twin towers
06-01-2006 | 12:17 AM
#43
Professional Waffler
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 25,712
Likes: 127
From: south yorkshire
Originally Posted by Chipperx2
we are debating the legality of the War in Iraq etc, nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11, speaking as someone whos been to the top of one of them back in 2000 I would never support the attacks or evan begin to forgive the madmen that did it.
What I was saying that the links to it and the regime in Iraq at the time were non-evident and were fabricated as to decive the public into supporting the war using the most powerful weapon- fear and distrust
What I was saying that the links to it and the regime in Iraq at the time were non-evident and were fabricated as to decive the public into supporting the war using the most powerful weapon- fear and distrust
Im debating that Blair and Bush are not terrorists, and Sadam was!
06-01-2006 | 12:21 AM
#46
PassionFord Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
From: West Yorkshire.
Re: .
Originally Posted by tvr t340r
.lee you are spot on, why the goverment do it, if people dont want to be in this country then just leave
Bryan
Bryan
06-01-2006 | 12:22 AM
#47
Professional Waffler
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 25,712
Likes: 127
From: south yorkshire
Originally Posted by Chipperx2
With comments like that I wonder whos un-educated, stop reading the sun mate 
. bush is as religiously crazy as these fanatics in the middle east, did you ever watch any Bill Hicks stuff?
. bush is as religiously crazy as these fanatics in the middle east, did you ever watch any Bill Hicks stuff?So you stab at me saying i read the sun, then ask if i saw a TV prog!
He aint crazy enough to train suicide bombers to do what they do! Thats crazy!
This has happened for centuries mate...invading countries as some epople put it!! Do gooding upstarts of the world aint gonna stop it
Iraq needed sorting...IMO the government didnt even need to give me any other reason! Iran next.......
06-01-2006 | 12:35 AM
#52
Advanced PassionFord User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,326
Likes: 0
Lee Reynolds
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/033jgqyi.asp
Read, if you wish, it was so obvious the public were lied to too, so they would support the war. I agree with removing Saddam as much as most, just the way we were so blatently lied too and the fact we bought it.
As for Bill hicks he was a very smart comedian, didn't make TV programs lol
.
and Saddam didn't train suicide bombers, dear o dear
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/033jgqyi.asp
Read, if you wish, it was so obvious the public were lied to too, so they would support the war. I agree with removing Saddam as much as most, just the way we were so blatently lied too and the fact we bought it.
As for Bill hicks he was a very smart comedian, didn't make TV programs lol
. and Saddam didn't train suicide bombers, dear o dear
06-01-2006 | 12:54 AM
#56
PassionFord Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
From: West Yorkshire.
Originally Posted by Chipperx2
You said "you would do what Idi Amin did in his country" in this country?
That explain it for you ??
06-01-2006 | 04:21 AM
#58
K155MYRS
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,371
Likes: 0
From: NYC @ work NJ @ home
Chippers always up for a good debate LOL.
I honestly don't think you can even begin to compare Bush a Religious Fanatic as those other guys!! There is NO WAY! He doesn't even come close! if he was, he'd have the US doing prayers LOL.
I personally don't care for Bush, and since I'm really not that familiar with your Government, I can't say how I feel about Blair.
I honestly don't think you can even begin to compare Bush a Religious Fanatic as those other guys!! There is NO WAY! He doesn't even come close! if he was, he'd have the US doing prayers LOL.
I personally don't care for Bush, and since I'm really not that familiar with your Government, I can't say how I feel about Blair.
06-01-2006 | 09:58 AM
#59
Advanced PassionFord User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,326
Likes: 0
I agree that Bush isn't the worst person in the world, he's a neo conservative and has every right to be so, I'm not, so obviously I'm going to disagree with his governments policys. One of the main points is that his foreign policy (and ours) is fueling the fire of terrorism.
What would you think if you saw people of your race being killed, bombed, locked up and tortured? You would want to rebel, and you would feel victimised and thus a few of these people would then turn their anger into action and thus "terrorism".
American governments both Democratic and Republican have taken advantage of other countrys for years, overthrowen governments and put in dictators that would follow their orders . Do you really think that the people of these countrys love America?
What would you think if you saw people of your race being killed, bombed, locked up and tortured? You would want to rebel, and you would feel victimised and thus a few of these people would then turn their anger into action and thus "terrorism".
American governments both Democratic and Republican have taken advantage of other countrys for years, overthrowen governments and put in dictators that would follow their orders
. Do you really think that the people of these countrys love America?
06-01-2006 | 12:14 PM
#60
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 3
From: Surrey
Many misconceptions flying around on here. I've been reading some very interesting and in my eyes just articles from this guy:
Fighting Islam's Ku Klux Klan
The Muslim world cannot forever attribute all its ills to the Great Satan, America, writes the Iraqi dissident, Kanan Makiya
The Arab and Muslim worlds suddenly find themselves facing a civilisational challenge such as they have not had to face since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. For, in the years to come, the greatest price of the madness that was unleashed upon New York and Washington on 11 September will be borne by them and by all individuals of Arab or Muslim origin, wherever they might live in the world.
I am not talking about the next war in Afghanistan or greatly redoubled efforts to hunt down Muslim and Arab terrorists from Boston and Hamburg to Cairo and Karachi. The price I am talking about is not paid in blood or by being the victim of the kinds of humiliating slurs and racist attacks that are everywhere on the rise in the West. It is the much greater price brought about by continuing to wallow in the sense of one's own victimhood to the point of losing the essentially universal idea of human dignity and worth that is the only true measure of civility.
Arab and Muslim resentment at the West is grounded in many grievances, some legitimate, others less so. Without question, the West has blundered in its dealings with the Arab world. The United States has in recent years behaved unjustly towards the Palestinians. The Allied victory in the Gulf War of 1990-1991 was a lost opportunity to rectify this record, to show that the West, and the United States in particular, was capable of reaching out the hand of friendship and support to the peoples of the Arab world, to their democrats and civil libertarians, not merely to a host of tyrannical and unrepresentative regimes.
Like Germans after the First World War, Arabs felt they deserved a different lot after the Gulf War. They thought of themselves as having tried to change the ways they did politics in the past, and got nowhere. Palestinian living standards have actually declined since the Oslo accord in 1993, and Iraqi society (much less its polity and economy) is in a state of steady disintegration. So Arabs grew more resentful and angry at the West than at any other time in modern Arab history. This resentment can be felt everywhere; it has taken root in the most Westernised sections of the Arab population, among businessmen and students of science and engineering, and even among the sons of the mega-rich like Osama bin Laden.
However, grievances alone do not explain the apocalyptic act of fury that was unleashed upon New York and Washington. Arabs and Muslims need today to face up to the fact that their resentment at America has long since become unmoored from any rational underpinnings it might once have had; like the anti-Semitism of the interwar years, it is today steeped in deeply embedded conspiratorial patterns of thought rooted in profound ignorance of how a society and a polity like the United States, much less Israel, functions.
Attribution of all of the ills of one's own world to either the great Satan, America, or the little Satan, Israel, has been the driving force of Arab politics since 1967. As a powerful undercurrent of Arab culture and politics, it has been around much longer than that. After 1967, however, it became the legitimising cement upon which such murderous regimes as Saddam Hussein's Iraq were built.
From the hands of secular Arab nationalists, anti-Americanism was passed on to religious zealots. In 1979, it fused with anti-Shah sentiments to become the animating force of the Iranian revolution and, with that seminal event, major sections of the Islamic movement. Today, it has become a murderous brew of passions fuelled by paranoia and frustration.
In the five-page letter left in a suitcase in the car-park of Boston's airport, this passage, giving guidance to the hijackers in case they should meet resistance from a passenger, appears: 'If God grants any one of you a slaughter, you should perform it as an offering on behalf of your father and mother, for they are owed by you. Do not disagree among yourselves, but listen and obey. If you slaughter, you should plunder those you slaughter, for that is a sanctioned custom of the Prophet's, on the condition that you do not get occupied with the plunder so that you would leave what is more important, such as paying attention to the enemy, his treachery and attacks. That is because such action is very harmful [to the mission].'
This is not Islam any more than the Ku Klux Klan is Christianity. No concessions can be made to either mindset which have more in common with one another than they do with the religions they claim to represent.
To argue, as many Arabs and Muslims are doing today (and not a few liberal Western voices), that 'Americans should ask themselves why they are so hated in the world' is to make such a concession; it is to provide a justification, however unwittingly, for this kind of warped mindset. The thinking is the same as the 'linkage' dreamed up by Saddam Hussein when he tried to get the Arab world to believe that he had occupied Kuwait in 1990 in order to liberate Palestine. The difference being that if the argument was intellectually vacuous then, it is a thousand times more so now.
Worse than being wrong, however, it is morally bankrupt, to say nothing of being counterproductive. For every attempt to 'rationalise' or 'explain' the new anti-Americanism rampant in so much of the Muslim and Arab worlds bolsters the project of the perpetrators of the heinous act of 11 September, which is to blur the lines that separate their sect of a few hundred people from hundreds of millions of peace-loving Muslims and Arabs.
But it is now up to Arabs and Muslims to draw the line that separates them from the Osama bin Ladens of this world just as it was up to Americans to excoriate, isolate, outlaw, imprison and eventually root out the members of the Klan from their midst. Mercifully, the very same Western leaders who are preparing for the coming 'War Against Terrorism' are trying hard, and genuinely, to say their efforts are not directed at Muslims and Arab or Muslim culture. Constantly, they are being seen with Muslim clerics and visiting mosques. That is all for the good.
But it is not enough to turn the tide of public opinion which will increasingly need and want to know who is 'the other' in this coming war. Terrorism is a tactic, after all, not a side. Usage of the word 'war', however understandable, was a strategic mistake by the American President. For like the wars on drugs or poverty it inculcates expectations at the risk of showing few results. The problem is deeper than bin Laden and his associates, and will not end with their demise. As I wrote in Cruelty and Silence, citing the 1930s Iraqi alter ego of Tom Lehrer, Aziz Ali, Da' illi beena, minna wa feena: 'The disease that is in us, is from us and within us.' Against this kind of enemy the West can do nothing. We have to do it ourselves.
Muslims and Arabs have to be on the front lines of a new kind of war, one that is worth waging for their own salvation and in their own souls. And that, as good out-of-fashion Muslim scholars will tell you, is the true meaning of jihad, a meaning that has been hijacked by terrorists and suicide bombers and all those who applaud or find excuses for them. To exorcise what they have done in our name is the civilisational challenge of the twenty-first century for every Arab and Muslim in the world today.
Just to recap, I didn't write this it's an article I've quoted as I believe it pretty much sums up and contains as a whole everyone's differing opinions of this board on the egg / chicken scenario in the Middle East.
Ben
Fighting Islam's Ku Klux Klan
The Muslim world cannot forever attribute all its ills to the Great Satan, America, writes the Iraqi dissident, Kanan Makiya
The Arab and Muslim worlds suddenly find themselves facing a civilisational challenge such as they have not had to face since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. For, in the years to come, the greatest price of the madness that was unleashed upon New York and Washington on 11 September will be borne by them and by all individuals of Arab or Muslim origin, wherever they might live in the world.
I am not talking about the next war in Afghanistan or greatly redoubled efforts to hunt down Muslim and Arab terrorists from Boston and Hamburg to Cairo and Karachi. The price I am talking about is not paid in blood or by being the victim of the kinds of humiliating slurs and racist attacks that are everywhere on the rise in the West. It is the much greater price brought about by continuing to wallow in the sense of one's own victimhood to the point of losing the essentially universal idea of human dignity and worth that is the only true measure of civility.
Arab and Muslim resentment at the West is grounded in many grievances, some legitimate, others less so. Without question, the West has blundered in its dealings with the Arab world. The United States has in recent years behaved unjustly towards the Palestinians. The Allied victory in the Gulf War of 1990-1991 was a lost opportunity to rectify this record, to show that the West, and the United States in particular, was capable of reaching out the hand of friendship and support to the peoples of the Arab world, to their democrats and civil libertarians, not merely to a host of tyrannical and unrepresentative regimes.
Like Germans after the First World War, Arabs felt they deserved a different lot after the Gulf War. They thought of themselves as having tried to change the ways they did politics in the past, and got nowhere. Palestinian living standards have actually declined since the Oslo accord in 1993, and Iraqi society (much less its polity and economy) is in a state of steady disintegration. So Arabs grew more resentful and angry at the West than at any other time in modern Arab history. This resentment can be felt everywhere; it has taken root in the most Westernised sections of the Arab population, among businessmen and students of science and engineering, and even among the sons of the mega-rich like Osama bin Laden.
However, grievances alone do not explain the apocalyptic act of fury that was unleashed upon New York and Washington. Arabs and Muslims need today to face up to the fact that their resentment at America has long since become unmoored from any rational underpinnings it might once have had; like the anti-Semitism of the interwar years, it is today steeped in deeply embedded conspiratorial patterns of thought rooted in profound ignorance of how a society and a polity like the United States, much less Israel, functions.
Attribution of all of the ills of one's own world to either the great Satan, America, or the little Satan, Israel, has been the driving force of Arab politics since 1967. As a powerful undercurrent of Arab culture and politics, it has been around much longer than that. After 1967, however, it became the legitimising cement upon which such murderous regimes as Saddam Hussein's Iraq were built.
From the hands of secular Arab nationalists, anti-Americanism was passed on to religious zealots. In 1979, it fused with anti-Shah sentiments to become the animating force of the Iranian revolution and, with that seminal event, major sections of the Islamic movement. Today, it has become a murderous brew of passions fuelled by paranoia and frustration.
In the five-page letter left in a suitcase in the car-park of Boston's airport, this passage, giving guidance to the hijackers in case they should meet resistance from a passenger, appears: 'If God grants any one of you a slaughter, you should perform it as an offering on behalf of your father and mother, for they are owed by you. Do not disagree among yourselves, but listen and obey. If you slaughter, you should plunder those you slaughter, for that is a sanctioned custom of the Prophet's, on the condition that you do not get occupied with the plunder so that you would leave what is more important, such as paying attention to the enemy, his treachery and attacks. That is because such action is very harmful [to the mission].'
This is not Islam any more than the Ku Klux Klan is Christianity. No concessions can be made to either mindset which have more in common with one another than they do with the religions they claim to represent.
To argue, as many Arabs and Muslims are doing today (and not a few liberal Western voices), that 'Americans should ask themselves why they are so hated in the world' is to make such a concession; it is to provide a justification, however unwittingly, for this kind of warped mindset. The thinking is the same as the 'linkage' dreamed up by Saddam Hussein when he tried to get the Arab world to believe that he had occupied Kuwait in 1990 in order to liberate Palestine. The difference being that if the argument was intellectually vacuous then, it is a thousand times more so now.
Worse than being wrong, however, it is morally bankrupt, to say nothing of being counterproductive. For every attempt to 'rationalise' or 'explain' the new anti-Americanism rampant in so much of the Muslim and Arab worlds bolsters the project of the perpetrators of the heinous act of 11 September, which is to blur the lines that separate their sect of a few hundred people from hundreds of millions of peace-loving Muslims and Arabs.
But it is now up to Arabs and Muslims to draw the line that separates them from the Osama bin Ladens of this world just as it was up to Americans to excoriate, isolate, outlaw, imprison and eventually root out the members of the Klan from their midst. Mercifully, the very same Western leaders who are preparing for the coming 'War Against Terrorism' are trying hard, and genuinely, to say their efforts are not directed at Muslims and Arab or Muslim culture. Constantly, they are being seen with Muslim clerics and visiting mosques. That is all for the good.
But it is not enough to turn the tide of public opinion which will increasingly need and want to know who is 'the other' in this coming war. Terrorism is a tactic, after all, not a side. Usage of the word 'war', however understandable, was a strategic mistake by the American President. For like the wars on drugs or poverty it inculcates expectations at the risk of showing few results. The problem is deeper than bin Laden and his associates, and will not end with their demise. As I wrote in Cruelty and Silence, citing the 1930s Iraqi alter ego of Tom Lehrer, Aziz Ali, Da' illi beena, minna wa feena: 'The disease that is in us, is from us and within us.' Against this kind of enemy the West can do nothing. We have to do it ourselves.
Muslims and Arabs have to be on the front lines of a new kind of war, one that is worth waging for their own salvation and in their own souls. And that, as good out-of-fashion Muslim scholars will tell you, is the true meaning of jihad, a meaning that has been hijacked by terrorists and suicide bombers and all those who applaud or find excuses for them. To exorcise what they have done in our name is the civilisational challenge of the twenty-first century for every Arab and Muslim in the world today.
Just to recap, I didn't write this it's an article I've quoted as I believe it pretty much sums up and contains as a whole everyone's differing opinions of this board on the egg / chicken scenario in the Middle East.
Ben
06-01-2006 | 12:33 PM
#61
20K+ Super Poster.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Lee,
I'm surprised at you.
Post 9/11, something had to be seen to be done - agreed?
Authorities knew that Al Queada was responsible, and that Afghanistan was harbouring a large proportion of that organisation - agreed?
We then went to "war" against Afghanistan - agreed?
We then sort of half-finished with Afghanistan and turned round and went after Iraq - why?
The story is that Iraq was a terrorist threat, and was holding WMDs etc etc, and that Saddam was an evil dictator. Unfortunately two things still confuse people like myself (and bear in mind these are hypothetical questions for the purpose of sarcasm )..............
1. What has/had Iraq to do with terrorist attrocities committed on US/Spanish/French/Far East/UK/Israel soil?
2. If Iraq was seen as such a threat to world peace, then why did the United Nations not grant approval and a legal stamp for deployment of peacekeeping forces?
I'm surprised at you.
Post 9/11, something had to be seen to be done - agreed?
Authorities knew that Al Queada was responsible, and that Afghanistan was harbouring a large proportion of that organisation - agreed?
We then went to "war" against Afghanistan - agreed?
We then sort of half-finished with Afghanistan and turned round and went after Iraq - why?
The story is that Iraq was a terrorist threat, and was holding WMDs etc etc, and that Saddam was an evil dictator. Unfortunately two things still confuse people like myself (and bear in mind these are hypothetical questions for the purpose of sarcasm
)..............1. What has/had Iraq to do with terrorist attrocities committed on US/Spanish/French/Far East/UK/Israel soil?
2. If Iraq was seen as such a threat to world peace, then why did the United Nations not grant approval and a legal stamp for deployment of peacekeeping forces?
06-01-2006 | 12:40 PM
#62
Professional Waffler
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 25,712
Likes: 127
From: south yorkshire
Rich, as i said. I didnt need any other reason to agree with the war....
In 1938, Hitler took Austria. We did nothing. Hitler took Czechoslovakia. We did nothing. Hitler took Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, France and Luxembourg. Again we did nothing. Hitler invaded Africa and Russia. We did nothing.
Finally he went after England. After Pearl Harbor, we entered the war. Over 290,000 American soldiers were killed in WWII freeing the very countries we let Hitler invade. If we would have invaded Germany up front, tried and imprisoned Hitler, how many lives would have been saved? Over 56 million people died in WWII. If Bush hadn't stopped Saddam Hussein, where would we be in 10 years? We may never know, but I believe we were headed down Hitler's path.
Weapons of mass destruction? If you are shot in the head with a handgun, as far as you are concerned that is a weapon of mass destruction. If your family is killed with a machine gun, that is your weapon of mass destruction. If your community is killed with a bomb, there is your weapon of mass destruction.
Saddam killed thousands of innocent people just as Hitler did. Would that be a weapon of mass destruction? Maybe we should have been there for the Kurds in 1988 when Saddam slaughtered thousands with gas and guns.
In 1938, Hitler took Austria. We did nothing. Hitler took Czechoslovakia. We did nothing. Hitler took Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, France and Luxembourg. Again we did nothing. Hitler invaded Africa and Russia. We did nothing.
Finally he went after England. After Pearl Harbor, we entered the war. Over 290,000 American soldiers were killed in WWII freeing the very countries we let Hitler invade. If we would have invaded Germany up front, tried and imprisoned Hitler, how many lives would have been saved? Over 56 million people died in WWII. If Bush hadn't stopped Saddam Hussein, where would we be in 10 years? We may never know, but I believe we were headed down Hitler's path.
Weapons of mass destruction? If you are shot in the head with a handgun, as far as you are concerned that is a weapon of mass destruction. If your family is killed with a machine gun, that is your weapon of mass destruction. If your community is killed with a bomb, there is your weapon of mass destruction.
Saddam killed thousands of innocent people just as Hitler did. Would that be a weapon of mass destruction? Maybe we should have been there for the Kurds in 1988 when Saddam slaughtered thousands with gas and guns.
06-01-2006 | 12:48 PM
#64
20K+ Super Poster.
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 22,489
Likes: 0
From: In the boxing ring
Originally Posted by Jayen4
Originally Posted by Chipperx2
You said "you would do what Idi Amin did in his country" in this country?
That explain it for you ??
06-01-2006 | 12:51 PM
#65
20K+ Super Poster.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Okay, but you seem to be forgetting that Saddam invaded Kuwait, and we DID do something.
We went to war the decade earlier, destroyed half the country, imposed crazy sanctions etc etc...............
I understand your "we can't stand by" attitude, but I want the reason THIS time round.
... and I want to know what Iraq has to do with world terrorism.
We went to war the decade earlier, destroyed half the country, imposed crazy sanctions etc etc...............
I understand your "we can't stand by" attitude, but I want the reason THIS time round.
... and I want to know what Iraq has to do with world terrorism.
06-01-2006 | 12:56 PM
#66
PassionFord Post Troll
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,058
Likes: 0
From: Wolverhampton
Originally Posted by RichardPON
I understand your "we can't stand by" attitude, but I want the reason THIS time round.
1. It was identified by Bush as part of his axis of evil due to showing hostility to the western world and supporting terrorism.
2. It was claimed Iraq had been developing anthrax, nuclear weaponary and nerve gas with the intention to use it. Or at least had something to hide.
06-01-2006 | 01:04 PM
#67
20K+ Super Poster.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 23,377
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by MWF
Originally Posted by RichardPON
I understand your "we can't stand by" attitude, but I want the reason THIS time round.
1. It was identified by Bush as part of his axis of evil due to showing hostility to the western world and supporting terrorism.
How? Hostility to the western world? Support of terrorism?
2. It was claimed Iraq had been developing anthrax, nuclear weaponary and nerve gas with the intention to use it. Or at least had something to hide.
Claimed, but never proven............. and subsequently found out to be false.
To me, it just doesn't add up. The Western world wanted retribution for terrorist activity on our own shores, so we invade Iraq? Why?
06-01-2006 | 01:10 PM
#68
PassionFord Post Troll
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,926
Likes: 1
From: holland
why is the USA so much intrested in iraq.....something is not mentioned....OIL....
they said the reason for the war....chemical weapons...they didnt find anything....
a good reason for the attack at 9/11....what about the golfwarI....good reason for a terorist...
dont get me wrong...im happy for the iraq people saddam is gone....
but there is not a real reason why USA and UK attacked iraq...
and whats gonna attacked in the future...iran...because of there nuclaire (spelling) intrest....
they said the reason for the war....chemical weapons...they didnt find anything....
a good reason for the attack at 9/11....what about the golfwarI....good reason for a terorist...
dont get me wrong...im happy for the iraq people saddam is gone....
but there is not a real reason why USA and UK attacked iraq...
and whats gonna attacked in the future...iran...because of there nuclaire (spelling) intrest....
06-01-2006 | 01:12 PM
#69
PassionFord Post Troll
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,058
Likes: 0
From: Wolverhampton
Originally Posted by RichardPON
I hate the way that people are convinced that removing him from power was for "the greater good".
I don't particulary support or argue them.
You should give him a call.
06-01-2006 | 01:15 PM
#70
Professional Waffler
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 25,712
Likes: 127
From: south yorkshire
Originally Posted by RichardPON
Okay, but you seem to be forgetting that Saddam invaded Kuwait, and we DID do something.
We went to war the decade earlier, destroyed half the country, imposed crazy sanctions etc etc...............
I understand your "we can't stand by" attitude, but I want the reason THIS time round.
... and I want to know what Iraq has to do with world terrorism.
We went to war the decade earlier, destroyed half the country, imposed crazy sanctions etc etc...............
I understand your "we can't stand by" attitude, but I want the reason THIS time round.
... and I want to know what Iraq has to do with world terrorism.
Iran 'maybe' only using nuclear for power...but after what the Leader said about wiping the israelis off the face of the earth makes me think otherwise! Fair enough they aint done owt yet, but id feel better if they were disarmed too! And if it comes to it, ill support it again!
06-01-2006 | 01:19 PM
#72
Advanced PassionFord User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,326
Likes: 0
You also seem to forget Lee, that we declared war with German in 1939 after they invaded Poland as Poland was/is classed as our twin country
I belive what Bush said to the UN about the "smoking gun" that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud, was complete and utter bollocks. He lied to the world, killed thousands of American and British and other coalition forces troops with his lies, he should take a stand and be impeached.
AJ
Not so much Asians should be deported, but Man Utd fans 
On a serious note, without the Asians in the country we would be in dead lumber, lack of doctors etc, in my experiance asians work harder than the white trash that litters out streets, commiting benefit fraud and stealing all the taxes
and spending them on drugs. along with the decent white/black people in this country asians help alot and contribute, so why should they be kicked out
as Poland was/is classed as our twin country I belive what Bush said to the UN about the "smoking gun" that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud, was complete and utter bollocks. He lied to the world, killed thousands of American and British and other coalition forces troops with his lies, he should take a stand and be impeached.
AJ
Not so much Asians should be deported, but Man Utd fans
On a serious note, without the Asians in the country we would be in dead lumber, lack of doctors etc, in my experiance asians work harder than the white trash that litters out streets, commiting benefit fraud and stealing all the taxes
and spending them on drugs. along with the decent white/black people in this country asians help alot and contribute, so why should they be kicked out
06-01-2006 | 01:21 PM
#73
PassionFord Post Troll
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,926
Likes: 1
From: holland
Originally Posted by Lee Reynolds
Originally Posted by wimwerf
....what about the golfwarI........
06-01-2006 | 01:22 PM
#74
Professional Waffler
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 25,712
Likes: 127
From: south yorkshire
Chipper id just ignore what that other guy said about removing asians! Not even worth discussing!
I KNOW there were lies or incorrect intelligence about the weapons of mass destruction...but at the same time Sadamm had PLENTY of time to get rid of the stuff. We gave him months of warnings about letting the inspectors in. Why do you think he wasn't letting them in? Cos he was doing his hair? He was getting rid imo!
I KNOW there were lies or incorrect intelligence about the weapons of mass destruction...but at the same time Sadamm had PLENTY of time to get rid of the stuff. We gave him months of warnings about letting the inspectors in. Why do you think he wasn't letting them in? Cos he was doing his hair?
He was getting rid imo!
06-01-2006 | 01:22 PM
#75
Professional Waffler
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 25,712
Likes: 127
From: south yorkshire
Originally Posted by wimwerf
Originally Posted by Lee Reynolds
Originally Posted by wimwerf
....what about the golfwarI........
06-01-2006 | 01:23 PM
#76
Advanced PassionFord User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,326
Likes: 0
Lee Reynolds
do you know what the jews have done to palestine . Personally I have never met any Jewish people and I don't think they're all the same. But the stuff they have done in the middle east is ridiculous and they get away with it due to the so called "race card" and the fact that nobody will challenge it because of what happened to them during the second world war. don't get me wrong it was terrible but, doesn't give them a license to do the same to the Muslims
do you know what the jews have done to palestine
. Personally I have never met any Jewish people and I don't think they're all the same. But the stuff they have done in the middle east is ridiculous and they get away with it due to the so called "race card" and the fact that nobody will challenge it because of what happened to them during the second world war. don't get me wrong it was terrible but, doesn't give them a license to do the same to the Muslims
06-01-2006 | 01:27 PM
#79
PassionFord Post Troll
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,058
Likes: 0
From: Wolverhampton
Originally Posted by Chipperx2
Mate you can't just get rid of WMD's in a day takes months to do it
Originally Posted by Chipperx2
the Americans would have seen this from satelites anyway
06-01-2006 | 01:31 PM
#80
Professional Waffler
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 25,712
Likes: 127
From: south yorkshire
Oh FFS this is getting rediculous! I agreed with the war in Iraq, and still do i have given my reasons as to why! I BELIEVE there were lies(that better MWF?), but i still support it for the reasons i have given. Chipper i cant answer about israel as to why! Who do you think i am No one cn answer!
But i Truly believe that Bush Or blair WOULD NOT send our troops out there without the reason being just!
No one cn answer! But i Truly believe that Bush Or blair WOULD NOT send our troops out there without the reason being just!