Bertinan Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 So, umm, what do you people think about the war in Iraq? And who do you think is next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diso Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Other than quick skirmishes, we're doing fine in the war. It doesn't really mean much to me right now. Who's next? Probably Russia by some accident and then we all get screwed over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkT2256 Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 yeah its been very quiet over there, but i bet it will be another year until we actually leave iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamCastLover Posted July 2, 2003 Share Posted July 2, 2003 Well its funny you bring this up. I was thinking about it today after hearing that America were said to be considering completely pulling out of Iraq due to the losses in personal they have had! Pull out!? Wow history would really be repeating itself there. It seems that when Bush said "oh it's all over" a couple of months ago that everyone has forgotten about it and assumed he is right. The fact is that America has lost more soldiers to Iraqi fire AFTER this war than it did during the entire last Gulf war AND this gulf war put together. The fact that no weapons of destruction have been found annoys me a lot. That was the single justification to the war. Tony Blair will pay the price here though. His political party is behind to the conservatives for the first time in about 7 years. Good Riddance to him too. I mean it was proven that this war was based on a lie so what does he expect? Even I'm not dumb enough to take a 10 year old essay from the internet and using it as up to date special intelligence reports As for where is next? Well I would guess at N korea or Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertinan Posted July 3, 2003 Author Share Posted July 3, 2003 Well, the reason Bush was so persistent on the fact that they had weapons of mass destruction was because the Iraqis wouldnt let our inspectors in. If they didnt have weapons of mass destruction, why would they refuse to allow inspectors in? Plus, its always better safe than sorry Least, thats what I heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loay Posted July 3, 2003 Share Posted July 3, 2003 Well its funny you bring this up. I was thinking about it today after hearing that America were said to be considering completely pulling out of Iraq due to the losses in personal they have had! Pull out!? Wow history would really be repeating itself there. It seems that when Bush said "oh it's all over" a couple of months ago that everyone has forgotten about it and assumed he is right. The fact is that America has lost more soldiers to Iraqi fire AFTER this war than it did during the entire last Gulf war AND this gulf war put together. The fact that no weapons of destruction have been found annoys me a lot. That was the single justification to the war. Tony Blair will pay the price here though. His political party is behind to the conservatives for the first time in about 7 years. Good Riddance to him too. I mean it was proven that this war was based on a lie so what does he expect? Even I'm not dumb enough to take a 10 year old essay from the internet and using it as up to date special intelligence reports As for where is next? Well I would guess at N korea or Syria.i agree for all what you said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiphoid Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 Well, the reason Bush was so persistent on the fact that they had weapons of mass destruction was because the Iraqis wouldnt let our inspectors in. If they didnt have weapons of mass destruction, why would they refuse to allow inspectors in? Plus, its always better safe than sorry Least, thats what I heard.[pedaant] The UN removed their inspectors, as opposed to Iraq kicking them out[/pedant] the de facto situation may have been different, but those are the facts. It might be quite interesting to note, that despite Saddam's horrific regime we have actually managed to kill more Iraqi's through sanctions than Saddam ever managed to kill off using weapons we sold him. (these are UN figures of course - don't know how you American boys feel about that organization now though). Whilst it is great that Saddam was de bunked I feel that as we breached international law (In UK we did) we have done more to destabilise the Middle East than had we used more subtle methods. I find it interesting that Bush has Struck a blow for democracy when it was his dad that reinstalled the dictator that Saddam defeated in Kuwait in 1990. It is often forgotten that we reinstalled a dictator in Kuwait. Convenient world wide politics. The ramifications, over what might be the long term. Is other regimes starting conflicts under the banner of National Security. We have seen Israel step up attacks in the West Bank (breaching over 50 UN resolutions mind) on the back of the same policy that was adopted by my Prime Minister and your President. This could become a worrying trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWAMP_THING Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 we didnt kill iquais thru sections sadam did he didnt let the keruds have the aid we gave them (well techiqilly he did but they had to come down from their stronghlod in the mountains and he would have killed them) plus sadam was the master of propaganda, he used to keep all the badies he had staved to death and then pardade the funels all toghter to say "this is how many babies the west have killed in a week" clever guy but all the sick flocks are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertinan Posted July 4, 2003 Author Share Posted July 4, 2003 I think the feeling most Americans have towards the U.N. at the moment is Go blow yourself. (These quotes are fun!)An interesting fact to point out, however, is that if another country of the U.N., like France, had been attacked, the U.S. would have been sympathatic, patted France on the back, given them some money, and ignored them. Cause, lets face it, France isnt all that important. Neither is Germany for that matter. Nor anyone in Asia. Or Africa. Or even Europe....lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiphoid Posted July 4, 2003 Share Posted July 4, 2003 we didnt kill iquais thru sections sadam did he didnt let the keruds have the aid we gave them (well techiqilly he did but they had to come down from their stronghlod in the mountains and he would have killed them) plus sadam was the master of propaganda, he used to keep all the badies he had staved to death and then pardade the funels all toghter to say "this is how many babies the west have killed in a week" clever guy but all the sick f*ck are I can't work out quite a lot of what you mean and/or are suggesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertinan Posted July 4, 2003 Author Share Posted July 4, 2003 Errr...neither could I, but I could take a guess. I think he said that We didnt kill any Iraqis through sanctions, but that Saddam witheld the aid from some (rebel?) group, and told them to come down and get. However, Saddam would have just shot them anyway, so the rebel group did not come down. Then, to show the West as monsters, Saddam gathered up every baby in the country and gathered them over a course of some time. Then he took pictures, and showed them and said this is how many babies the West has killed in a week. Least, thats what I think he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now