Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

52% Of Americans Say Iraq War "not Worth It"


gone west

Recommended Posts

0
HOLA441

Note to honest defence type people. One well placed Tommahawk would have sorted Saddam out.

Note to coalition of the killing - you don't defeat evil by playing the game by their rules.

No one is in Iraq or Afghanastan on my behalf. Kill them in your own name not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1
HOLA442

52% Of Americans Say Iraq War "not Worth It"

I feel really sorry for the casualties of the whole debacle. That includes the ignorant and poor Americans in the US army (including the massive number of non-citizen volunteers hoping to get their citizenship after they've done their service) who are seriously injured but continue to live. They will be bitter for the rest of their lives that they lost eyes, arms, legs, etc fighting for something that the country & the world considers to be "not worth it".

It's just like 'Nam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2
HOLA443

I thought WTC (and Madrid, London, Turkey, Casablanca, Jerusalem and thousands of other Muslim bomb attacks on civilians) have set the World's race relations back a bit...

Yay, "Liberals" for a nuclear armed Iran-you know it makes sense!

:lol:

In your mind why it any better that Israel, the US or the UK have nuclear arms? And how would you explain to an Iranian that the staus quo should prevail. Remember our country has some quite shameful history in that part of the world and we recently falsely accused the Iranians of helping with attacks against our troops in Iraq (and I don't see any front page retractions). I'm no liberal but the hypocrasy and double standards flouted by some people who think we can do what ever we want because we have a "free" press and "democracy" is astounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3
HOLA444

Saddam came to power in a Baathist coup-why do you think he was elected in some way? Are you George Galloway?

Hitler was elected but your implication is scrap denmocracy because it failed on that occasion. Is that really what you mean and what is your proposed alternative?

Before the coalition of the Killing made their move Saddam held an election. He won. Sure it was rigged but so are a lot of other elections yet no-one is invading Queensland Australia because 30,000 people voted in an electorate of 3,000

No - I was pointing out that democracy is no panacea. Anyhow a system where 6 people can force 4 people to do something against their will isn't that crash hot is it? In fact that is how bully's operate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4
HOLA445

Note to honest defence type people. One well placed Tommahawk would have sorted Saddam out.

Note to coalition of the killing - you don't defeat evil by playing the game by their rules.

No one is in Iraq or Afghanastan on my behalf. Kill them in your own name not mine.

"you don't defeat evil by playing the game by their rules" Does that actually mean anything? Could you explain what if it does please.

"Not in my name" is an easy cop out for something unpalatable but possibly necessary. You will benefit from the removal of an Iranian nuclear threat as you have done from the routing of the Taleban/Al Qaeda in Afganistan, whilst cheerfully excusing yourself from any link to the nasty killing business that is sometimes necessary to protect people including you. I hate the smell of moral cowardice in the morning... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5
HOLA446

Iraq is a mess, I cannot see how it will ever be sorted out.

To take on Iran is going to really tip the balance and set the worlds different peoples even further apart.

The US military does not have the man-power (without introducing conscription) to take on Iran, and they certainly don't have the funding. The FY06 defence spending plans already show a shortfall of USD8 billion.

This is, however, a chance of Israel taking on Iran - backed with their USD3 billion of US foreign military funding (FMF)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6
HOLA447

In your mind why it any better that Israel, the US or the UK have nuclear arms? And how would you explain to an Iranian that the staus quo should prevail. Remember our country has some quite shameful history in that part of the world and we recently falsely accused the Iranians of helping with attacks against our troops in Iraq (and I don't see any front page retractions). I'm no liberal but the hypocrasy and double standards flouted by some people who think we can do what ever we want because we have a "free" press and "democracy" is astounding.

There is nothing false about Iranian interference in Southern Iraq. What info are you privy to that might suggest it is?

Iran is a nasty dictatorship run by Muslim zealots. However fundamentally religious Bush is as a Christian (and even whatever influence some religious parties have on government in Israel, which ain't much as it is predominantly a secular country) , it is not the same level of threat, belligerence or belief that murdering millions of people is fine because all good Muslims go to Heaven. I do not see any other nation in the World threatening to wipe another off the planet but fair does, let's give 'em nukes anyway just to show we are not prejudiced...

Before the coalition of the Killing made their move Saddam held an election. He won. Sure it was rigged but so are a lot of other elections yet no-one is invading Queensland Australia because 30,000 people voted in an electorate of 3,000

No - I was pointing out that democracy is no panacea. Anyhow a system where 6 people can force 4 people to do something against their will isn't that crash hot is it? In fact that is how bully's operate.

Actually I do think democracy is a panacea in most cases. It seems to produce more stability than not. I prefer a democratic society that at least aspires to a free press, judiciary, unrigged elections etc than not even trying and preferring a dictatorship or monarchy or theocracy.

I say again, what is your alternative proposal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7
HOLA448

"you don't defeat evil by playing the game by their rules" Does that actually mean anything? Could you explain what if it does please.

"Not in my name" is an easy cop out for something unpalatable but possibly necessary. You will benefit from the removal of an Iranian nuclear threat as you have done from the routing of the Taleban/Al Qaeda in Afganistan, whilst cheerfully excusing yourself from any link to the nasty killing business that is sometimes necessary to protect people including you. I hate the smell of moral cowardice in the morning... :lol:

Good to know that not everyone on this site is a complete sissy ;)

Zimbabwe next please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8
HOLA449

'Before the coalition of the Killing made their move Saddam held an election. He won. Sure it was rigged but so are a lot of other elections'

'yet no-one is invading Queensland Australia because 30,000 people voted in an electorate of 3,000'

Are you suggesting that US elections are rigged in a similar way that Saddam rigged his elections ?

Are you also saying that the elections in Australia are also rigged ? - please explain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9
HOLA4410

"you don't defeat evil by playing the game by their rules" Does that actually mean anything? Could you explain what if it does please.

"Not in my name" is an easy cop out for something unpalatable but possibly necessary. You will benefit from the removal of an Iranian nuclear threat as you have done from the routing of the Taleban/Al Qaeda in Afganistan, whilst cheerfully excusing yourself from any link to the nasty killing business that is sometimes necessary to protect people including you. I hate the smell of moral cowardice in the morning... :lol:

Ignoring the rules of war. Torturing people to get information that you want (or want to hear).

Saddam tortured people. He also held people at his whim. By Torturing Iraqi's and holding them in prisons without a fair trial we become what we fought.

It's not a cop out. I wonder why Iran would like the Bomb? Can't think of any nation that is in the nuclear club that the coalition of the killing is keen to attack.

Not that I condone the Taliban one iota but - Let's see. The Taliban for all intents and purposes were running Afghanastan. They were the ruling party with the exception of a small group of warlords to the north. It was their country. Then a large powerful nation say's give us Mr X. Taliban say's "why?". The Taliban never said they would not hand over Osama they wanted proof that Osama was responsible.

I'm not a moral coward. Bordering on insulting was that comment. Let's see if I get this right. You think that I'm a moral coward because I wont get all teary eyed at some soldiers "sacrifice"? You think that I should be proud that someone I don't know is killing another person I don't know? Do you think that I lie awake worried that some dude in a cave is planning to come to Australia, track down Gcs15 and set off a car bomb here? I'd laugh if it weren't so serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10
HOLA4411

There is nothing false about Iranian interference in Southern Iraq. What info are you privy to that might suggest it is?

Iran is a nasty dictatorship run by Muslim zealots. However fundamentally religious Bush is as a Christian (and even whatever influence some religious parties have on government in Israel, which ain't much as it is predominantly a secular country) , it is not the same level of threat, belligerence or belief that murdering millions of people is fine because all good Muslims go to Heaven. I do not see any other nation in the World threatening to wipe another off the planet but fair does, let's give 'em nukes anyway just to show we are not prejudiced...

Actually I do think democracy is a panacea in most cases. It seems to produce more stability than not. I prefer a democratic society that at least aspires to a free press, judiciary, unrigged elections etc than not even trying and preferring a dictatorship or monarchy or theocracy.

I say again, what is your alternative proposal?

The Iranian leadership want to be bombed by Israel, thats why the statements about 'wiping Israel off the map' and the breaking of the seals on their facilities. This would strengthen their powerbase at home and bring out every ME country on their side, and squash any democracy movement or moderate voices in Iran and other Islamic countries, with popular support.

I cant disagree with you on democracy though, but its a process that takes decades to work, you cant force it on people down the barrel of a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11
HOLA4412

Make my day "Are you saying the elections in Australia are also rigged ? - please explain"

Read an expose about serious irregularities in the Australian electoral system. Very well documented and research IMO.

I was also a one time member of a political party. We were urged to vote numerous times.

One time I went to vote and I'd already voted apparently. That is my name was checked off. I assure you that it was not me. When I complained my concerns were politely ignored and I was told to go to another voting station if I wanted to vote. I did and I'd already been there as well.

Everyone ignores this issue because, IMO, the major parties all do it. Here in Oz political parties get paid per vote. They use this money to fund themselves. So 30,000 votes are submitted in an electorate with 3,000 people and no one cares.

Like the UK more people voted against John Howard than voted for him yet he is the PM. Democracy hijacked in my books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12
HOLA4413

There is nothing false about Iranian interference in Southern Iraq. What info are you privy to that might suggest it is?

Iran is a nasty dictatorship run by Muslim zealots. However fundamentally religious Bush is as a Christian (and even whatever influence some religious parties have on government in Israel, which ain't much as it is predominantly a secular country) , it is not the same level of threat, belligerence or belief that murdering millions of people is fine because all good Muslims go to Heaven. I do not see any other nation in the World threatening to wipe another off the planet but fair does, let's give 'em nukes anyway just to show we are not prejudiced...

Actually I do think democracy is a panacea in most cases. It seems to produce more stability than not. I prefer a democratic society that at least aspires to a free press, judiciary, unrigged elections etc than not even trying and preferring a dictatorship or monarchy or theocracy.

I say again, what is your alternative proposal?

I have no doubt that there is lots of interference in Iraq by many countries. I was talking about this story

http://www.payvand.com/news/06/jan/1065.html

which if you remember was headline news at the time. I have no problem with countries defending their national interests its what governments are expected to do. I think you'll find the moral cowardice comes from the government who do not admit the real aims of their policies and dress it up in threat of terrorism and WMD's which leads to disillusionment when they are exposed as lies or sheer incompetance. Democracies are meant to be open so lets have an honest discussion about why we want to fight the people we fight, let people know how profitable and wonderful war is and what will happen to our comfortable way of life if we don't play a little dirty. I'm not a coward but I hate people living behind the comfort of a good/evil world view. Who decides?

I don't subcribe to dogma, I'm a pragmatist. And I think we can do a lot better than the current system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13
HOLA4414
I hate the smell of moral cowardice in the morning...

Rubbish. If I thought I was at risk I'd pull the damn trigger myself, without hesitation. You want to take my country to war, you tell me why and we do it on that basis. Say to me, "we want to remove this dictator". You don't make a decision as monumental as the war in Iraq on the basis of thinking up reasons afterwards.

You don't move goal posts, especially when even the spooks agree that the war in Iraq has made us more of a terrorist target.

And if we are in the business of removing dictators, why aren't we removing all the others? Of course, no oil......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14
HOLA4415

Good to know that not everyone on this site is a complete sissy ;)

Zimbabwe next please!

...Zim, Sudan and lots of other places if you are interventionist. Actually I am not, unless there is something in it for this country. Contrary to appearances, I am not bothered about spreading democracy to the Middle East for its own sake. Let them sort themselves out if they are no threat to us...

The Iranian leadership want to be bombed by Israel, thats why the statements about 'wiping Israel off the map' and the breaking of the seals on their facilities. This would strengthen their powerbase at home and bring out every ME country on their side, and squash any democracy movement or moderate voices in Iran and other Islamic countries, with popular support.

I cant disagree with you on democracy though, but its a process that takes decades to work, you cant force it on people down the barrel of a gun.

Iran wants to be bombed? Interesting theory, although stretching credibility I think. It would produce solidarity in Iran I suppose, except for the Kurds and Khuzestan Arabs perhaps.

I do not want to force democracy on Iran or Iraq and would pull out troops now. I just do not want them to be a threat to the UK.

Rubbish. If I thought I was at risk I'd pull the damn trigger myself, without hesitation. You want to take my country to war, you tell me why and we do it on that basis. Say to me, "we want to remove this dictator". You don't make a decision as monumental as the war in Iraq on the basis of thinking up reasons afterwards.

You don't move goal posts, especially when even the spooks agree that the war in Iraq has made us more of a terrorist target.

And if we are in the business of removing dictators, why aren't we removing all the others? Of course, no oil......

You seem to have taken my response to GSC15 (regarding objecting to destroying the Taliban/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan especially but still benefiting from the removal of the threat) as aimed at you for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15
HOLA4416

The British Public had their chance to give Blair a Bloody nose in the last election, and they fluffed it.

Blair has interpreted his new term as the green light to go forth and do WTF he likes across the world.

And that includes war with Iran. Inevitable IMO.

British public have given Blair green light undoubtedly.

God I'm depressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16
HOLA4417
17
HOLA4418

What does it matter rigged or not

Elections held tomorrow choice is David Cameron or Tony Blair.

As far as I can tell David Cameron = Tony Blair. They are both playing the same game now - take up as many centrist and populist positions as you can find until your opponent has nowhere to move. Alhtough I hate to say it Cameron has the slight edge his reactions seem less knee jerky than most of the crap TB's Nu-Labour spin out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18
HOLA4419
19
HOLA4420

1) Saddam was funding suicide bombings in Israel.

2) Saddam used WMD on his own people - would we trust him with nukes?

3) A friend assures me he did have such weapons before the war. Can't tell you anymore than that, but he did have them. You'll just have to trust me. ;) (I live in London, if that helps :lol: )

Admittedly Blair fudged the justification for war ("it was the WMD, no it wasn't it was regime change") but that's because he's a tw@t.

Of course, they should have got special forces to take photos of the WMD before the war. I can imagine that job:

OK chaps, I know you're all highly trained, top-notch SAS/SBS troops, but we need to send you into Iraq on a suicide mission to take photos of Iraqi WMD before the war kicks off. Yes, you'll all die and there'll be little chance of selling any more Bravo Two Zero novels, but we'll be able to justify having this war to all the Guardian and Independent readers, and you know how important they are, don't you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20
HOLA4421

1) Saddam was funding suicide bombings in Israel.

2) Saddam used WMD on his own people - would we trust him with nukes?

3) A friend assures me he did have such weapons before the war. Can't tell you anymore than that, but he did have them. You'll just have to trust me. ;) (I live in London, if that helps :lol: )

Admittedly Blair fudged the justification for war ("it was the WMD, no it wasn't it was regime change") but that's because he's a tw@t.

Of course, they should have got special forces to take photos of the WMD before the war. I can imagine that job:

Why should we trust you any more than the mainstream media or any polititian?

When was Saddam going to have nukes?

Can you think of another country in the region that has obtained nuclear weapons against the desire of the international community?

Deleted through apathy to get involved in such an uninformed discussion

MattLG

No. Go on, enlighten us proles. That's what most of us are here for. To learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21
HOLA4422

1) Saddam was funding suicide bombings in Israel.

Along with the rest of the mid-east. Are the Saudis next?

2) Saddam used WMD on his own people - would we trust him with nukes?

WOMD sold to him by the US. Would I trust him with nukes? no! But it doesn't look like he was going to get any, anytime soon. That makes the nukes argument moot.

3) A friend assures me he did have such weapons before the war. Can't tell you anymore than that, but he did have them. You'll just have to trust me. ;) (I live in London, if that helps :lol: )

I have no problem believing that. Where are they now? The world might have been a better place with these WOMDs in the hands of Saddam than say...terrorists. The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22
HOLA4423

The Times Newspaper 2003

The revelation that Saddam Hussein's intelligence chiefs were seeking to establish links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda network is the first concrete proof that the dictator was colluding with the world's most ruthless terrorist operation.

The documents discovered yesterday by The Telegraph in the former headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, will also reopen the debate about whether Saddam was directly involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

The issue of Saddam's involvement has been a long-standing source of contention between London and Washington. In the days immediately following the attacks, President George W Bush confided to colleagues that he believed that Saddam was directly involved in the attacks. "He probably was behind this in the end," he said.

In his State of Union speech in January, Mr Bush made the case for confronting Iraq, saying: "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qa'eda."

This belief has been the driving force behind Washington's determination to seek "regime change" in Baghdad, particularly after Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, indicated in February that he had received intelligence reports that al-Qa'eda operatives had approached Iraq about co-operating on chemical and biological weapons.

Washington's insistence that Saddam had links with bin Laden was not reciprocated in London, where Tony Blair, acting on the advice he received from British intelligence, was more circumspect about the links.

During his appearance before a Commons select committee in January, Mr Blair said that while "there is some intelligence about loose links between al-Qa'eda and various people in Iraq", he was unaware of any evidence linking Saddam to September 11.

Until now, most of the evidence presented by Washington to prove the link between Saddam and al-Qa'eda has been inconclusive. In the weeks immediately after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration was keen to draw attention to a report issued by the Czech Republic's interior ministry claiming that Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague earlier that year. The report later turned out to be false.

Washington was similarly frustrated earlier this year when it claimed that an al-Qa'eda cell called al-Ansar al-Islam was operating in Iraq. It later transpired that the group was active in a region beyond Saddam's control.

The new documentation uncovered by The Telegraph, however, is the first concrete evidence to emerge to back up claims made by Mr Powell during his presentation to the United Nations Security Council. He said Iraqi intelligence had funded a number of terrorist training camps in Sudan in the 1990s which were used by al-Qa'eda.

During his presentation, Mr Powell said that al-Qa'eda had been working with Baghdad since the early 1990s after reaching an understanding that bin Laden would stop targeting Saddam's regime. "Ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence contacts," he said.

"We know members of both organisations have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996 . . . bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met with the director of the Iraqi intelligence service."

US officials also claimed that Saddam was particularly impressed by al-Qa'eda's 1998 terrorist attacks against the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and sent Iraqi intelligence officers to help train al-Qa'eda fighters in Afghanistan after bin Laden was forced to move his base there from Sudan.

The documents also give the lie to those who said that al-Qa'eda, the Islamic zealots, would have nothing to do with the brutally secular regime of Saddam. It appears that their shared hatreds - of America, of Saudi Arabia, of the West - outweighed such considerations.

"This discovery backs up everything we have heard about Baghdad's dealings with bin Laden," a Western intelligence official said last night. "It shows that Iraqi intelligence was desperate to form an alliance with al-Qa'eda. And if Saddam was working with bin Laden from the mid-1990s, that raises the question of whether he was involved in the 9/11 attacks."

Saddam himself always rigorously denied having any links with al-Qa'eda. During an interview with Tony Benn, the Left-wing former MP, in early January, Saddam said: "We have no relationship with al-Qa'eda." He added: "If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda and we believed in that relationship, we would not be ashamed to admit it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23
HOLA4424
During his appearance before a Commons select committee in January, Mr Blair said that while "there is some intelligence about loose links between al-Qa'eda and various people in Iraq", he was unaware of any evidence linking Saddam to September 11.

No you won’t find any links to Sadam and the 9-11 because G W Bush had the world trade centre bombed so he could rake in more profit from his Oil interests with the Saudi Royals.

Did any of you here see the documentary on Sky Two “Conspiracy’s and Iraq†?

For once, coming from the main stream Media this program covered most of the main points and apart from the programs title, very few points covered were controversial but presented as a matter of fact.

We have motive

We have evidence about 9-11

And now we have a lot of people speaking openly about it

53% of people are now calling for Bush to be Impeached

GW Bush your days and the days of your co-conspirators are numbered so live each day as if it’s going to be your last one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24
HOLA4425

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information