people die in war. how about showing sypathy for our innocent people dying rather than theres. if you've seen any of the beheading videos or torture videos coming from these terrorists ud realise who the bad guys are.
this war began with 9/11 but we din't fight iraq to punish them for 9/11. ur making that up.
do you remember that little thing - conflict desert storm. who were we fighting again...oh yes, the same man we are fighting now...SADDAM. I had a relative in that war. yeh everything is fine, live in iraq, follow ur dreams...UNLESS...(and there it is) UNLESS you follow and worship saddam. not the kind of world i'd like to live in.
another thing michael moore said was that bush rigged the election. employed relative to count votes,ect. at least he didn't murder his opposition but i know a guy who diiiiiiid. need i mention his name again? it rhymes madame. worked it out?
* September 4, 1980: Saddam Hussein initiated a war with Iran as he attacked the oil-reserves in Iran.
* 1987-1988: Saddam Hussein launched the Anfal Campaign against the Kurds. 180,000 Kurds disappeared and 4,000 villages were destroyed.
* March 1988: The Kurdish town, Halabaja, was gassed. 5,000 people were killed and 10,000 were injured.
* August 1988: Many Kurdish villages on the Turkish border were gassed. Thousands of people died.
* August 2, 1990: Saddam Hussein seized Kuwait.
* 1993: Saddam Hussein broke the peace terms from the end of the Persian Gulf War. The United States bombed Iraq as a result.
* October 1998: Saddam Hussein failed to comply with the United Nations weapons inspectors. This action led to a four-day bombing raid by the United States.
On September 12, 2002 United States President George W. Bush addressed the United Nations. During the president's speech he asked the world body to enforce its own resolutions on Iraq.
In November of 2002 the United Nations passed U.N. Resolution 1441. The United Nations Security Council unanimously passed this resolution. U.N. Resolution 1441 ordered Iraq to disarm and provide U.N. inspectors unrestricted access for inspections or face ''serious consequences.''
Below is the timeline of events leading up to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
* October 16, 2002: President Bush signed a resolution passed by Congress authorizing the United States to use force against Iraq.
* November 27, 2002: Formal Weapons inspections began.
* December 7, 2002: Iraq issued its official declaration of weapons to the United Nations.
* December 19, 2002: Hans Blix stated, ''Iraq's account is not a full account of all their weapons.''
* December 2002: President Bush authorized the deployment of 100,000 troops to the Persian Gulf for early January.
* January 27, 2003: Blix reported that Iraq had not proved that they had eliminated illegal weapons.
* March 17, 2003: United States president George Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. Either Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq or the United States would use force to remove him. Hussein was given 48 hours to leave.
* March 19, 2003: Saddam Hussein refused to leave Iraq.
* March 20, 2003: Just before dawn, the United States fired missiles at a bunker where the United States government thought Iraqi officials were sleeping.
boy, i agree with you now. i want that man to be my leader! VOTE SADDAM!!!
unless your running for it 'godfather'?
.Orger
War on Iraq
Yes oil did play a part in the Iraq war.
But the reasons run a lot deeper than just oil.
Sadam wanted a united Arab organisation with him at it,'s head.
Other Arab states did not want someone like Sadam in a position that would threaten their own riches.( thats why no Arab states were prepared to back him by providing troops)
Sadam was fantastic with propergander and in time thanks to the events in Isreal would have swayed the people in the Arab world to support him in his claim to be the top leader of the Arab world.
A United Arab world is not what the Israel government want because that would be a threat to it's existance.( jewish vote is very important in U.S.A elections).
Most of the intellegence received by the C.I.A and MI6 about Sadam came from Israel.
(was it taited by their own interests)
U.S.A would not like a united Arab world because who ever contols the oil controls the modern world, yes we can survive without oil if you dont mind going back a 100 years or so.
Britain should have done more in 1946 to defeat jewish terrorists who invented more dirty tricks than the modern Arab terrorist have ever managed up to this point in time.
Did you see the programe about the blowing up of the David hotel in Palistine in1946
If Britain had got things right then we would have a complete new ball game.
I dont think the world would be saver, you will always have the usual problems of greed and religion these two words have provided reasons to start more wars and killings than any other through out history.
Look out Iran if you think Israell will let you develope the a-bomb. You may find the U.S.A
finding an excuse to invade your shores.
What a wonderful world we live in its more like the x-files the true is out there but you will never hear it spoken by a reporter or a politician.
Yes you sould be faultless if you are the most powerful man in the world. They don't release the silly things I say because I'm not the most powerful man in the world and I dont affect almost everyone from the Amazon to Tibet.
Well, read Dude Where's My Country and there are about 7 lines at the bottom of every page with his sources. Moore simply puts all the articles together and takes the credit.
I know bush played golf because it is a fact. For the first X months he was on holiday. In this time he recived that report.
Well yes he kinda did. He dliberatly linked Saddam to Bin Laden. Who followed Saddam?
AHH!!! Innocent people are dying because the troups are in there. If there was no war there would not be any killings. The bad guys are only there because we are there.
Before the war were you likly to be captured, tortured and beheaded in Iraq. No
Well, actually, Bush made that up.
The only reason America gave a toss about that little scrap of land called Kuwait was because it had oil. Exactly the same reason Iraq gave a toss about it.
And yes Saddam was a bad man, but the ordinary Iraqi was safe. Is the ordinary Zimbabwaen safe? Is the black Sudaniese safe? Is the North Korian safe? And that place, name has left me, Slobodan Milosevic terrorised?
There are lots of bad men in the world, catch ma drift?
.Orger
yes ther are lots of bad men, and we will do our best to wipe them all out.
of course, b4 we invaded iraq there woz love and peace. people held hands, children laughed, people were singing and whistleing as they walked the gold pavement of iraq. ur so right.
sea bird sed somthin along the lines of, he who has oil controls the world. then i hope bush gets the oil. y? look at my other statements.
can i have an invite to your perfect world godfather.
.Orger
War on Iraq
You are all right if you look at a situation based on information you have heard (if that information is correct)
History will show who is right about the war.
But remember the winner writes the history.
Only in films does the good guy win and the bad guy get his just deserts.
Some terrorist become heads of government.(Washington U.S.A,Sadam Iraq,
Bagin Israel) there are hundred through out history.
One mans terrorist is anoughers freedom fighter
Wars are dirty not like TV or video games.
History as shown those that are ruthless in war against terrorist will always win.
That means no reporters and no Tv cameras.
A perfect example of the way people view things is to look at their eating habbits,most people eat meat but do they worry how the meat ended up on the table, would they kill a lamb to make a chop.
If they were made to watch the slaughter of thousands of animals each day on TV I'm sure they would think twice about how nice a lamb chop tasted.
War is the same what you dont see you dont worry about.
We all run cars price of oil is a major factor in how we live, do our morals come first, i dont think so!
£10 a gallon could have happened long ago if history had not followed a different path.
Senior Member
The killings in Iraq are because of American and British Troops? It would never have happened if the UN had been allowed to use diplomacy to solve things. It’s all the fault of the West providing Iraq with arms? I didn’t know the West mass produced Scuds and AK47s.
East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland! And not a squeak from the UN whilst the tanks rolled. The millions slaughtered by the Red Guard, the students slaughtered in Tiananmen Square. Cambodia and Pol Pot. The UN certainly helped there, they helped the Butchers by looking the other way. The Three Wise Monkeys were amateurs by comparison.
The killings in Sudan, Chad, Zimbabwe, Central African Republic, Zaire, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Uganda, oh, continue making you own list, are all because the Americans are not there.
North Korea? Well what are the Chinese and the Russians doing to help there. They are the ones who helped North Korea get into the state it is in and they could quite easily solve the problem. Will they? Not a chance! It's too convenient for them to keep things as they are. Why shoud they care about North Koreans starving when they can use them to cause disruption in the area. Besides, the UN made the current agreement over the Korean split and solved that problem 50 years ago!
Sudan? Well, the UN are solving that problem by "negotiation". The Sudan Government promised to behave and the UN said "Fine". The Chinese, who just happen to have huge interests in the oil there, effectively blocked anything else. (Where are the cries of "It's all about Oil!" over that little problem?)
Central African Republic? Genocide? UN, Kofi Annan? “ Well maybe we should have taken more interest. Sorry about that!” Nobody woke them up from their slumbers over that one!
Chechniya? UN? Missing again. Concerned Humanitarians? Too busy elsewhere. Fearless Western Media? Hiding as far away as possible. No “embedded” journalists there! The place is so rarely mentioned I’m not even sure I have the spelling correct.
Tibet? The UN did a wonderful job protecting them, ask the Dali Lama!
Nepal? UN? Is anything happening there?
The list of UN failures and No-shows are endless and one sided. The NGO (Whatever constitutes one of them.) “Disaster Mongers” pick and choose where they can get the best Press Coverage to parade their “Concern”. They predict all sorts of humanitarian and natural disasters but they never seem to find them afterwards, they just seem to disappear into thin air.
I fell asleep waiting for the predicted “Disasters” halfway through Chapter One. When one of the predicted “Disasters” we are supposed to be causing occurs please let me know, but don’t let me sleep for more than ten years.
In the meantime can somebody kick the Juke Box, the current record just keeps playing over and over again. It’s time somebody changed it before it gets worn out!
Animals I like, people I tolerate.
1K.Orger
Re: war on iraq
Be upstanding - the President is in the forum....
MadPict
Really? Yet you go on to excuse American soldiers summarily executing an unarmed and wounded man. Talk about bizarre...
Oh, and in answer to your question; Yes, the Americans were absolutely supposed to give that man medical treatment. It' written in international law. You remember international law? It's what we're supposed to be bringing to the Iraqi people... unless you're suggesting that we are somehow above the laws that we are forcing on others at the barrel of a gun?
Which reminds me, the Americans who entered the Mosque and executed the wounded insurgent had not, as you claim, just finished attacking it. The Mosque was attacked and cleared by Marines the previous day. On entering the Mosque they had found several wounded insurgents. Rather than follow international law (again, you remember international law?) and treat the wounded, they left them there until other marines arrived to deal with them. When those marines did arrive they found only one of the wounded men still alive - and promptly murdered him.
Which makes it alright for us to physically, sexually and mentally torture prisoners how?
No. He simply said Saddam supported Osama/Al Qaeda.
Ah, the old "anybody who disagrees with our governments' duplicity must support Saddam" routine. I haven't heard that for a while.
No, it wasn't all singing and dancing; but then again, since we invaded your average Iraqi citizen is, according to the Lancet, 58 times more likely to die a violent death than they were under Saddam - so I guess they aren't singing in the streets now either, eh?
"Islamics" eh? Who would have thought that one word could demonstrate such a complete lack of understanding.
1K.Orger
We only need ABEWSED now and we'll be back to our old mega post situation last year!!
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
Senior Member
jjc, you are absolutely right, the marines had no right to leave wounded insurgents in the mosque, if that is what they did, they were very sloppy, very sloppy indeed.
When did any of the troops feed people feet first through a mincing machine? Has any of them done anything even approaching that?
What does International Law say about beheading prisoners? Or is that OK?
Animals I like, people I tolerate.
Are you seriously saying you’re happy to turn a blind eye to our forces abusing prisoners so long as they don’t abuse them as badly as Saddam did?
Is it okay for our forces to summarily and publicly execute unarmed and wounded men just so long as they do it with bullets instead of knives?
Senior Member
Unarmed? And who decided that? Have you never heard of Suicide Bombers?
I certainly wouldn't have taken the risk. And just when did the Terrorists, Insurgents, Freedom Fighters or whatever name you wish to give them sign up to International Law?
Regular troops, operating as part of a regular army are entitled to be treated as such. These people by their own methods do not fall into that category.
If the Mosque had been cleared the previous day then what were live people doing in their anyway? Either they had not been there the previous day or somebody at that time had not finished the job of clearing the Mosque as they should have done. Wounded people lying on un-pinned grenades is an old trick as is laying on a weapon until some idiot turns their back on you and then shooting them, preferably in the back.
Funny how some people want International Law to work one way only. The only mistake both the Americans and our Forces have made is by taking reporters along so they can present a biased and very one sided picture. When the terrorists take cameramen along to show all of their "atrocities" I might have a little more sympathy, but not until then.
When the terrorists start putting their people on trial for mistreating prisoners I will be more even handed. After all, all they do is empty buses of dozens of unarmed trainees and shoot them in the back of the head.
If you want to point fingers then do try and be even handed about it. Or is that against International Law as well?
Animals I like, people I tolerate.
Banned
Re: war on iraq
Under international law, treaties and conventions which both the US and UK signed, there are two reasons for one country to take up arms against another. One is in self
defence if you are attacked and the other is if you have a UN mandate.
Britain and America have sent a message to the world that we are not to be trusted, we sign treaties, we expect other countries to abide by treaties but if it suites our purpose we just break the treaties ourselves.
You can't bring peace with a gun, back in the Vietnam war they had a saying, "Fighting in the name of peace is like f*****g in the name of virginity". The only hope the world had
for peace was in dialogue, agreement and trust, weve blown that big time, no one will ever trust us again.
The reasons for the war in Iraq are plain and simple, Iraq has the second largest undeveloped oil reserves in the world. Russia had already signed an agreement with Iraq to develop those oil reserves, all signed and sealed and paid for and just waiting for sanctions to be lifted before going ahead.
.Orger
"alright boys, we've got a suicide bomber in our sights. be sure to shoot him humanly because i have the international law document in my holster and we've got to follow it no matter what. even if our lives are in danger. so shoot him in the foot then we'll send him off to the NHS for treatment then get him a place at oxford and lets give him a big house"
this is how you believ war should work. it doesn't and shouldn't. brutality towards criminals, prisoners, wotever, shud b allowed to a certain degree.
"it's okay to cut this guys head off but woteva u do, don't photograph him naked coz that'd b inhumane!"
no laws are perfect. do u follow every law? bet you dont.
i can't believe you'd rather live in a world full of terrorists and constant threats. if america agreed to remove troops because of a hostage then what was next? "give us weapons". america can't b a pushover and give in to this scum who stand before an iraqi flag.
if you want to go on about the innocent iraqis dying....are we shooting them? are we going out of our way to shoot civilians? what about the 'innocent' africans that die due to famine?
can't believe you're not even supporting your own troops. our countrymen are being slaughtered and all you can do is support the innocents of terrorists.
.Orger
just want to mention something else
international law wudnt agree with thaaaaaaaat. but wouldn't it be nice to be able to do that. even to iraqi prisoners?MadPict (wrote in the discussion titled 'theift!!!')
"Bring back the birch. In fact slap the little so-and-so's in the stocks, give them a damn good thrashing and leave them in the stocks for a whole day. I know, even better, stick the stocks on the roundabout at the end of Bridge Street. The humilation of being in there, trousers around their ankles, would surely sort them out..... "
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks