That's not true. There was a burgeoning educated (male and female) middle class in a rapidly modernising and relatively secular Iraq under Saddam, until he fell out of favour with the west. If anything it was the sanctions that damaged the middle class and the recent invasion that eradicated them. This is not an endorsement of Saddam btw - he was a bloodthristy dictator above all else.JohnG@lt wrote:
Devoid of their educated middle class? That was the result of Saddam and his school system. Will take a long time to fix thirty years of stupid.CameronPoe wrote:
The original purpose of the mission. At the small cost of a broken infrastructure, tens of thousands of deaths and a country devoid of their educated middle class. They also had foreign oil companies pumping their oil pre-invasion too I might add.
Cause and effect. Why were the sanctions in place? Because he invaded and attempted to annex a sovereign nation.CameronPoe wrote:
That's not true. There was a burgeoning educated (male and female) middle class in a rapidly modernising and relatively secular Iraq under Saddam, until he fell out of favour with the west. If anything it was the sanctions that damaged the middle class and the recent invasion that eradicated them. This is not an endorsement of Saddam btw - he was a bloodthristy dictator above all else.JohnG@lt wrote:
Devoid of their educated middle class? That was the result of Saddam and his school system. Will take a long time to fix thirty years of stupid.CameronPoe wrote:
The original purpose of the mission. At the small cost of a broken infrastructure, tens of thousands of deaths and a country devoid of their educated middle class. They also had foreign oil companies pumping their oil pre-invasion too I might add.
That is correct. An invasion he thought he had tacit approval from his western backers to engage in. His miscalculation though. And his actions didn't do half the damage to the educated classes that the recent invasion did.JohnG@lt wrote:
Cause and effect. Why were the sanctions in place? Because he invaded and attempted to annex a sovereign nation.
If they were so well educated, would they not have known it was in their best interest to overthrow him? They were complicit in anything Saddam could be charged with for not acting to remove him.CameronPoe wrote:
That is correct. An invasion he thought he had tacit approval from his western backers to engage in. His miscalculation though. And his actions didn't do half the damage to the educated classes that the recent invasion did.JohnG@lt wrote:
Cause and effect. Why were the sanctions in place? Because he invaded and attempted to annex a sovereign nation.
That is what happens under iron-fisted sporadic-purge dictatorships. If they keep getting paid they just keep their mouths shut. My own doctor actually worked in Iraq under Saddam (he's Irish). He got paid, end of.JohnG@lt wrote:
If they were so well educated, would they not have known it was in their best interest to overthrow him? They were complicit in anything Saddam could be charged with for not acting to remove him.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-12-12 07:04:00)
Then no one is really to blame but themselves for the fact that 'the middle class educated people disappeared'. They took his money, just as guilty.CameronPoe wrote:
That is what happens under iron-fisted sporadic-purge dictatorships. If they keep getting paid they just keep their mouths shut. My own doctor actually worked in Iraq under Saddam (he's Irish). He got paid, end of.JohnG@lt wrote:
If they were so well educated, would they not have known it was in their best interest to overthrow him? They were complicit in anything Saddam could be charged with for not acting to remove him.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-12 07:06:14)
A bit simplistic. They would still be there if the west didn't ravage the country. So while you have a certain point you are not strictly speaking correct. It was not our place to interfere. Similar situation in Zimbabwe and Myanmar - do we invade? Of course not. There is no oil there and they are not strategically located to provide any discernible benefits.JohnG@lt wrote:
Then no one is really to blame but themselves for the fact that 'the middle class educated people disappeared'. They took his money, just as guilty.CameronPoe wrote:
That is what happens under iron-fisted sporadic-purge dictatorships. If they keep getting paid they just keep their mouths shut. My own doctor actually worked in Iraq under Saddam (he's Irish). He got paid, end of.JohnG@lt wrote:
If they were so well educated, would they not have known it was in their best interest to overthrow him? They were complicit in anything Saddam could be charged with for not acting to remove him.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-12-12 07:09:51)
Tough noogies for IraqisCameronPoe wrote:
A bit simplistic. They would still be there if the west didn't ravage the country. So while you have a certain point you are not strictly speaking correct. It was not our place to interfere. Similar situation in Zimbabwe and Myanmar - do we invade? Of course not. There is no oil there and they are not strategically located to provide any discernible benefits.JohnG@lt wrote:
Then no one is really to blame but themselves for the fact that 'the middle class educated people disappeared'. They took his money, just as guilty.CameronPoe wrote:
That is what happens under iron-fisted sporadic-purge dictatorships. If they keep getting paid they just keep their mouths shut. My own doctor actually worked in Iraq under Saddam (he's Irish). He got paid, end of.
please leave the fucking forum you retard. All your posts are insanely idiotic.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Basically Iraq is messed up and they're not worth the sons and daughters of the rest of the world.
So either rape the bad guys or leave em be. Don't do both.
Edit: harsh but true.seymorebutts443 wrote:
please leave the fucking forum you retard. All your posts are insanely idiotic.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Basically Iraq is messed up and they're not worth the sons and daughters of the rest of the world.
So either rape the bad guys or leave em be. Don't do both.
Last edited by mafia996630 (2009-12-12 07:47:24)
good you shouldn't, because the resaon we went back was the breaking of the resolutions that stopped hostilities in 91.Dilbert_X wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8408918.stmIt would have been "right to remove" Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein even without evidence that he had weapons of mass destruction, Tony Blair has said.
The former prime minister said it was the "notion of him as a threat to the region" which had tilted him in favour of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Without WMD claims it would have been necessary to "use and deploy different arguments," he told the BBC.
Speaking on BBC One's Fern Britton Meets programme, Mr Blair was asked whether he would still have gone on with invasion plans had he known at the time that there were no WMDs.
He said: "I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat."
Pretty incredible really, Blair is admitting the invasion was a war crime and that he and Bush lied to their countries to take them into war.
Without WMD Saddam simply wasn't a significant threat to anything.
I still don't believe the WMD intel was anything other than concocted - and I mean WMD intel, not suggestions the Iraqis were concealing 'something'.
Ravage the country huh? Since when is building communication and electrical grids, schools, water plants, etc.. ravaging the country.CameronPoe wrote:
A bit simplistic. They would still be there if the west didn't ravage the country. So while you have a certain point you are not strictly speaking correct. It was not our place to interfere. Similar situation in Zimbabwe and Myanmar - do we invade? Of course not. There is no oil there and they are not strategically located to provide any discernible benefits.JohnG@lt wrote:
Then no one is really to blame but themselves for the fact that 'the middle class educated people disappeared'. They took his money, just as guilty.CameronPoe wrote:
That is what happens under iron-fisted sporadic-purge dictatorships. If they keep getting paid they just keep their mouths shut. My own doctor actually worked in Iraq under Saddam (he's Irish). He got paid, end of.
Obviously Cam never visited Camp Liberty, where Saddam's brothel for little girls were taken from schools and kept for his pleasure and the pleasure of his "dignitaries", it is not much smaller than the capital building. Yeah Cam, what a great thing he was for Iraq.CameronPoe wrote:
That's not true. There was a burgeoning educated (male and female) middle class in a rapidly modernising and relatively secular Iraq under Saddam, until he fell out of favour with the west. If anything it was the sanctions that damaged the middle class and the recent invasion that eradicated them. This is not an endorsement of Saddam btw - he was a bloodthristy dictator above all else.JohnG@lt wrote:
Devoid of their educated middle class? That was the result of Saddam and his school system. Will take a long time to fix thirty years of stupid.CameronPoe wrote:
The original purpose of the mission. At the small cost of a broken infrastructure, tens of thousands of deaths and a country devoid of their educated middle class. They also had foreign oil companies pumping their oil pre-invasion too I might add.
lowing wrote:
Obviously Cam never visited Camp Liberty, where Saddam's brothel for little girls were taken from schools and kept for his pleasure and the pleasure of his "dignitaries", it is not much smaller than the capital building. Yeah Cam, what a great thing he was for Iraq.CameronPoe wrote:
That's not true. There was a burgeoning educated (male and female) middle class in a rapidly modernising and relatively secular Iraq under Saddam, until he fell out of favour with the west. If anything it was the sanctions that damaged the middle class and the recent invasion that eradicated them. This is not an endorsement of Saddam btw - he was a bloodthristy dictator above all else.JohnG@lt wrote:
Devoid of their educated middle class? That was the result of Saddam and his school system. Will take a long time to fix thirty years of stupid.
Only because he begged the UN for them to stop and agreed to disarm and open up for inspections, which he later refused. If not for the the secession of hostilities, rest assured his whole country, including his middle class, would have been decimated. His fault not the wests.CameronPoe wrote:
That is correct. An invasion he thought he had tacit approval from his western backers to engage in. His miscalculation though. And his actions didn't do half the damage to the educated classes that the recent invasion did.JohnG@lt wrote:
Cause and effect. Why were the sanctions in place? Because he invaded and attempted to annex a sovereign nation.
No that one is not it, it is the building with the dome on it.JohnG@lt wrote:
http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/wp-cont … G_1760.JPGlowing wrote:
Obviously Cam never visited Camp Liberty, where Saddam's brothel for little girls were taken from schools and kept for his pleasure and the pleasure of his "dignitaries", it is not much smaller than the capital building. Yeah Cam, what a great thing he was for Iraq.CameronPoe wrote:
That's not true. There was a burgeoning educated (male and female) middle class in a rapidly modernising and relatively secular Iraq under Saddam, until he fell out of favour with the west. If anything it was the sanctions that damaged the middle class and the recent invasion that eradicated them. This is not an endorsement of Saddam btw - he was a bloodthristy dictator above all else.
It was actually a palace belonging to Chemical Ali. It's been the coalition headquarters in Baghdad since 2003. Decent fishing in the moat.
The one in the other lake? I actually had a gig providing comms to that building for a few weeks.lowing wrote:
No that one is not it, it is the building with the dome on it.JohnG@lt wrote:
http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/wp-cont … G_1760.JPGlowing wrote:
Obviously Cam never visited Camp Liberty, where Saddam's brothel for little girls were taken from schools and kept for his pleasure and the pleasure of his "dignitaries", it is not much smaller than the capital building. Yeah Cam, what a great thing he was for Iraq.
It was actually a palace belonging to Chemical Ali. It's been the coalition headquarters in Baghdad since 2003. Decent fishing in the moat.
It was near a lake. The stories comming out of Victory about the history of the buildings, and what went on in them is pretty bad. It only solidified my opinion that that fucker had to go, regardless.JohnG@lt wrote:
The one in the other lake? I actually had a gig providing comms to that building for a few weeks.lowing wrote:
No that one is not it, it is the building with the dome on it.JohnG@lt wrote:
http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/wp-cont … G_1760.JPG
It was actually a palace belonging to Chemical Ali. It's been the coalition headquarters in Baghdad since 2003. Decent fishing in the moat.
He was no worse than the Saudi sheiks who are currently our 'allies'.lowing wrote:
It was near a lake. The stories comming out of Victory about the history of the buildings, and what went on in them is pretty bad. It only solidified my opinion that that fucker had to go, regardless.JohnG@lt wrote:
The one in the other lake? I actually had a gig providing comms to that building for a few weeks.lowing wrote:
No that one is not it, it is the building with the dome on it.
How about telling me why for once you fucks.seymorebutts443 wrote:
please leave the fucking forum you retard. All your posts are insanely idiotic.-Sh1fty- wrote:
Basically Iraq is messed up and they're not worth the sons and daughters of the rest of the world.
So either rape the bad guys or leave em be. Don't do both.
except he invaded a soverign nation, and then broke the peace treaty that he signed to stop the attacks on his country.JohnG@lt wrote:
He was no worse than the Saudi sheiks who are currently our 'allies'.lowing wrote:
It was near a lake. The stories comming out of Victory about the history of the buildings, and what went on in them is pretty bad. It only solidified my opinion that that fucker had to go, regardless.JohnG@lt wrote:
The one in the other lake? I actually had a gig providing comms to that building for a few weeks.
Which until the Security Council says it is, is not a good enough reason to invade.lowing wrote:
good you shouldn't, because the resaon we went back was the breaking of the resolutions that stopped hostilities in 91.Dilbert_X wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8408918.stmIt would have been "right to remove" Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein even without evidence that he had weapons of mass destruction, Tony Blair has said.
The former prime minister said it was the "notion of him as a threat to the region" which had tilted him in favour of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Without WMD claims it would have been necessary to "use and deploy different arguments," he told the BBC.
Speaking on BBC One's Fern Britton Meets programme, Mr Blair was asked whether he would still have gone on with invasion plans had he known at the time that there were no WMDs.
He said: "I would still have thought it right to remove him. I mean obviously you would have had to use and deploy different arguments, about the nature of the threat."
Pretty incredible really, Blair is admitting the invasion was a war crime and that he and Bush lied to their countries to take them into war.
Without WMD Saddam simply wasn't a significant threat to anything.
I still don't believe the WMD intel was anything other than concocted - and I mean WMD intel, not suggestions the Iraqis were concealing 'something'.
Nice ignorance of my final comment.lowing wrote:
Obviously Cam never visited Camp Liberty, where Saddam's brothel for little girls were taken from schools and kept for his pleasure and the pleasure of his "dignitaries", it is not much smaller than the capital building. Yeah Cam, what a great thing he was for Iraq.CameronPoe wrote:
That's not true. There was a burgeoning educated (male and female) middle class in a rapidly modernising and relatively secular Iraq under Saddam, until he fell out of favour with the west. If anything it was the sanctions that damaged the middle class and the recent invasion that eradicated them. This is not an endorsement of Saddam btw - he was a bloodthristy dictator above all else.JohnG@lt wrote:
Devoid of their educated middle class? That was the result of Saddam and his school system. Will take a long time to fix thirty years of stupid.
