I wasn't talking to you was I? Also, how does our millions of dollars affect you? The war might, but not my tax dollars.Bertster7 wrote:
Maybe not, but it is my problem as a British citizen. So I'll keep bitching about it for a long time to come.usmarine2007 wrote:
Not your problem, so don't worry about it.EVieira wrote:
And thanks to Bush, you're paying the price of being utterly wrong. Well, its just a couple of hundred billion and a few thousand lives, nothing that will actually destroy the american hegemony anyway...
Because they blatantly didn't really think that Saddam had WMDs. Certainly nothing that constitued a threat to invading troops. From what I've heard the precautions taken against chemical and biological attacks that were taken in the first Gulf war were more comprehensive than those taken as part of Rumsfelds "Shock and Awe" fiasco. Why should this be the case if they actually expected to have WMDs used against their troops.Fen321 wrote:
This is what really bugs me, lets say Saddam did have WMDs. Why would the US invade with conventional forces instead of destroying the alleged locations of the WMDs? The reason i ask this is obvious to me now....why RISK the death of Americans and other "coalition" members with the possibility of a nuke/chemical weapons going off as a last ditch attempt to hold power?usmarine2007 wrote:
Everyone from Clinton to Gore, to Bush, to Kerry, to the CIA thought they had them and wanted to prove for sure if they had them or not.EVieira wrote:
And Iraq would still NOT have WMD...
Your millions of dollars? So the US is funding all the British troops in Iraq - wow, I hadn't realised that. My, mistake.usmarine2007 wrote:
I wasn't talking to you was I? Also, how does our millions of dollars affect you? The war might, but not my tax dollars.Bertster7 wrote:
Maybe not, but it is my problem as a British citizen. So I'll keep bitching about it for a long time to come.usmarine2007 wrote:
Not your problem, so don't worry about it.
FFS He said we lost millions of dollars in Iraq. How does me "losing" my tax dollars affect you? Read what he said then what I said please.Bertster7 wrote:
Your millions of dollars? So the US is funding all the British troops in Iraq - wow, I hadn't realised that. My, mistake.usmarine2007 wrote:
I wasn't talking to you was I? Also, how does our millions of dollars affect you? The war might, but not my tax dollars.Bertster7 wrote:
Maybe not, but it is my problem as a British citizen. So I'll keep bitching about it for a long time to come.
You did not hear correctly then.Bertster7 wrote:
From what I've heard the precautions taken against chemical and biological attacks that were taken in the first Gulf war were more comprehensive than those taken as part of Rumsfelds "Shock and Awe" fiasco. Why should this be the case if they actually expected to have WMDs used against their troops.
I’m sorry, but, you should have never called it a WAR then in the first place… I mean, you can not go to a country and say: Well, there are innocent people here and we can’t really use…blah, blah, fkn blah.usmarine2007 wrote:
Bullshit. We do not really have to put out anything. We could have just gone in, got rid of Saddam, proved there were no weapons, and left.acidkiller187 wrote:
America, " YOU" made the FIRE, now, "YOU" have to put it OUT!!!
1. it’s to late now and the sad thing is the Iraqi people have the American Soldiers by the balls over there. (I feel sorry for every single American over there who said: I’m doing this to make a difference).
2. Saddam who? You kidding me, you are there because of one man with more then 200k in troops, wtf! Plz, tell someone who is really going to buy that BS.
If you are going to end this war however, I suggest it gets done quickly before to many other countries start testing there “weapons of mass destruction” (for example: CHINA) which is a clear sign of troubled water up ahead…
I’m not flaming America in anyway!!!
Perhaps not. But I would be interested if you could enlighten us.usmarine2007 wrote:
You did not hear correctly then.Bertster7 wrote:
From what I've heard the precautions taken against chemical and biological attacks that were taken in the first Gulf war were more comprehensive than those taken as part of Rumsfelds "Shock and Awe" fiasco. Why should this be the case if they actually expected to have WMDs used against their troops.
Erm...we were still in a cease fire from the first time. So, it was technically still war.acidkiller187 wrote:
I’m sorry, but, you should have never called it a WAR then in the first place…
I ain't worried, I'm debating it. You're the one getting personal. If you liked how you were lied to, either by him or his aides, that's up to you. But if you are going to try to stand up for Bush, be prepared to get that stuff thrown in your face.usmarine2007 wrote:
Not your problem, so don't worry about it.EVieira wrote:
And thanks to Bush, you're paying the price of being utterly wrong. Well, its just a couple of hundred billion and a few thousand lives, nothing that will actually destroy the american hegemony anyway...usmarine2007 wrote:
Everyone from Clinton to Gore, to Bush, to Kerry, to the CIA thought they had them and wanted to prove for sure if they had them or not.
And yes, it is my problem too. I live in the same world, and fucking up the middle east raises gas prices and security spending around here too, you know?
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
No.usmarine2007 wrote:
Erm...we were still in a cease fire from the first time. So, it was technically still war.acidkiller187 wrote:
I’m sorry, but, you should have never called it a WAR then in the first place…
The UN were in a ceasefire with Iraq. So technically it wasn't.
Works for me. I don't want to hear any pissing and moaning when Iran has primary influence over that region.Bertster7 wrote:
Stop wasting money on it and leave them alone.
Hmmm...I guess I got a ribbon for the gulf war in 1995 for nothing then, and I wasn't even there. Yay me.Bertster7 wrote:
No.usmarine2007 wrote:
Erm...we were still in a cease fire from the first time. So, it was technically still war.acidkiller187 wrote:
I’m sorry, but, you should have never called it a WAR then in the first place…
The UN were in a ceasefire with Iraq. So technically it wasn't.
Am I the only one frustrated by the fact that there is no consensus on what the Iraq war was all about? It makes me feel like we all have ADD or lack any kind of memory whatsoever.
There seems to be so much propaganda, opinions and conspiracy theories running amuck without any kind of clarification. But on the positive side, we get to argue about it...
There seems to be so much propaganda, opinions and conspiracy theories running amuck without any kind of clarification. But on the positive side, we get to argue about it...
Only redeeming quality at this point.Pug wrote:
Am I the only one frustrated by the fact that there is no consensus on what the Iraq war was all about? It makes me feel like we all have ADD or lack any kind of memory whatsoever.
There seems to be so much propaganda, opinions and conspiracy theories running amuck without any kind of clarification. But on the positive side, we get to argue about it...
I certainly won't. I've got family in Iran and other than the insane system of government (which is what you get when you have power shared equally between religious leaders and elected government officials) there it all seems really quite civilised.Stingray24 wrote:
Works for me. I don't want to hear any pissing and moaning when Iran has primary influence over that region.Bertster7 wrote:
Stop wasting money on it and leave them alone.
My only problem with Iran are their leaders and many of the more popular leadership candidates are becoming more and more moderate, although the destabilisation of the region since 2003 has held back progress by more moderate movements in Iran. Iran is a country with a bright future, unless the US or Israel decide to invade (or a mental leader like Ahmadinejad does something really stupid).
I've heard that the younger generation in Iran is much more interested in furthering that bright future if more rational leadership was in place. Hopefully they will find a way to remove Ahmadinejad and the radical elements that are holding back their progress.
Exactly what I'm hoping for.Stingray24 wrote:
I've heard that the younger generation in Iran is much more interested in furthering that bright future if more rational leadership was in place. Hopefully they will find a way to remove Ahmadinejad and the radical elements that are holding back their progress.
Although the presence of Western troops in the Middle East is hindering progress in that direction (I've been over how at great length in other threads).
Time to get out of the Middle East and leave them to it. There will be some sucess stories there and some failures. But they will be their sucesses and failures.
do we have to have another war? i mean seriously should America not worry about its own problems for a bit more than the worlds?
All those Iranians who have nothing to do with the war and are just going about their lives as anyone would in any other country will be so happy to be bombed...
i really hope peace can be made Iran is a pretty f*cked up country as it is, war will not help...
All those Iranians who have nothing to do with the war and are just going about their lives as anyone would in any other country will be so happy to be bombed...
i really hope peace can be made Iran is a pretty f*cked up country as it is, war will not help...
Good job American Government. Although they have been dragged here by their futile endeavours. Talks were always going to be the best way forward in Iraqi. Its a pity it took 10 000s of lives to force the administration to see this.
And yet again I will reiterate; I am not an America/Israel hater and to be honest, I'm sick of being lumped in with people you perceive as being so. Things in America my be getting more politically polarized (if that's possible), but I refuse to fit snugly into the various political labels set out by an American flawed 2 party system. I'm not a lib, I'm not a con and I am sure as fuck not an American/Israeli hater.
I will be avoiding threads with such titles in future.
And yet again I will reiterate; I am not an America/Israel hater and to be honest, I'm sick of being lumped in with people you perceive as being so. Things in America my be getting more politically polarized (if that's possible), but I refuse to fit snugly into the various political labels set out by an American flawed 2 party system. I'm not a lib, I'm not a con and I am sure as fuck not an American/Israeli hater.
I will be avoiding threads with such titles in future.
This has been out there for a long time. No one will acknowledge because it goes against the Evil Warmonger image.sfarrar33 wrote:
do we have to have another war? i mean seriously should America not worry about its own problems for a bit more than the worlds?
All those Iranians who have nothing to do with the war and are just going about their lives as anyone would in any other country will be so happy to be bombed...
i really hope peace can be made Iran is a pretty f*cked up country as it is, war will not help...
"I don't know how many times the president, Secretary (of State Condoleezza) Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."-Gates
I'm pretty sure talks were going on for many years prior to the war. Saddam's bluffing and refusal to cooperate with the UN couldn't have had anything to do with this also, could it? This is not to take the blame off the poor decisions of the Government of the US, but let's not be so naive to think they were the only ones who saw a threat there.JahManRed wrote:
Good job American Government. Although they have been dragged here by their futile endeavours. Talks were always going to be the best way forward in Iraqi. Its a pity it took 10 000s of lives to force the administration to see this.
And yet again I will reiterate; I am not an America/Israel hater and to be honest, I'm sick of being lumped in with people you perceive as being so. Things in America my be getting more politically polarized (if that's possible), but I refuse to fit snugly into the various political labels set out by an American flawed 2 party system. I'm not a lib, I'm not a con and I am sure as fuck not an American/Israeli hater.
I will be avoiding threads with such titles in future.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-02-28 12:45:24)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Uh, you're not allowed to balance out the NEO-CON conception and state something reasonable!Kmarion wrote:
This has been out there for a long time. No one will acknowledge because it goes against the Evil Warmonger image.sfarrar33 wrote:
do we have to have another war? i mean seriously should America not worry about its own problems for a bit more than the worlds?
All those Iranians who have nothing to do with the war and are just going about their lives as anyone would in any other country will be so happy to be bombed...
i really hope peace can be made Iran is a pretty f*cked up country as it is, war will not help...
"I don't know how many times the president, Secretary (of State Condoleezza) Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."-Gates
You know sometimes I think that if the (current) Admin. had been successful / more intelligent in the handling of Iraq; people (Americans at least) would be applauding the Ne-Con. movement, as Americans admire strength / winners. I'm of a mixed opinion of the whole of it...
No, you didn't. What few supposedly diplomatic requests the US did take were a farce to try and cast a shadow of legitimacy on the invasion. Bush was going to invade come hell or high water, and hePug wrote:
Well, we did, but others thought we didn't wait long enough. So that's a difference of opinion.
made that very clear.
Clinton said he had them in 1998, not when Bush invaded. And all intelligence after Clinton was filtered by Bush, of course it supported his stance.usmarine2007 wrote:
Everyone from Clinton to Gore, to Bush, to Kerry, to the CIA thought they had them and wanted to prove for sure if they had them or not.EVieira wrote:
And Iraq would still NOT have WMD...usmarine2007 wrote:
True, and the UN could have enforced their sanctions..............
So if Clinton said he had them in 98 and Saddam was refusing UN inspections later on, wouldn't the logical conclusion be that they were still there?
Apparently the world intelligence community felt the answer was no, and it makes sense that eventually Saddam caved and got rid of them.
What many people fail to realise is that a government in the ME has to appear strong: whether or not Saddam had WMDs, he needed to look like he did to scare off countries like Iran.
What many people fail to realise is that a government in the ME has to appear strong: whether or not Saddam had WMDs, he needed to look like he did to scare off countries like Iran.