Iraqi: 130140979535 ... US Liberal: 0

[Nismo_Freak]

http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

OWNED!

[AshT_200]

Litle Girl :rolleyes:

[Nathan_200sx]

LMAO, just a shame there's thousands of "little girls" about jumping on any anti whatever bandwagon that passes by.

[Pauly_Boy]

You cherping bird!!

Classic :)


She got so owned its unbeliveable!
Oh, btw, i heard it was actually peace and justice that removed Hitler from power in the 40's :rolleyes:

[Midgers]

I like it
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Yingtong]

"you are a joke...answer the question you chirping bird"....PMSL

[Pete C]

I hate people who dodge questions like that. If they can't answer a fundamental question that throws doubt on their whole argument, then they should admit defeat and give up honourably :rolleyes:

[yeager]

This is an excellent example of the typical arrogance of the average american (Nismo_Freak please forgive me)

Remove Bush, remove Saddam, problem solved...

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by yeager
This is an excellent example of the typical arrogance of the average american (Nismo_Freak please forgive me)

Remove Bush, remove Saddam, problem solved...

The same could be said about the ignorance of your statement

"Remove Bush, remove Saddam, problem solved..."

But I know you werent being too technical or involved with your statement.

Arrogance!? nahhhh you mean Americans are arrogant!? Where the hell did you get that from? HAHAHHAHA... I LIVE HERE PEOPLE! I'm on the front lines... hahaha. I live in a country of ignorant fvcktards. Then again we could all take up that arguement. :p

[Martin T]

That sample just goes to prove how black and white some people think this issue is. She just dont realise that in real life, there is not allways a nice way of sorting some problems out, and that if anyone makes a decision that affects a large number of people, there are allways some that will get fvcked off about it. That Iraqui hit the nail on the head.

[yeager]

Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
The same could be said about the ignorance of your statement

"Remove Bush, remove Saddam, problem solved..."

But I know you werent being too technical or involved with your statement.

Arrogance!? nahhhh you mean Americans are arrogant!? Where the hell did you get that from? HAHAHHAHA... I LIVE HERE PEOPLE! I'm on the front lines... hahaha. I live in a country of ignorant fvcktards. Then again we could all take up that arguement. :p

I agree in my own arrogance, my emotions run hot at times where i'm just so angry at how this has been dealt with I get rather pissed off.

[AshT_200]

I say,

It is only the English who have a god given right to be arrogant.

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by AshT_200
I say,

It is only the English who have a god given right to be arrogant.

I thought the French claimed that... :confused:

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by yeager
I agree in my own arrogance, my emotions run hot at times where i'm just so angry at how this has been dealt with I get rather pissed off.

I dont see how your remarks were out of hand? :confused:

No harm, no foul mate.. PLAY ON! :D

I really dont know crap about soccer... i'm sorry ... "football". I perhaps should learn so I can understand the sport better.

[yeager]

Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
I dont see how your remarks were out of hand? :confused:

No harm, no foul mate.. PLAY ON! :D

I really dont know crap about soccer... i'm sorry ... "football". I perhaps should learn so I can understand the sport better.

RED CARD.. off the pitch young man :)

If you want, I could organise a trip to a footy match whilst your in the UK. There is NOTHING like standing with 50 thousand people all shouting and screaming !

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by yeager
RED CARD.. off the pitch young man :)

If you want, I could organise a trip to a footy match whilst your in the UK. There is NOTHING like standing with 50 thousand people all shouting and screaming !

Sounds good... but what about 120 thousand rednecks at the opening NASCAR race at Texas World Speedway? :D

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by yeager
This is an excellent example of the typical arrogance of the average american (Nismo_Freak please forgive me)

Remove Bush, remove Saddam, problem solved...

I second that, don't know who is worse Bush or Sadam, both total ****ers.

I think bush wants to invade countries with natural resources and take over them:rolleyes:

Saying that I am greatful to Bush for helping out Iraq by blowing the $hit out of it. I sincerely believe that Bush is going to war for the good of Iraq and has no interest in the oil reserves at all.

He is such an intelligent chap Mr Bush.

[Midgers]

can you answer the question he posed then?

[Imran Tunio]

Can I ****, I have been totally brainwashed by all that American bullshit propegenda that I have seen on the TV:rolleyes:

[Martin T]

The "chirping bird" was dumb anyway. The answer to the mans question was both simple and obvious.
Leaving Sadam in power stops a war!!! Thats one argument that it improves world peace.
Personally, after talking to an Iraqui, I say that this war is necessary, just that Dubuyah and Tony are doing it for all the wrong reasons. (think votes!)

[deej-79]

I just thought that I would post my opinion since I am almost literally "on the front line"

Anyone who kills innocent civilians in his own country needs to be removed from power, Saddam is not in any way a good person. I will leave the Bush thing alone. Would Iraq be better off without Saddam? Hell yes!!!

Here are 10 things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue:

1) President Bush and Saddam Hussein.....Hussein is the bad guy.

2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind. They have Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.

3) If you use Google Search and type in "French Military Victories," your reply will be "Did you mean French Military Defeats?"

4) If your only anti-war slogan is "No war for oil," sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.

5) Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.

6) Despite what some seem to believe, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He plays one on T.V.

7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "Infidel" and Bin Laden wants you dead, too.

8) If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but you do not believe in the danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the Dell computer dude.

9) We are not trying to liberate them.

10) Whether you are for military action, or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation.

I hope this helps.

These are not my words, they are from Dennis Miller but I thought they were pretty good.

Above all, Support the troops, pray they all come home safe, pray for the families of those that dont.

Oh yeah, Go Soccer, Screw NASCAR

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
I second that, don't know who is worse Bush or Sadam, both total ****ers.

I think bush wants to invade countries with natural resources and take over them:rolleyes:

Saying that I am greatful to Bush for helping out Iraq by blowing the $hit out of it. I sincerely believe that Bush is going to war for the good of Iraq and has no interest in the oil reserves at all.

He is such an intelligent chap Mr Bush.

Am I right in assuming that Bush caused 100% of the mess in Iraq? According to your thesis this is the case. Care to debate? Present only facts, non of the right or left agendas. Non of this turn Iraq into glass talk, non of this anti-war talk.

I want you to prove that the removal of Saddam via force will cause the death of more innocents than not removing him at all. I want you to also use historical facts that this "anti-war/peace" action prevents wars from happening. I want you to come up with a better way to solve the conflict in Iraq.

[yeager]

Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
I want you to come up with a better way to solve the conflict in Iraq.

Unfortunately this is the problem :(

[Imran Tunio]

I would either leave Sadam in power OR appoint another leader from Iraq.

The biggest killer in Iraq is the SANCTIONS you have forced upon them. Countless people have starved to death.
In actual fact, sadam has a lot of support in Iraq, not that you see this on the propeganda broadcasted on TV.

Since the gulf war the country has been trying to rebuild itself under the strict sanctions imposed, only to be INVADED again against the UN approval. Why do you think this time, there are so mant opposing nations???

US and UK are going in for the wrong reasons, they never gave
Iraq enough time to prove they had no weapons of mass destruction.

Don't forget there are other countries who have Nuclear capabilities and could easly manufacture deadly weapons like Korea!

Why aren't the US/UK invading them???? possibly down to the lack of oil me thinks:rolleyes:

At least the rest of the rest of the world know what the war is about. This silly smokescreen that sadam is a threat seems to fool most gullable/nieve people:rolleyes:

The US/UK always try and play the good samaritans trick
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: when in actual fact the real reasons lie much deeper.

This war is for 2 main resaons, economic gain and as some other member pointed out, getting votes! remember how George Bush's popularity soared after Sep. 11????

This war is not for the good of the Iraqi people.

[Imran Tunio]

The other option, is to get rid of Sadam, but let the Iraqi's decide who should go into power. I believe, it should be upto the Iraqi public to decide on a new leader, can't see this happening though.
More than likely, Bush will appoint some puppet into power who will be in the favour of US/UK and will give it the"yes three bags full sir" crap.
This is what actually happened with the fall of USSR. They appointed a pope in favour of a capitalist market, and he was totally against communism.
Subsequently,through clever poitical decicions the USSR began its demise.

[JB]

There's an Andrea who works for me and I can honestly say there isn't a day goes by when I don't want to throttle her :mad:

Think I'll try saying "you are simply not ready for the adult world" next time she pisses me off :D

[JB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
The biggest killer in Iraq is the SANCTIONS you have forced upon them.

Sanctions imposed because Saddam wouldn't abide by international law. Therefore the biggest killer in Iraq is Saddam. Logic innit.

[Imran Tunio]

not really, just big bully tactics! the US also imnposed sanction on Cuba too:rolleyes:

I f the US knew Sadam was the biggest killer in Iraq and they wanted to overthrow his regime, why did they desert the Iraqi people after the gulf war and leave his regime in tact?? what has changed all of a sudden???
How come all of a sudden they are taking the moral high ground??

Don't forget bush's weapons company:rolleyes: he must be making a tidy profit:rolleyes:

[GrahamB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
The biggest killer in Iraq is the SANCTIONS you have forced upon them. Countless people have starved to death.
In actual fact, sadam has a lot of support in Iraq, not that you see this on the propeganda broadcasted on TV.


Good grief:mad:

Wake up and smell the coffee you fool:mad:

Sanctions were imposed to stop him rebuilding his armour...

He is still allowed to sell oil but he is paid in medicine etc...

What he does with the aid he has been given up to now is up to him so it is still him killing his own.:mad:

It is HE who lets his people starve. FFS:mad:

The people love him cause they are terrified of him. There was an Iraqi chap on the TV the other day who told of many of his friends at school who were dragged out of class and shot. I think you would love Blair and Bush if you thought that someone might be round any minute to drag you out from work and shoot you in the car park just cause you might have said something out of place.

[JB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
not really, just big bully tactics! the US also imnposed sanction on Cuba too:rolleyes:

I f the US knew Sadam was the biggest killer in Iraq and they wanted to overthrow his regime, why did they desert the Iraqi people after the gulf war and leave his regime in tact?? what has changed all of a sudden???
How come all of a sudden they are taking the moral high ground??

Don't forget bush's weapons company:rolleyes: he must be making a tidy profit:rolleyes:

Sanctions were imposed by the UN not the US alone. The object of the first Gulf War was the liberation of Kuwait from the invasion of Saddam's Iraqi army, NOT regime change. Regime change has become necessary because Saddam will not abide by international law and rid himself of weapons of mass destruction. After 12 years of playing bloody stupid games with the international community he's long overdue for his comeuppence.

[Imran Tunio]

According to the UN and Hans Blix(spelling) there was insufficient evidence of weapons of mass destruction and more time was needed. US became inpatient and decided to invade without UN backing. At the very very least ore time should have been given. Guilty till proven innocent springs to mind:rolleyes: this just goes to show, regardless of the outcome, the smokescreen has fooled you:rolleyes:
Don't be nieve:rolleyes:

[Imran Tunio]

Some people say sep 11th was the America's come-uppance:rolleyes:
what do you think about that? what provoked this fury?

Have to look at both sides of the argument to make a balanced disscusion:rolleyes:

And america did try and overthrow Sadam's regime in the gulf war! they took the easy option in the end and deserted them with sadam still in charge:rolleyes:

[Ken]

Why is it then that Iraqi people living in this country have shown support for the war, Saddam has killed far more of his own people than the UK/US ever will, youre the one being niave

[Nathan_200sx]

Apart from the fact that in the very 1st day the fool shot banned undeclared missiles into Kuwait and they have now found what they believe to be more chemical and biological weapons in a hut in the middle of nowhere. In a few days they've uncoverd more than the inspectors have in 12 years.

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Blue
Why is it then that Iraqi people living in this country have shown support for the war, Saddam has killed far more of his own people than the UK/US ever will, youre the one being niave

Not true, the majority of the iraqi people are behind him, hence the greater resistance than first thought.
They are loyal to him and fight for their country. Take it you have not been watching the news then?? just cos a handful of selected people speak out you conclude that the majority of iraqi's don't like sadam???

[JB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
According to the UN and Hans Blix(spelling) there was insufficient evidence of weapons of mass destruction and more time was needed. US became inpatient and decided to invade without UN backing. At the very very least ore time should have been given. Guilty till proven innocent springs to mind:rolleyes: this just goes to show, regardless of the outcome, the smokescreen has fooled you:rolleyes:
Don't be nieve:rolleyes:

I think you are the one being nieve sunshine :rolleyes:

Firstly Hans Blix is the guy who said North Korea didnt have any nuclear capability. Got that right then didn't he :rolleyes:

How much more time would you be prepared to gove Saddam. Isn't 12 years enough for you? Perhaps you like to wait until after he's sold some of his weapons to terroists and thousands more have been killed?

The guy is a proven liar. He HAS WMDs. He's fired Skud missiles and they were one of the items he was not allowed to have under UN mandate. But I suppose that doesn't matter because you reckon he should be allowed to get away with whatever he wants.

This guy is a murderer, tried to take over and plunder another country, is developing weapons whose only object is to kill in the most horrible way, has killed his own people and shown a complete disregard for anyone and anything other than himself, and you are prepared to stand up for him? Says a lot about you m8 :mad: :mad:

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Nathan_200sx
Apart from the fact that in the very 1st day the fool shot banned undeclared missiles into Kuwait and they have now found what they believe to be more chemical and biological weapons in a hut in the middle of nowhere. In a few days they've uncoverd more than the inspectors have in 12 years.

Suprise suprise, how did I see that coming, so the UN are are useless then???

The yanks can simply plant a load of bombs and blame it on sadam, easy, they now have justification to invade Iraq:rolleyes:

[JB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
Suprise suprise, how did I see that coming, so the UN are are useless then???

The yanks can simply plant a load of bombs and blame it on sadam, easy, they now have justification to invade Iraq:rolleyes:

Sorry mate but you are wrong:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


Edited to erase my rudeness. I appologise

[Imran Tunio]

JB, I don't this he is a nice guy, and wouldn't want him over for tea on sunday afternoon whilst watching the cricket:rolleyes:

Saying that he is not as bad as most people are led to believe. I ask you this, if USA are so worried about deadly weapons being made, what are they going to do about Korea??? bearing in mind they have no oil:p ????

[Ken]

Please dont tell me you believe the U.S. planted weapons so the could attack, the majority of Iraqis are too scared to say anything against Saddam for fear of their lives, the man uses his own people as human shields FFS, not to mention the thousands of kurds he killed using chemical weapons, how can you believe such a man is fit to govern a country, he lives in splendour while his people starve to death

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by JB
Sorry mate but you are a tw@t :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Pathetic child, having to go to insults, grow up and act your age:rolleyes: How immature:rolleyes:

[Nathan_200sx]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
Suprise suprise, how did I see that coming, so the UN are are useless then???

The yanks can simply plant a load of bombs and blame it on sadam, easy, they now have justification to invade Iraq:rolleyes:

Bet you love your conspiricy theories dont you. so the usa gave him a load of scud missles then? go have a read up on jaynes you might have to change your view. On the resistance there are only small pockets of a few people who are thought to be loyal to saddam, far more have given up than have taken to arms. did you miss that bit in the news? the very news you quote as your source of information yet dismiss as propganda in the next breath?

[Nathan_200sx]

And yes the UN is useless, it old, outdated, corrupt and flawed, as shown.

[Imran Tunio]

I don't just watch one source of news though;) I watch many different perspectives and then come to a conclusion:rolleyes: unlike the most of you:rolleyes:

[JB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
Pathetic child, having to go to insults, grow up and act your age:rolleyes: How immature:rolleyes:

I appologise for my rudeness unreservedly and have ammended the post. Sorry for causing you offence :(


This however, does not alter the fact that your apologist attitude to Saddam are unbelievably misplaced. You are the one who is showing that he hasn't seen the news, or more likely understood it properly.

There's so much media coverage that nobody could plant anything on Saddam without it becoming public knowledge. He cannot be trusted and has to be removed before things escalate to the point where it is too late.

[Imran Tunio]

you have to weigh up the for and against, then come to a conclusion:rolleyes:

I think the majority of you only ever listen to a biased view:rolleyes: it not your fault though:rolleyes:

Anyway, bear this in mind, the next time you write an assignment:rolleyes: and you might get somewhere in life:rolleyes:

[JB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
I don't just watch one source of news though;) I watch many different perspectives and then come to a conclusion:rolleyes: unlike the most of you:rolleyes:

I too watch the news from several different perspectives, The UK, US, French, German and Italian channels. My conclusion is that removing Saddam is a good thing.

[Ken]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
you have to weigh up the for and against, then come to a conclusion:rolleyes:

I think the majority of you only ever listen to a biased view:rolleyes: it not your fault though:rolleyes:

Anyway, bear this in mind, the next time you write an assignment:rolleyes: and you might get somewhere in life:rolleyes:

Sorry mate, but you are the one wearing blinkers, can you suggest any other way of solving the problem

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by JB
I appologise for my rudeness unreservedly and have ammended the post. Sorry for causing you offence :(


This however, does not alter the fact that your apologist attitude to Saddam are unbelievably misplaced. You are the one who is showing that he hasn't seen the news, or more likely understood it properly.

There's so much media coverage that nobody could plant anything on Saddam without it becoming public knowledge. He cannot be trusted and has to be removed before things escalate to the point where it is too late.

Is this not a democratic soceity then??
I thought one was allowed freedom of speech and all that???
I am merely expressing my views, what happend to each to their own and that?????

The UK is not a dictatorship led country??? by the way you are oprressing/condeming my views is seems like you are being hypocritical:rolleyes: and going against the fundamental aspects of a democratic nation:rolleyes:

And insults, does not solve anything or shed anylight to the argument, if anything, you loose credibility.

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Blue
Sorry mate, but you are the one wearing blinkers, can you suggest any other way of solving the problem

Sure I can sir, read my earlier posts.

[JB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
Is this not a democratic soceity then??
I thought one was allowed freedom of speech and all that???
I am merely expressing my views, what happend to each to their own and that?????

The UK is not a dictatorship led country??? by the way you are oprressing/condeming my views is seems like you are being hypocritical:rolleyes: and going against the fundamental aspects of a democratic nation:rolleyes:

And insults, does not solve anything or shed anylight to the argument, if anything, you loose credibility.

I've apologised for my rudeness. Strange you don't seem to be able to accept that but manage to forgive Saddam :(

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
I would either leave Sadam in power


Leaving Saddam in power has shown in the past to be the incorrect response. He has again threatened the destruction of another country around him, he has funded terrorists, and he kills his own people with his strong arm dictatorship.


Originally posted by Imran Tunio
OR appoint another leader from Iraq.


Your going to ask Saddam to please quietly step down and relinquish his command of 30 years. Your also going to expect the next leader of Iraq not to be a puppet for Saddam?


Originally posted by Imran Tunio

The biggest killer in Iraq is the SANCTIONS you have forced upon them. Countless people have starved to death.
In actual fact, sadam has a lot of support in Iraq, not that you see this on the propeganda broadcasted on TV.


Alow me to note the UK was a striving member behind the sanctions against Iraq. So YOU too have "forced" sanctions upon Iraq. Not like they didnt deserve them. They only invaded Kuwait for its OIL, they only sent rockets into Israel, they only gassed villages of Iraqi Kurds in the north. Saddam has support cause people FEAR Saddam from day one. They dont know anything else. If you think I cant see through most of the propaganda then you need to open your eyes.


Originally posted by Imran Tunio

Since the gulf war the country has been trying to rebuild itself under the strict sanctions imposed, only to be INVADED again against the UN approval.

Rebuild what... its radar sites in the south, its military, its palaces. Ironic that one man can afford a dozen palaces but his people starve in the streets. BTW, the US, UK, Japan, Spain, and Poland are members of the UN. So are France, Germany, and Russia.


Originally posted by Imran Tunio
Why do you think this time, there are so mant opposing nations???


Money. Russia is losing another arms market when Iraq falls. A very illegal arms market I might add. The French also have money invested in Iraq. They simply want to protect their investment. The world revolves around money and power. If you try to struggle against it then you will be the one at the bottom.


Originally posted by Imran Tunio


US and UK are going in for the wrong reasons, they never gave
Iraq enough time to prove they had no weapons of mass destruction.


Lets see here... 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01, 02, and a quarter of 03. That makes a little over 12 years Saddam had to comply. If you are convicted of killing 20 people, or had a giant stash of illegal weaponry does the UK government send you a notice in the main saying you have 12 years to get rid of them? He had PLENTY of time, but simply thumbed his nose at the UN.


Originally posted by Imran Tunio

Don't forget there are other countries who have Nuclear capabilities and could easly manufacture deadly weapons like Korea!


Yes and it's unfortunate. However it would be hypocritical of us to say that normal peaceful countries can not develop WMDs per the guidelines of the numerous treaties and talks. Iraq and N. Korea are not "normal peaceful" countries. They also are two very different situations.


Originally posted by Imran Tunio

Why aren't the US/UK invading them???? possibly down to the lack of oil me thinks:rolleyes:


N. Korea is rich in minerals. N. Korea is also right next to a very large nuclear power, China. China supplied N. Korea during the Korean War. Whats to say we invade Korea and find ourselves in the middle of a nuclear shootoff? Circumstances are very different with Korea. Compairing the two is like compairing black to white.


Originally posted by Imran Tunio

At least the rest of the rest of the world know what the war is about. This silly smokescreen that sadam is a threat seems to fool most gullable/nieve people:rolleyes:


What do those people really know? They only know what flashes up on a TV screen or what they hear on the radio. They are followers of another opinion. This war not only removes a potential threat to the west, but it removes a troublemaker from the middle east and an ardent war criminal to the likes we havent seen since Bosnia, Germany, Cambodia, and the USSR. We have always removed people like Saddam from power. Often without the public knowing about it. We removed Hitler from 1940s Germany. Now look at Germany.


Originally posted by Imran Tunio

seems to fool most gullable/nieve people:rolleyes:


Your nieve to think Saddam is a good ruler, that he is going to comply.


Originally posted by Imran Tunio

The US/UK always try and play the good samaritans trick
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: when in actual fact the real reasons lie much deeper.


How do you explain Somalia then?


Originally posted by Imran Tunio

This war is for 2 main resaons, economic gain and as some other member pointed out, getting votes! remember how George Bush's popularity soared after Sep. 11????


Am I incorrect in assuming that votes = popularity? If the majority of the American people feel that G. W. Bush is doing the right thing then Bush is following what we like to call democracy. You are one person out of millions, you honestly think your vote counts more than your neighbors cause you can wave your hand higher?


Originally posted by Imran Tunio

This war is not for the good of the Iraqi people.

War is never good for a people, but the future will be better for these people. They might actually be able to live without fear of someone killing their family if they say the wrong thing. They might actually have freedom of speech. They might actually be able to go places and be accepted in the world. They might actually have a future.

[Ken]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
Sure I can sir, read my earlier posts.

The suggestions you made earlier will not stop the war, you suggest putting some one the Iraqi people vote for in power, how will this come about if Saddam is not removed first, and to leave him in power is not a viable solution

[Nathan_200sx]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
I don't just watch one source of news though;) I watch many different perspectives and then come to a conclusion:rolleyes: unlike the most of you:rolleyes:

Sorry mate but I do have an opinion and have looked at different sources of information. I have a syrian sat 5 feet away who has just come back from demaskas (however it's spelt, excuse my ignrance) the opinions are very devided but one thing is clear and thats that Saddam must go. The main fear is that the coalition forces will stay as generaly the Arab nations dont trust the US, I think it would be wrong for them to stay personaly but they have said they have no intention of doing so. The Iraqi people must decide who'll rule them or no Arab state will trust the Iraqi leadership if it is seen to be a puppet to the west. this could cause major upset in the middle east and I'm sure this is enough to deter the US from even thinking about it.
The real point is that saddam is worse than hitler and needs removing. if left alone he's garenteed to cause trouble.
The only thing that worries me is that Iran might start to get itchy trigger fingers if they see a crushed Iraqi army, which is why a fully capable Iraqi armed force should be left in place when we've gone. If I thought this was just for oil I'd be standing right behind you.

[Imran Tunio]

Jb, No hard feelings mate.

I never stated that I forgave sadam, I believe, the current situation has very little to do with disarming sadam, but is more about economic gains(oil) and increasing popularity(votes)

Like someone else pointed out, the US/UK are going in for the wrong reasons.

They should be focusing on Bin Laden, not Sadam anyway. He is more of a danger than sadam:rolleyes:

Problem is afghanistan is not rich with oil so he has lost interest and focused his efforts on iraq, where he can satisfy his economic gains......

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio

The yanks can simply plant a load of bombs and blame it on sadam, easy, they now have justification to invade Iraq:rolleyes:

Last time I checked we were in this together... Lobster. So I suppose the Brits stashed some bombs as well. The US has had justification to invade Iraq on the humanitarian level for years. I personally think this WMD's search is stupid. He has used them in the past on his own people. He has not complied to the rules of international law. Therefor he is a criminal of war and it is our duty to remove him and charge him in an international tribunal.

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Blue
The suggestions you made earlier will not stop the war, you suggest putting some one the Iraqi people vote for in power, how will this come about if Saddam is not removed first, and to leave him in power is not a viable solution

I would totally support the US/UK if they removed sadam, BUT let the Iraqi's take a vote who goes in power next. The person who goes in power next should do so for the benefit of the Iraqi people and nobody else.

Lets see who goes in power when they overthrow sadam?? you may have to eat your words:rolleyes:

[JB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
I never stated that I forgave sadam, I believe, the current situation has very little to do with disarming sadam, but is more about economic gains(oil) and increasing popularity(votes)

If we wanted Iraqi oil so badly why wouldn't we just do a deal with Saddam. He'd have loved that.

As for poularity, ask Tony Blair whether he feels the warmth of the British Nation behind him as a result of going to war and whether he feels he has a chance of surviving to the next general election.

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
Jb, No hard feelings mate.

I never stated that I forgave sadam, I believe, the current situation has very little to do with disarming sadam, but is more about economic gains(oil) and increasing popularity(votes)

Like someone else pointed out, the US/UK are going in for the wrong reasons.

They should be focusing on Bin Laden, not Sadam anyway. He is more of a danger than sadam:rolleyes:

Problem is afghanistan is not rich with oil so he has lost interest and focused his efforts on iraq, where he can satisfy his economic gains......

This is a popular opinion held by many leftist in the US. I have NEVER heard a supporting arguement that utilizes total facts to support this theory.

Not saying im more right than you. But it seems your idea is based on alot of speculation.

[Ken]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
I would totally support the US/UK if they removed sadam, BUT let the Iraqi's take a vote who goes in power next. The person who goes in power next should do so for the benefit of the Iraqi people and nobody else.

Lets see who goes in power when they overthrow sadam?? you may have to eat your words:rolleyes:

I thought the whole purpose of the war was to overthrow saddam and introduce a democratic regime into power, and dont say it is for the oil, there was no oil in Kosovo but we still went in and why then did we defend the falklands ( A place I did 2 tours of whilst in the Army and I have also done U.N. peace keeping duties )

[Imran Tunio]

Highly likely, blair is gaining popularity after failing:

The NHS
The education System
The police force
The rise in crime.......

The list goes on....... Tony blair, since going in power has mad a mess of the country. This is a way for him to increase his popularity thus excusing him for failing in domestic issues.

Look at how Bush's popularity soared???? think votes agin:rolleyes:

You lot probably forgive Blair now for destroying the NHS:rolleyes: MOST(Yes not all) people think the guy is a hero now after showing grteat leadrship skills:rolleyes:

He is a failure of a prime minister, how can he redeem himself???? simply go to war:rolleyes:

Remember these two fundamental things

1. Economic gains
2. Votes
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Ken]

I dont see how we are going to gain economically, the oil will still be Iraqs, we can hardly steal it can we

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Blue
I thought the whole purpose of the war was to overthrow saddam and introduce a democratic regime into power, and dont say it is for the oil, there was no oil in Kosovo but we still went in and why then did we defend the falklands ( A place I did 2 tours of whilst in the Army and I have also done U.N. peace keeping duties )

If so, why did you desert the Iraqi people in the gulf war with Sadams regime still in tact then?????

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Blue
I dont see how we are going to gain economically, the oil will still be Iraqs, we can hardly steal it can we

Dear me, you don't have to steal it, it depends who is elected in power:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[JB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
If so, why did you desert the Iraqi people in the gulf war with Sadams regime still in tact then?????

Because the purpose of the Gulf war was to rid Kuwait of Iraqi forces that had invaded it NOT regime change. Saddam then had a further 12 years (is that not long enough for most people to put things right?) to abide by international law and failed to do so.

[Ken]

The pupose of the first war was to defend Kuwait, you remember the country that Jolly old Saddam invaded not to overthrow Saddam, if you have been listening to the news you will know about the food for oil program and the trust fund set up for the iraqi people, if we are there for financial gain why are we spending tens of millions on aid for the people of Iraq.

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Blue
I dont see how we are going to gain economically, the oil will still be Iraqs, we can hardly steal it can we

With the estabolishment of a hopeful friendly government, many people believe that Iraq's oil will be raped from the ground by the "greedy" Americans. Well us "greedy" Americans have some of the largest oil reserves in the world. Us "greedy" Americans are the reason billions of people have jobs worldwide. So many people say remove the US :rolleyes:.

Think about this scenario. The US suddenly disappears from the face of the earth and everything that is/was developed by Americans. Can you say chaos? Economies all over the world would fail in a matter of minutes. Many household goods, medicines, etc. designed by Americans would vanish. Picture it.

[Imran Tunio]

I know about the food for oil programme, benefitted the Americans really well, lucky they forced the UN to impose sanctions upon Iraq.
If there were no sanctions imposed, then they wouldn't have got the oil!! this time round they want the oil bad, just used a different excuse:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Remember its all about about oil and votes:rolleyes:

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
With the estabolishment of a hopeful friendly government, many people believe that Iraq's oil will be raped from the ground by the "greedy" Americans. Well us "greedy" Americans have some of the largest oil reserves in the world. Us "greedy" Americans are the reason billions of people have jobs worldwide. So many people say remove the US :rolleyes:.

Think about this scenario. The US suddenly disappears from the face of the earth and everything that is/was developed by Americans. Can you say chaos? Economies all over the world would fail in a matter of minutes. Many household goods, medicines, etc. designed by Americans would vanish. Picture it.

For one to assume that shows rather a lot of nieveity.

[Ken]

You are now talking crap mate, if Saddam had obeyed International law there would not have been any sanctions, the sanctions were put in place so Iraq could exchage oil for food, medicines etc, but not spend the income on weapons. I would gladly welcome a way to sort out the problems in Iraq with out force, but all you and all the other liberal wishy washys out there can do is bang on about how bad the U.K/U.S. are without making one constuctive comment or suggestion of how to do it any other way, BTW isn't it nice how Iraq is breaking the geneva convention by showing our captured troops on T.V., the ones they didn't execute that is and how they wave the white flag and the open fire

[Ken]

May I ask btw what nationality are you?

[JB]

Originally posted by Blue
BTW isn't it nice how Iraq is breaking the geneva convention by showing our captured troops on T.V., the ones they didn't execute that is and how they wave the white flag and the open fire

And therebye proving to the world yet again that they were not worthy of a 456th chance to get their house in order.

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
I know about the food for oil programme, benefitted the Americans really well, lucky they forced the UN to impose sanctions upon Iraq.
If there were no sanctions imposed, then they wouldn't have got the oil!! this time round they want the oil bad, just used a different excuse:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Remember its all about about oil and votes:rolleyes:

All your doing is pointing fingers... how about supporting your claims? You also seem to forget that the UK is in this as well. All I see is "Americans" this, "Americans" that. Lets not forget who is the hypocrite here. You Brits were the first to take oil from Iraq in the 1940s and 50s with your puppet government. In fact, if you wanted to use speculation to prove your points I can blame the whole Iraqi conflict on the UK.

Stop slinging mud and use facts.

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
For one to assume that shows rather a lot of nieveity.

Can you prove otherwise? Do you know the level of dependancy by foriegn markets on the US? I HIGHLY suggest you research the matter.

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Blue
You are now talking crap mate, if Saddam had obeyed International law there would not have been any sanctions, the sanctions were put in place so Iraq could exchage oil for food, medicines etc, but not spend the income on weapons. I would gladly welcome a way to sort out the problems in Iraq with out force, but all you and all the other liberal wishy washys out there can do is bang on about how bad the U.K/U.S. are without making one constuctive comment or suggestion of how to do it any other way, BTW isn't it nice how Iraq is breaking the geneva convention by showing our captured troops on T.V., the ones they didn't execute that is and how they wave the white flag and the open fire

Dear me, I take it you never saw the photos off Iraqi soilders that were de-capitated and were still holding a flag of surrender???? thought not:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


How come every time, I watch Sky news I see hundreds of Iraqi soilders getting peraded:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I see it is ok to show Iraqi soilders, BUT it is not okay to show Us soilders. This sir, you will find is called DOUBLE STANDARDS
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You without doubt only watch one news source:rolleyes: you haven't seen the other side of hte story yet.
What was Isaying before about hypocracy:rolleyes:

OK, for the small minded people out there who are jumping in this argument:rolleyes: I suggest you read the earlier posts as I am getting rather annoyed with having to repeat myself:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Blue
May I ask btw what nationality are you?

For what reason may I ask??? what has this to do with anything???

Since your asking:rolleyes: I have held a BRITISH passport for 27 years. I have lived in the Uk all my life.

Do you think I am biased? because I don't go along with your views????

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[JB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
Dear me, I take it you never saw the photos off Iraqi soilders that were de-capitated and were still holding a flag of surrender???? thought not:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


How come every time, I watch Sky news I see hundreds of Iraqi soilders getting peraded:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I see it is ok to show Iraqi soilders, BUT it is not okay to show Us soilders. This sir, you will find is called DOUBLE STANDARDS
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You without doubt only watch one news source:rolleyes: you haven't seen the other side of hte story yet.
What was Isaying before about hypocracy:rolleyes:

OK, for the small minded people out there who are jumping in this argument:rolleyes: I suggest you read the earlier posts as I am getting rather annoyed with having to repeat myself:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Once again you are allowing your blinkered views to come to the fore.

Nobody has a problem with showing captured soldiers of either side on the TV. It's just that the Iraqis decided to interrogate their POWs on TV.

Provide a link to the so called photos of decapitated Iraqui soldiers and evidence that they were rendered headless by coalition troops, or don't make the accusation.

You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is small minded, but in so doind you are just showing yourself to be the most small minded of the lot.

[JB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
For what reason may I ask??? what has this to do with anything???

Since your asking:rolleyes: I have held a BRITISH passport for 27 years. I have lived in the Uk all my life.

Do you think I am biased? because I don't go along with your views????

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

So why do you claim to live in Iraq?

Surely that is intended to be provocative and show a biased point of view?

[Ken]

Yes we showed Iraqi P.O.W s on t.v. but they were not interviewed by a television reporter and used for propaganda, that is what is agaisnt the geneva convention, but I thought you might know that as you seem to know everthing else, the troops shown with the white flag were the ones which paraded the white flag then proceeded to open fire on our troops, it is obvious you have no grip on reality, you still have not come up with any viable alternatives to the war or indeed any evidence to back up your claims, I suggest until you can you should withdraw from the debate and stop making a fool of yourself, btw putting rolleyes smilies after every comment you make is a bit childish dont you think

[Imran Tunio]

the small minded people I was refering to, quite simply didn't read the earlier posts and came out with all guns blazing.
If they took the time to read things over and then come up with a constructive argument, then it would be a different matter:rolleyes:

[JB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
the small minded people I was refering to, quite simply didn't read the earlier posts and came out with all guns blazing.
If they took the time to read things over and then come up with a constructive argument, then it would be a different matter:rolleyes:
:rolleyes: please :rolleyes: stop:rolleyes: using:rolleyes: the :rolleyes: rolleyes :rolleyes: smiley :rolleyes: it's :rolleyes: very :rolleyes: irritating :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Ken]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
For what reason may I ask??? what has this to do with anything???

Since your asking:rolleyes: I have held a BRITISH passport for 27 years. I have lived in the Uk all my life.

Do you think I am biased? because I don't go along with your views????

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I wanted to know because you have Iraq as your location, everybody is entitled to there opinion, I am simply asking you to back up your claims and offer viable alternatives to the use of war, if you can show me evidence or offer alternatives I would be prepared to listen unlike you

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
the small minded people I was refering to, quite simply didn't read the earlier posts and came out with all guns blazing.
If they took the time to read things over and then come up with a constructive argument, then it would be a different matter:rolleyes:

I havent heard a viable response from you yet.

Why are you avoiding my comments?

Allow me to respond for you to the rest of the comments:

Imran Tunio says: "Oil :rolleyes: , Americans :rolleyes: , Bush :rolleyes: , Votes :rolleyes: "

Perhaps people will take you more seriously if you can SUPPORT anything you say.

[andyf]

Cough.

First of all, Imran, you have your location set as 'Iraq'. As I can see what IP address you are using to post to the board, I take your location to mean instead the 'side' you support.

Second, I lived in Qatar (nice place, the US have a Base of Ops there at the moment) right up to the first day of the first Gulf War. I can tell you all that a lot of people were happy when the military came along, and I bet the same people are happy they are back now.

[Imran Tunio]

It is all too easy for you to rubbish any suggestions, that is because you have not gave any viable suggestions yourself.
I did briefly explain a viable alternatve in my earlier posts, what was I saying about small minded individuals??

If you are going to reject every single suggestion, then it will be impossible to answer your question!! you only want to hear what you want basically, being narrow minded you simply quash anything you don't agree with!!

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
It is all too easy for you to rubbish any suggestions, that is because you have not gave any viable suggestions yourself.
I did briefly explain a viable alternatve in my earlier posts, what was I saying about small minded individuals??

If you are going to reject every single suggestion, then it will be impossible to answer your question!! you only want to hear what you want basically, being narrow minded you simply quash anything you don't agree with!!

Pot, Kettle, Black...

I can support my theory... can you?

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by andyf
Cough.

First of all, Imran, you have your location set as 'Iraq'. As I can see what IP address you are using to post to the board, I take your location to mean instead the 'side' you support.

Second, I lived in Qatar (nice place, the US have a Base of Ops there at the moment) right up to the first day of the first Gulf War. I can tell you all that a lot of people were happy when the military came along, and I bet the same people are happy they are back now.

I am not taking anyones side, every human being on earth has a right to be treated fairly.

[JB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
I did briefly explain a viable alternatve in my earlier posts, what was I saying about small minded individuals??

You explained an alternative, not a realistic or viable one.


If you are going to reject every single suggestion, then it will be impossible to answer your question!!

Isn't that exactly what you're doing.

Back your arguments up man, or shut up :mad:

[andyf]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
I am not taking anyones side, every human being on earth has a right to be treated fairly.

And by 'disposing' of Saddam, lots of Middle Eastern folk will be treated fairly.

[JB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
I am not taking anyones side, every human being on earth has a right to be treated fairly.

Your signature doesn't exactly lead me to believe you are telling the truth here. :rolleyes:

[Ken]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
It is all too easy for you to rubbish any suggestions, that is because you have not gave any viable suggestions yourself.
I did briefly explain a viable alternatve in my earlier posts, what was I saying about small minded individuals??

If you are going to reject every single suggestion, then it will be impossible to answer your question!! you only want to hear what you want basically, being narrow minded you simply quash anything you don't agree with!!

I have read all the posts from the start of the thread and the only suggetions you have come up with are 1. leave Saddam in power or 2. replace him with someone elected by the Iraqi people, leaving Saddam in power is not viable, how will that benifit the people of Iraq, how do you propose to install a government voted for by the Iraqi people when Saddam is still in power without removing him by force first, please explain to me your viable solution to the problem

[Imran Tunio]

Look, the US and UK are not there to LIBERATE iraq

[Imran Tunio]

"All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. "

DOH!

I wish i was that clever!!

Ever heard of UN Resolution 242 and UN Resolution 338 and UN Resolution 194.

Two of these have been in place since 1967. No one cares.

Get your facts right.

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
Look, the US and UK are not there to LIBERATE iraq

Did anyone say anything about Liberation?

Cause I don't see it.

[andyf]

Yes, isn't the aim of this exercise to destroy saddam's WMD's ?
I don't watch the news that much.

[Ken]

You can quote resolutions all you like but I personally believe the coalition is doing the right thing and that the use of force is warranted and is the only viable proposition, you still havent explained your viable alternative to war and how it would work

[Nathan_200sx]

Saddam would never be toppled by a democratic vote, 99.97% of the vote goes to the biggest bully or the one with the most money usualy the same person. Just had quite a lengthy chat about arabic politic's with the guy here and it seems most states oppreate in this way, his words not mine. people have to understand that in the west. sadley they dont and think anyone in Iraq can get his polling cards through the post, nip down to the polling station and vote in private. even if the iraqi public did vote against saddam the regieme is so corrupt he would still get 99.9% of the vote. So what can you do?

[Imran Tunio]

The easiest solution to the whole middle east solution is to have it as it was in the Ottoman (1924 end and linked with first world war)empire before the British idiots came up with 'Divide and Conquer'. Read your history books and you will see that the middle east has been a hot pot for violence since 1947. The only solution is to return to the Islamic state that was once there. No boundries between the current states.

If you dont know the past, dont try to dicate the preseent and direct the future.

Lets not forget it was the Europenas who casued the Crusades, World war 1 and world war 2 etc.

[shadow21]

Originally posted by JB
This guy is a murderer, tried to take over and plunder another country, is developing weapons whose only object is to kill in the most horrible way, has killed his own people and shown a complete disregard for anyone and anything other than himself, and you are prepared to stand up for him?

JB,
I'm a little confused...:confused: :confused:
By reading your previous posts, I thought you were on Bush's side ?:confused:

[Ken]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
"All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. "

DOH!

I wish i was that clever!!

Ever heard of UN Resolution 242 and UN Resolution 338 and UN Resolution 194.

Two of these have been in place since 1967. No one cares.

Get your facts right.

Didn't notice Sadam caring much when he invaded Kuwait or slaughtered tens of thousands of Kurds, the majority of the UN nations do support the war

[Imran Tunio]

"You can quote resolutions all you like but I personally believe the coalition is doing the right thing and that the use of force is warranted and is the only viable proposition, you still havent explained your viable alternative to war and how it would work"

yeah, yeah the truth hruts mate. Brilliant answer. I wish i though of that.

SO its OK to choose and pick your own resolutions and attack whenever you want.

Bush and Blair (the dynamic duo) have stated in UN 1441 that they raise the right to a pre-emptive war, even AGAINST the UN. Completly illegal. So I'm afraid we go into western hyprocisy again. Do want you want to, forget the rest???

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
"All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. "

DOH!

I wish i was that clever!!

Ever heard of UN Resolution 242 and UN Resolution 338 and UN Resolution 194.

Two of these have been in place since 1967. No one cares.

Get your facts right.

Lets see here:

UN Resolution 242: Re. the Six-Days War

The resolution is applied to prevent wars over land. It states that Israeli forces will be removed from land taken during the war and it also states that they will attempt to prevent war in the middle east over land. This resolution was part of the reason the UN granted action in 91.

UN Resolution 338: Re. the Yom-Kippur War

The resolutions states that Syria and Isreal will back down from hostilities over land.

UN Resolution 194: Re. The Exodus to Palestine

The resolution talks about the conflict with Jewish immigrants to Palestine with Arabs. It talks about the de-militirization of Jerusalem.


Those 3 resolutions have absolutely NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq.

[shadow21]

Originally posted by Blue
Didn't notice Sadam caring much when he invaded Kuwait or slaughtered tens of thousands of Kurds, the majority of the UN nations do support the war

I noticed that JUST BEFORE saddam's hundred of thousand tanks :rolleyes: invaded Irak, UN said it won't interfere (like US)...

I didn't notice UN cared for tens of thousands of Kurds slaughtered by Saddam when UN left Irak after pouring hundreds of tons of toxic waste (uranium weapons...) upon the country.

[Ken]

Still waiting for your viable alternative

[Nathan_200sx]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
For what reason may I ask??? what has this to do with anything???

Since your asking:rolleyes: I have held a BRITISH passport for 27 years. I have lived in the Uk all my life.



I agree with your opening comment, but just to qwell my curiosity isnt Tunio a popular name in Pakistan?no bearing whatsover on our debate and if you dont feel like answering dont. One of my ex's uncle came from Lahore and her sister got married over here, I Thought Tunio sounded familier as lots of friends and family came over for the wedding and Im sure some had that name or similar.

[shadow21]

Originally posted by Blue
Still waiting for your viable alternative

Invade Saoudi arabia, Iran, Cina, Chili, korea, etc... to remove the dictators there, and I will be ready to believe that a war with Irak is needed now, and has nothing to do with oil, but only with the preservation of human rights over the globe.

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by shadow21
I noticed that JUST BEFORE saddam's hundred of thousand tanks :rolleyes: invaded Irak, UN said it won't interfere (like US)...

I didn't notice UN cared for tens of thousands of Kurds slaughtered by Saddam when UN left Irak after pouring hundreds of tons of toxic waste (uranium weapons...) upon the country.

I invite you to research depleated uranium.

[Ken]

Originally posted by shadow21
Invade Saoudi arabia, Iran, Cina, Chili, korea, etc... to remove the dictators there, and I will be ready to believe that a war with Irak is needed now, and has nothing to do with oil, but only with the preservation of human rights over the globe.

That post was meant for Imran Tunio, but what about Kosovo then, what did that have to do with oil, but we still sent troops in

[Imran Tunio]

Those 3 resolutions have absolutely NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq.

Exactly, and this war has nothing to do with removing Sadaam Hussein for the reason of liberating Iraqi people and providing them with humanitation aid.

Thnaks for proving my point.

If the west really cared about people lives, providing peace, they woul be fighting in Africa where the civil wars have millions of deaths.

Secondly, If they were really bothered with WMD (another buzz word created from the US, yeah that will scare those naive people) they would be more concered with Israel. They have 400, yes 400 nuclear weapons. And whats the most unstable country in the middle east??

And thirdly, just to embarass you further... Iraq has no missiles cable of reaching the UK or US. So that rules out any NATO action (i.e. direct threat to a country). All biologial weapons were sold by the USA by Rumsfield in 1981. Expired years ago mate. All weapon inspectors (past and previous) HAVE NOT FOUND ANY that are in use now. So WMD is not a viable excuse to cause war.

THEONLY RECENT BIOLOGICAL ATTACK WAS THE ANTHRAX ATTACK IN THE USA..and guess who the FBI traced it to - USA.

C'mon then - lets go and attack them.

[Nathan_200sx]

Originally posted by shadow21
I noticed that JUST BEFORE saddam's hundred of thousand tanks :rolleyes: invaded Irak, UN said it won't interfere (like US)...

I didn't notice UN cared for tens of thousands of Kurds slaughtered by Saddam when UN left Irak after pouring hundreds of tons of toxic waste (uranium weapons...) upon the country.

Thats why we've gone on our own now, the UN sucks donkey balls in fact your statment supports that view. they had 12 years to sort things out but did bugger all.

[shadow21]

Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
I invite you to research depleated uranium.

Sorry, mate, but I don't really understand the meaning of your phrase (not kidding! my English is not that good...)

But, if you meant: "go there and bring the proof that radioactive dust is present on the territory", I would just suggest you to ask US and UK (1st) gulf war veterans...
Yes, the ones suffering from the "gulf syndrom" (at least the ones who are not dead by now)

[Imran Tunio]

"I invite you to research depleated uranium"

Used by allied forces in 1991 Gulf War. Illegal and long term effect. Cancer has gone up in Iraq by 731%. More deformed badies and gene mutations as a direct result (UN REPORT - can check it if you want).

Only found out after US and UK troops started showing Uranimun poising symtoms. Then admited. What type of sick country poisons it's own troops and then covers it up?????

Check the reports, available from goverment.

BUT HEY!!! ITS CHEAPER TO DISPOSE OF IT IN IRAQ. NO ONE WILL KNOW??? OR WILL THEY????

[Nathan_200sx]

Originally posted by shadow21
...
Yes, the ones suffering from the "gulf syndrom" (at least the ones who are not dead by now)

Gulf war syndrom has been put down to the coctail of drugs they were given to protect against germ warfair. They have proof now that a banned substance was included in the injections to help speed up the effect's of the drugs. the army will get its but kicked for this dont worry

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by shadow21
Invade Saoudi arabia, Iran, Cina, Chili, korea, etc... to remove the dictators there, and I will be ready to believe that a war with Irak is needed now, and has nothing to do with oil, but only with the preservation of human rights over the globe.

Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy and they dont gas their own people.
Iran has its own Constitution, it has 3 houses of government, it also does not gas its own people.
China is a Communist Republic, they hold elections, and there are Democratic members of the government.
Chili is a Republic of 13 States
N. Korea is a communist dictatorship, they too are on the list if you dont watch the news.

[Ken]

Sorry must leave the debate now, going to watch Chelsea V Arsenal but I stand by my convictions, and Imran nothing you have said has been backed up by evidence and you still have not explained your viable alternative and how it would work, I am not completely biased and would welcome a swift end to the war and the safe return of our troops but until Sadam is removed this will not happen

[Imran Tunio]

"But, if you meant: "go there and bring the proof that radioactive dust is present on the territory", I would just suggest you to ask US and UK (1st) gulf war veterans...
Yes, the ones suffering from the "gulf syndrom" (at least the ones who are not dead by now)"

1. Sorry mate, but in 2000-2001 Iraq was not deemed as a threat by the international community. Sanctions were going to be lifted. But wait whats that i see - Bush. Ok now we'll change things

2. This war is going ahead with 1441, second resoltyion was denied as France, Russia, china were going to veto it

3. 12 years (actually 7 years mate) , CIA intelligence, muliple inspectors and NOTHING. What part of NOTHING do you dont understand. You cant attack someone because they MIGHT have some weapons. C'mon be serious

Going agianst the UN and the international community is waht rouge states do. Ahem, UK and USA.

You can check all my facts they are true.

[JB]

Originally posted by shadow21
JB,
I'm a little confused...:confused: :confused:
By reading your previous posts, I thought you were on Bush's side ?:confused:

I don't think your English is so bad that you didn't understand exactly that I was talking about Saddam :rolleyes:

But, since when has Bush been killing his own people? Must have missed the news item that stated that Bush had used Chemical weapons against the residents of Texas or something.

[Imran Tunio]

VIABLE SOLUTION - i thought i posted it?? ok a'll do that now, maybe i messed up posting it. sorry

[shadow21]

Originally posted by JB
I don't think your English is so bad that you didn't understand exactly that I was talking about Saddam :rolleyes:
[/B]

Arhheem... maybe my still unperfect (because French :p ) "sens de l'humour"


Originally posted by JB
But, since when has Bush been killing his own people? Must have missed the news item that stated that Bush had used Chemical weapons against the residents of Texas or something.


Ok, by "killing", I just meant "killing", not uniquely "using chemical weapons"...

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Blue
...... been backed up by evidence and you still have not explained your viable alternative and how it would work, I am not completely biased and would welcome a swift end to the war and the safe return of our troops but until Sadam is removed this will not happen

The easiest solution to the whole middle east solution is to have it as it was in the Ottoman (1924 end and linked with first world war)empire before the British came up with 'Divide and Conquer'. Read your history books and you will see that the middle east has been a hot pot for violence since 1947. The only solution is to return to the Islamic state that was once there. No boundries between the current states and no land disputes. PEACE. This is how Islam started.

If you dont know the past, dont try to dicate the preseent and direct the future.

Lets not forget it was the Europeans who casued the Crusades, World war 1 and world war 2 etc.

Why cant we all just live in peace. Look at the first crusade and then look at what Saladin did when he conqured Jeruselm (plus how he treated King Richard 'The Lionheart', ). It is an example for us all. Why can the west act like this.


OH, WHATS THAT I HEAR???? BLACK GOLD??? CAPITALISM??? GLOBAL DOMINANCE???

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
Those 3 resolutions have absolutely NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq.

Exactly, and this war has nothing to do with removing Sadaam Hussein for the reason of liberating Iraqi people and providing them with humanitation aid.

Thnaks for proving my point.

If the west really cared about people lives, providing peace, they woul be fighting in Africa where the civil wars have millions of deaths.

Secondly, If they were really bothered with WMD (another buzz word created from the US, yeah that will scare those naive people) they would be more concered with Israel. They have 400, yes 400 nuclear weapons. And whats the most unstable country in the middle east??

And thirdly, just to embarass you further... Iraq has no missiles cable of reaching the UK or US. So that rules out any NATO action (i.e. direct threat to a country). All biologial weapons were sold by the USA by Rumsfield in 1981. Expired years ago mate. All weapon inspectors (past and previous) HAVE NOT FOUND ANY that are in use now. So WMD is not a viable excuse to cause war.

THEONLY RECENT BIOLOGICAL ATTACK WAS THE ANTHRAX ATTACK IN THE USA..and guess who the FBI traced it to - USA.

C'mon then - lets go and attack them.

I have proved no point of yours, and you have proved absolutely nothing. I dont feel embarrassed by you bringing up things I never said were a reason we should be at war. I dont care if Saddam has WMDs or not. He has used them before, he has thus violated international law. He should not be in power. If he wont leave then we will help him leave.

Is Somalia not in Africa? Do we not send billions in aid to these war stricken countries? Do these african countries have even the remote chance of obtaining anything of threat to the west? No. Iraq has priority for a reason. BTW, look up the number of Americans killed trying to overthrow the regime in Somalia. How would you like to see your fellow Brits dead bodies being drug through the streets? I dont see you doing anything about it.

Missles arent the only way of transversing a WMD. These days it can be carried by one person in one pill, one breifcase, one aerosol can.

The US has 1000s of nuclear weapons, Russia has 1000s of nuclear weapons. You want to know unstable then look at Russia during the fall of the USSR. Were you screaming for disarmament then? Didnt think so.

[JB]

Originally posted by shadow21
Arhheem... maybe my still unperfect (because French :p ) "sens de l'humour"



Ok, by "killing", I just meant "killing", not uniquely "using chemical weapons"...

J’ai très bien compris ce que tu essayé de faire Fabien :D

So who has Bush killed then?

[Nathan_200sx]

Have alook here for the facts on DU http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy and they dont gas their own people.



Lets get one thing straight, as i dont want to discuss this point again. I see it used over and over again in arguments.

I dont and never support use of biological weapons. It is cruel and Illegal.

But who sold these to Iraq???

USA, yep good old Rumsfield. Who supported Iraq in the war agianst Iran??

Yep, your good old USA.

Did anyone complain when he did it then??? NO. Why should they, they wanted to destroy the Iran goverment as it made Oil an national insitute for its country. It's disgusting what the USA did then and makes me sick. It amkes me even more sick when they armet the idiot Sadaam to the teeth to fight Iraq.

WHAT??? THEY SOLD WEAPONS TO IRAN AS WELL?? We the west wont do that, we are nice people???

WHAT?? IRAN GATE??? Read up and look how the US and UK fooled the world. Selling weapons to both sides.

WHAT??? Sadaam has all those weapons, all the brilliant CIA training, could rule the middle east and control oil???

I know what we'll do.... sound familiar, Gulf War.

Also before someone starts ranting about how good the UK is read my next post:

[Imran Tunio]

Winston Churchill was also fully aware of the need for Britain to control the “uncivilised tribes” that threatened British control over major economic sources, shipping, minerals and so on. “Recalcitrant Arabs” he called them. Churchill who had become Colonial Secretary after the First World War decided that an impoverished Britain could fight by different, cheaper means. So he gassed the Kurds. He despised the “squeamishness” of those who “objected to poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.” He used airpower that was just emerging to drop mustard gas on the Kurds, as he extolled, “spreading a lively terror.” Perhaps the most damning statement by Churchill was that in fact the gassing of the Kurds was “as experiment.”


Now, 100 years later Tony Blair and his cabinet couch their wars in post-hippie language. Funky phrases like `open government` and `collateral damage.` When New Labour claimed it was opening up government to the people it simultaneously destroyed all documentation surrounding Churchill’s gassing of the Kurds. Did we say post-hippie? We meant post-Orwellian.


SICK

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Nathan_200sx
Have alook here for the facts on DU http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

There also was an Iowa state university research on DU's effects on soldiers. Soldiers involved in friendly fire incidents, ie had DU embedded in them, all showed hardly no ill effects of radiation poisoning or kidney failure. They also had children that were all normal, showed no tissue damage or any other malformaties.

Also note that DU isn't hardly radioactive at all. The effect on the kidneys is similar to any heavy metal ingested. Lead will also affect the kidneys. Is that to say we cant use lead for bullets now?

[shadow21]

Originally posted by JB
So who has Bush killed then?

First have a look at http://www.bushkills.com
(just found it by doing a research on BUSH+KILLS on google, and looked among the first page of the 505,000 answers :eek: )

My point was just to outline the fact that I (not as a French *******, but as a simple world citizen) am VERY scared by Bush's attitude:
He is a religious integrist, he "owns" for some years the said world's more powerful army and owns MDW.
He starts with Irak (far from USA: why not begin with South America dictators? Oh yeah: of course: I almost forgot: because USA (sorry Nismo_Freak: not meant to hurt you or US population) placed them where they are...

Sorry again for this Nismo_freak, but I must say I had much more sympathy for William "blowjob" Clinton... (it's certainly a more "French attitude" ;) )

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
I have proved no point of yours, and you have proved absolutely nothing. I dont feel embarrassed by you bringing up things I never said were a reason we should be at war. I dont care if Saddam has WMDs or not. He has used them before, he has thus violated international law. He should not be in power. If he wont leave then we will help him leave.

YES I HAVE -TAKE IT LIKE A MAN

Is Somalia not in Africa? Do we not send billions in aid to these war stricken countries?

NOT MUCH IN FACT - UNLIKE THE 6 BILLION THE US SENT TO ISRAEL TWO WEEKS AGO. SOMALIA IS TRYING TO SUE THE USA FOR ITS BOMBARDMENT. DOH! YOU FORGOT THAT. AND WHAT ABOUT THE HIGH BANK LOAN INTERST RATES CAUSING MILLIONS TO DIE IN AFRICA.

Do these african countries have even the remote chance of obtaining anything of threat to the west?

DERR!! WRONG AGAIN MAN. USA ATTACKED SOMALIA AS IT SAID IT POSED A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY BY HARBOURING TERORISTS. IF IT REAALY CARED ABOUT HELPING AFRICA IT WOULD OF BEEN INVOLVED IN THE CONGO WAR (THE LARGEST WAR IN THE WORLD) AMERICA HAS NEVER CARED ABOUT AFRICA (ONLY WHEN CHEAP SLAVE LABOUR)

No. Iraq has priority for a reason. BTW, look up the number of Americans killed trying to overthrow the regime in Somalia. How would you like to see your fellow Brits dead bodies being drug through the streets? I dont see you doing anything about it.

???? SEE MY ABOVE POINT


Missles arent the only way of transversing a WMD. These days it can be carried by one person in one pill, one breifcase, one aerosol can.

CAN YOU PROVE IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN HAD THESE WEAPONS - NO. THOUGHT NOT.. DONT USE SOME 12 YEAR OLD POWEREPOINT PRESENATION TO FOOL THE WORLD.


The US has 1000s of nuclear weapons, Russia has 1000s of nuclear weapons. You want to know unstable then look at Russia during the fall of the USSR. Were you screaming for disarmament then? Didnt think so.

WHAT ARE U TALING ABOUT?? R U ON DRUGS?? HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE KOTO AGREEMENT (SORRY IF MISPEALT). OH WHATS THAT???? AMERICA PULLED OUT LAST YEAR!!

[GrahamB]

Yes this is all very nice and as much as I like the adhoc history lesson none of this is of any real use now.

Plenty of nations have made mistakes in the past (UK, USA, etc etc) but the idea is to create a better tomorrow and to learn from out mistakes.

IMO we should have removed Saddam after the last war and that would have at least given Iraq a better chance.

As I posted before the war started, it is/was difficult to see that motivation other than Oil etc was the trigger for war, but like most of the UK I am totally behind our chaps in the Gulf. If at the end of it we can make a difference then great. I'm all for cultural diversity but not when it preaches violence and suffering.

The middle east has been a hot bed of violence since biblical times so nothing new there.

Yes it may well have suited governments to 'play' the middle east game but if we really want a secure future for our children and our childrens children then we must take some responsibility now and remove some of the worlds cancers before they spread wide enough to plunge the whole world into chaos.

[Imran Tunio]

kato

[Imran Tunio]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GrahamB
Yes this is all very nice and as much as I like the adhoc history lesson none of this is of any real use now.

YES IT IS. IF DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT MAKES THE MIDDDLE EAST TIC, DONT BOTHER TRYING TO FIX IT

Plenty of nations have made mistakes in the past (UK, USA, etc etc) but the idea is to create a better tomorrow and to learn from out mistakes.

THE WEST HAS MADE THE MOST, SO FROM THIS THEY SHOULD HAVE NO INPUT INTO THE CURRENT SITUATION. THATS WHY THE UN WAS CREATED, TO CREATE WORLD ORDER.

IMO we should have removed Saddam after the last war and that would have at least given Iraq a better chance.

???

As I posted before the war started, it is/was difficult to see that motivation other than Oil etc was the trigger for war, but like most of the UK I am totally behind our chaps in the Gulf. If at the end of it we can make a difference then great. I'm all for cultural diversity but not when it preaches violence and suffering.

[B]There's always a profit to be made from war. You and I won't make it; the soldiers, sailors and airmen won't make it. No, as consumers, we pay the price in treasure and blood and grief; the big corporations reap the profit. But we have no one to blame but ourselves. As long as we are stupid enough to elect unscrupulous politicians to public offices, they will fleece us. When you look like a sheep, act like a sheep and baa like a sheep, then you can't blame the wolf for taking you as his dinner. Gee, I hope the Israelis don't get jealous. They've been on the American dole so long that the cumulative total is about $100 billion. You'd think that much of American taxpayers' money would earn at least a smidgen of gratitude, but as a young American peace activist learned when an Israeli killed her with a bulldozer, gratitude is not their forte."


The middle east has been a hot bed of violence since biblical times so nothing new there.

AGREE - BUT CHECK YOUR HISTORY AND FIND THE REASONS

Yes it may well have suited governments to 'play' the middle east game but if we really want a secure future for our children and our childrens children then we must take some responsibility now and remove some of the worlds cancers before they spread wide enough to plunge the whole world into chaos.

DONT MAKE ME LAUGH - THE ONLY CANCER IN THE WORLD IS USA AND ISRAEL. HOW MANY COUNTRIES DID THE UK RUKE AND GET KICKED OUT OF. THEY SHOWED DISGRACFUL TREATMENT TO HUMANS. THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO LINE THEIR PROFITS. IT IS CLEVER THOUGH, BUT DEVIOUS.

[Imran Tunio]

C'MON THEN ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO GET OF YOUR CHEST??? ANY MORE LIES??

OH WHATS THAT??? YELLOWTIMES.ORG HAS BEEN SUSPENDED. UK AND US HIDING THE TRUTH????

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
Lets get one thing straight, as i dont want to discuss this point again. I see it used over and over again in arguments.

I dont and never support use of biological weapons. It is cruel and Illegal.

But who sold these to Iraq???

USA, yep good old Rumsfield. Who supported Iraq in the war agianst Iran??

Yep, your good old USA.

Did anyone complain when he did it then??? NO. Why should they, they wanted to destroy the Iran goverment as it made Oil an national insitute for its country. It's disgusting what the USA did then and makes me sick. It amkes me even more sick when they armet the idiot Sadaam to the teeth to fight Iraq.

WHAT??? THEY SOLD WEAPONS TO IRAN AS WELL?? We the west wont do that, we are nice people???

WHAT?? IRAN GATE??? Read up and look how the US and UK fooled the world. Selling weapons to both sides.

WHAT??? Sadaam has all those weapons, all the brilliant CIA training, could rule the middle east and control oil???

I know what we'll do.... sound familiar, Gulf War.

Also before someone starts ranting about how good the UK is read my next post:

Your point is? I never once said I supported the American government. You simply assume this because I support the war in part. Government as a whole is a corruption based system, revert to "Power and Money". It still doesnt change the fact that Saddam is a murderer.

Quite frankly... whats the world gonna do? Invade the US? You fail to see how the world is not fair. The world is very unbalanced towards power.

LIFE IS NOT FAIR and it never will be.

[Nathan_200sx]

Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
There also was an Iowa state university research on DU's effects on soldiers. Soldiers involved in friendly fire incidents, ie had DU embedded in them, all showed hardly no ill effects of radiation poisoning or kidney failure. They also had children that were all normal, showed no tissue damage or any other malformaties.

Also note that DU isn't hardly radioactive at all. The effect on the kidneys is similar to any heavy metal ingested. Lead will also affect the kidneys. Is that to say we cant use lead for bullets now?

I hope Im not quoting you out of context but I did post that link in your support as it clearly states that DU is less harmefull than people think. somone mentions radiation and everyone seems to think there skin will fall off

[Imran Tunio]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,921410,00.html

Five POWs are mistreated in Iraq and the US cries foul. What about Guantanamo Bay? Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of international law. It may be waging an illegal war against a sovereign state; it may be seeking to destroy every treaty which impedes its attempts to run the world, but when five of its captured soldiers were paraded in front of the Iraqi television cameras on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, immediately complained that "it is against the Geneva convention to show photographs of prisoners of war in a manner that is humiliating for them

FOR GOD'S SAKE - WHAT ARE THEY LIKE. WHY DONT IRAQ CREATE CAMP Z-RAY. YEAH THATS SOUNDS COOL. DISGUSTING.

[Imran Tunio]

The USA is not bothered about dropping chemical weapons on other countries!!!

They dropped a bomb on HIROSHIMA don't forget, the implications of which are still going.
Bearing in mind, the USA still has WMD, what is to stop you doing this again?????

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Nathan_200sx
I hope Im not quoting you out of context but I did post that link in your support as it clearly states that DU is less harmefull than people think. somone mentions radiation and everyone seems to think there skin will fall off

YEAH!!! WHOOPE LETS BELIEVE WHAT THE GOVERMENT SAYS!!!!
I MEAN, IT SAFE TO EAT BRITHISH BEEF A FEW YEARS BACK WASNT IT??

WHATS THAT?? CJD????

iNTEREST ARTICLE ON THIS SUBJECT

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/04/29/fp14s1-csm.shtml

"People tell funny stories," says Thamer Hamdan, an Iraqi orthopedic surgeon in Basra who was trained in Scotland and the United States. He says he has seen an "astonishing increase" of malformations and cases of cancer among civilians in the area. Physicians back up government figures showing malformations citywide have tripled since the Gulf War.

There has been a "very significant increase" in leukemia, says Dr. Muna Elhassani, a British-trained specialist who runs the national cancer registry in Baghdad. "It's too early now to make a direct link with DU," she says. "It takes time."

AND

"It is safe for the public," says Yousif Bakir, director of Kuwait's Radiation Protection Division (RPD). "There is no contamination higher than background levels." - THIS IS WHAT YOU HEAR MATE

"That's a political answer," says one of Kuwait's senior scientists, upon hearing the official denial

[shadow21]

Originally posted by Nathan_200sx
Have alook here for the facts on DU http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

Yeeahh! a links war :D

http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html

Check this, and you'll have another point of view.

Nismo_freak:
I'd like to answer on that point:

"Also note that DU isn't hardly radioactive at all. The effect on the kidneys is similar to any heavy metal ingested. Lead will also affect the kidneys. Is that to say we cant use lead for bullets now?"

I worked during 2 years in a nuclear plant, thus I had a 2 weeks course on long term radiation effects (among other things, of course).

You will notice that word "radioactive" contains the word "radioactive"... a "radioactive" element is not only dangerous because it fixes itself to unuseful parts of your body, like testicles, kidneys, stomach, brain, lumbs, etc..., due to its "heaviness" but also because it emits RADIATIONS.
Radiations are BAD (please believe me)
The nuclear dust left by depleted uranium don't stay where it was left (understand not only 2 meters around an hit target), but can spread.
I'm not sure you'll be happy to notice that US troops are now facing a sand tempest in Irak. Or maybe yes, as radioactive particles are harmless...

I strongly believe that war is not ours

[Jeff]

What is really scary is that Imran here is subject to the UK's media and yet he clearly feels that the UK and USA are interfering in matters that don't concern them (appologies if I have mis-understod Imran) and is probably one of many that would be prepared to do something about it.

If someone in this country can feel so passionately anti-UK/US what effect is this war having on those who are subject to propoganda from this anti-UK/USA point of view? :eek: I can hear terrorists throughout the world sharpening their knives (priming their bombs, loading their bullets - whatever) :(

Whether the war itself is justified is a debate that could go on for ever, the fall out from the way it has come about seems likely to be far more decisive :(

[GrahamB]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio

THE WEST HAS MADE THE MOST, SO FROM THIS THEY SHOULD HAVE NO INPUT INTO THE CURRENT SITUATION. THATS WHY THE UN WAS CREATED, TO CREATE WORLD ORDER.


How much experiance of the world has any of the eastern nations had then if your so convinced that the west has made all the mistakes - Exactly NONE Thats why we still have a great nation that allows its citizens almost total freedom to do what ever they like. We've made plenty of mistakes and have learn't from them. Something none of these other nations has ever managed. We have perhaps one of the biggest roles to play.

[Nismo_Freak]

This has turned into a shouting match... I've had enough, It seems we cant debate without you yelling and screaming.

[Nathan_200sx]

Imran your going off on a tangent, what started out as a debate about the war in Iraq has turned into you shouting your mouth off on anything that discredits the uk or usa, which is nothing compared to what some countries have done in the past. Yes we once dominated the world, so did the Romans and they werent always nice, they also torcherd arab states yet your not attacking the italians for there part on the world history. India fell apart when the british moved out and there are even now a few small countries that want to be repatriosed along with a few indian polititon's so we couldnt have been all that bad. The bad stuff always stands out in big bold letters while to good is glossed over. tell me what good saddam has done.

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Jeff
What is really scary is that Imran here is subject to the UK's media and yet he clearly feels that the UK and USA are interfering in matters that don't concern them (appologies if I have mis-understod Imran) and is probably one of many that would be prepared to do something about it.

If someone in this country can feel so passionately anti-UK/US what effect is this war having on those who are subject to propoganda from this anti-UK/USA point of view? :eek: I can hear terrorists throughout the world sharpening their knives (priming their bombs, loading their bullets - whatever) :(

Whether the war itself is justified is a debate that could go on for ever, the fall out from the way it has come about seems likely to be far more decisive :(

PERSONALLY - WHAT I FIND REALLY SCARY IS THE INNOCENT PEOPLE DIEING AROUND THE WORLD SO THE US CAN HAVE GLOBAL DOMINANCE. AM I NOT RIGHT???

ALSO, I FEEL THE PEOPLE IN THE US AND UK HAVE VERY RESTRICTIVE MEDIA AS WELL. ALTOGHH THE US IS FAR, FAR WORSE.

THE FALLOUT IS ALREADY HAPPENING, MUSLIMS V THE WEST, WHEN IN REALITY THE US IS GOING FOR CHEAP OIL

[Imran Tunio]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
Flame all you want...

It's obvious were you stand. You can't accept anyone else's idea the same as us.

NO - I AM ANSWERING YOUR QUSETIONS AND YOU CANT ANSWER MINE

The fact still remains that there is no solution to anything. There will always be people to argue over anything. Everything is biased, everything can always be done better, but we need to accept what has/is happening in the world. You obviously just want to point the finger at the US. Sure thats the world's easiest excuse. You wont even tell us where your from, are you hiding something?

You wanna know my true opinion on the middle east?

FVCK EM ALL, let god sort em out. Nothing more than a bunch of idiots that want to kill each other. Give em all guns and let them at each other.

SELL GUNS CREATE MORE WARS.

I'm so fvckin tired of the middle east drama bullsh!t that goes on. You can't appease anyone. My first target would be Israel. Nothing but a bunch of strong arm Jews anyways. I recognize the Arabs hate for Israel and I can sympathize with them. America fears the corporate lash back from the high number of Jews in the US that hold positions of power. That's right... I agree with you. The US is nothing more than a puppet for the Israelis. It has been since the 50s.

TBH, the US should have kept its isolationist stance since WWI. Let Hitler take over all of Europe. What does it matter to us? Not like America gives a sh!t about anything.

AHA - SO YOU AGREE WITH ME. AMERICA NEVER CAM TO WWII TILL AFTER PEAR HARBOUR

[Imran Tunio]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nathan_200sx
[B]Imran your going off on a tangent, what started out as a debate about the war in Iraq has turned into you shouting your mouth off on anything that discredits the uk or usa, which is nothing compared to what some countries have done in the past.

GIVE ME EXAMPLES WORSE THAT WHAT I QUOTED AND I'LL GIVE YOU MY PULSAR GTIR MATE. YOU OBVIOUSLY DONT KNOW YOUR HISTORY AND I GUESS YOU NEVER LOOKED INTO THE CRUSADE ON 1924.

Yes we once dominated the world, so did the Romans and they werent always nice, they also torcherd arab states yet your not attacking the italians for there part on the world history. India fell apart when the british moved out and there are even now a few small countries that want to be repatriosed along with a few indian polititon's so we couldnt have been all that bad. The bad stuff always stands out in big bold letters while to good is glossed over.

EXACTLY - MORE STATES MORE WARS. LISTEN FOR GODS SAKE!!!!!!!!!! ENGLAND TACTICS WERE TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER.
MY VIABLE SOLUTION WAS THE ISLAMIC STATE, ONE COUTRY THAT RULED NOT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF MONEY. LOOK AT THE THIRD CRUSADE AGAIN. THE COME BACK TO ME

tell me what good saddam has done.
NOTHING - AND I NEVER SAID HE DID. SHOW ME WHERE I DID SAY THAT. IT WAS THE US WHO ARMED HIM TO HIS TEETH. WAKE UPO AND SMELL THE COFFEE.

[Nathan_200sx]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
YEAH!!! WHOOPE LETS BELIEVE WHAT THE GOVERMENT SAYS!!!!
I MEAN, IT SAFE TO EAT BRITHISH BEEF A FEW YEARS BACK WASNT IT??

WHATS THAT?? CJD????

iNTEREST ARTICLE ON THIS SUBJECT

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/04/29/fp14s1-csm.shtml



Didint you see who wrote that report??????? kin blind or what! it was the World health organisation and it also mentions your beloved UN was involved in the tests. nothing to do with the US or UK goverment's.
I'm starting to agree with nismo, pull the **** out and let the whole figgen lot go to hell in a handcart but that would meen you would have converted my views which you wont, and never will. You live in a far to simplistic life, you probably have a huge chip on your shoulder over something or other as your true side has realy shown itself by you desprately trying to drag up any old history you can get your hands on. Presenting it as black and white evidence which somehow proves your point that were all bad people doing a bad thing. Each historical point in itself should be argued over in depth, it cannot be used as amunition for your argument about Iraq without debate and people fully understanding the underlying events that took place.

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
This has turned into a shouting match... I've had enough, It seems we cant debate without you yelling and screaming.


LOSER. I'M OFF NOW. PROVED MY POINT.

IF ANYONE DOES NOT BELIVE HOW EVIL THE USA GOVERMENT IS HAVE A LOOK AT 'THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY' REPORT.

VERY IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CREATED IN 1997, BY WOLFITZ AND CHENY.

STATED INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN AND USA.

AND TO FINISH IT OFF:

'AMERICA MUST BE THE DOMINAT POWER IN THE WORLD AND HAVE NO ONE TO MATCH IT POWER - FRIENT OR ALLY '.

THAT STATEMENT SHOWS WHAT THE USA THINKS OK UK. WE GOT NOTHING FROM THEM FROM THE LAST GULF WAR, AND THE TOP FIVE TENDERS FOR RECONSTRUCTION IN AFGHANSITAN AND IRAQ HAVE GONE TO US COMPANIES. CHECK OUT HALLIBURTON, MADE BILLION'S FORM THE WAR ALREADY AND HAS RUMSFIELD (OR CHENY CANT REMEBER)ON THE BOARD!!!

WE ARE SENDING BRITISH TROOPS TO DIE FOR NOTHING......

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by Nathan_200sx
Didint you see who wrote that report??????? kin blind or what! it was the World health organisation and it also mentions your beloved UN was involved in the tests. nothing to do with the US or UK goverment's.
I'm starting to agree with nismo, pull the **** out and let the whole figgen lot go to hell in a handcart but that would meen you would have converted my views which you wont, and never will. You live in a far to simplistic life, you probably have a huge chip on your shoulder over something or other as your true side has realy shown itself by you desprately trying to drag up any old history you can get your hands on. Presenting it as black and white evidence which somehow proves your point that were all bad people doing a bad thing. Each historical point in itself should be argued over in depth, it cannot be used as amunition for your argument about Iraq without debate and people fully understanding the underlying events that took place.

THIS TYPE OF IGNORANCE CAUSES WARS. FORGET THE PAST, DOESNT MATTER HEY??? YOU HAVE NOT ASWERED ANY OF MY OTHER POINYS, DONT DWELL ON ONE TOPIC. YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO STRUCTULA INPUT INTO THE DISCUSSION.

" pull the **** out and let the whole figgen lot go to hell in a handcart "

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LOSE AN ARGUMENT AND HAVE TO RESORT TO VIOLENCE AS A LAST RESORT.

JUST LIKE THE USA - NOTHING BUT LIES, AND WHEN YOU CANT HAVE IT YOUR WAY AND HAVE FREE OIL, BLOW THEM UP

[Imran Tunio]

BYE. NICE TALKING WITH YOU, BUT HAVE TO GET THE MINGING TUBE NOW.:(

[JB]

I'd like to ask you two questions Imran.

1. Why are you typing in Upper Case?

2. Why do you live in this country? If I felt the way you do about the UK, I'd move somewhere else.

[Imran Tunio]

Originally posted by JB
I'd like to ask you two questions Imran.

1. Why are you typing in Upper Case?

2. Why do you live in this country. If I felt the way you do about the UK, I'd move somewhere else?

1. to get my point across, and highlight some particular points.

2. This country is ok, I oppose the Government and their policies.

2a. I plan to continue studying as chartered accountant, and I am already half way through this. Got a few more exams to sit. Once qualified, I will review the situation.

ALL YOUR QUERIES ARE ANSWERED IN MY PREVIOUS POSTS, PLEASE READ THEM FIRST.

[Nathan_200sx]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio
THIS TYPE OF IGNORANCE CAUSES WARS. FORGET THE PAST, DOESNT MATTER HEY??? YOU HAVE NOT ASWERED ANY OF MY OTHER POINYS, DONT DWELL ON ONE TOPIC. YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO STRUCTULA INPUT INTO THE DISCUSSION.

" pull the **** out and let the whole figgen lot go to hell in a handcart "

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LOSE AN ARGUMENT AND HAVE TO RESORT TO VIOLENCE AS A LAST RESORT.

JUST LIKE THE USA - NOTHING BUT LIES, AND WHEN YOU CANT HAVE IT YOUR WAY AND HAVE FREE OIL, BLOW THEM UP

I never said that I said each point needed debate so that you merit there worth to the argument. you see only what you want to see. You cant even keep to the origonal point.

I havent answerd your posts because they are irrelivant and I cannot be botherd to be dragged into another slanging match about the rights and wrongs of imperialist Britain.

Incidently typing in capitals is seen as shouting, so you look a bit like a mad nut preaching at speakers corner at the moment.

[Nathan_200sx]

Originally posted by Imran Tunio

" pull the **** out and let the whole figgen lot go to hell in a handcart "

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LOSE AN ARGUMENT AND HAVE TO RESORT TO VIOLENCE AS A LAST RESORT.



LMAO you realy are in a blinkerd rage arnt you, I said PULL OUT the oposite of any violent act. and which argument did I loose as you seem to have tried to start so many.

[andyf]

Sack it, I'm closing the thread now. Points have been made for both 'sides' and both main trains of thought.

Now the valid points and comments have all been said it's getting a BIT LOUD IN HERE. Therefore there will be no more gratuitous bandwidth wasted shouting at one another. If you haven't already, feel free to review the many pages of this thread and make up your own minds on the situation.