The truth about War

  • Thread starter keeno_uk
  • 25 comments
  • 780 views
1,157
United Kingdom
London
Well this is my waffle (rant) about war in the people behind it you could burn me if you want but remember its just my opinion.

While speaking to majority of the people who support the war their main reason is that Saddam is Evil and must be eliminated, liberation for the people and the removal of WOMD. Right I agree that Saddam killed loads of his own people because the chose to join Iran during the war between Iraq and Iran. But since 1992 when Bush Senior finished the first gulf war for the last 10 years their has been no peep about Saddam doing anything to anybody and all of a sudden he is on the news blam just like that. I mean look at the beginning president Bush walked out to adress the nation and he said its time to get rid of Saddam baring in mind that he never really got Bin Laden , so it kinda makes you think that the Bush must have thought to himself well. I can't get Bin Laden now he is well underground so gotta change the subject of world affairs.

Right, now weapons of mass destruction. Now from the begining I could see that the U.N. weapons inspectors wasn't gonna work cause from the begining Bush was talking about regime change. Now that the regime has been changed we should get the U.N. back into Iraq and do a proper search if they find materials or actual weapons then I would hold my hands up say "I was wrong about this" . But if they don't....... well that just speaks for itself.

And the last thing that has been bugging me about this whole thing. Its pretty easy for us in the west to say lets bomb the place to shreds because it all on tv. None of this is not actually happening right in your face. You don't see you nextdoor neighboor getting blown up and **** like that having to pull bodies from houses that could be members of your family. For thoughs people how could they Ever forgive the nation that bomb them to the ground. Usually the escuse from people who support this war, say "if we don't get them they will bomb you and then you would start wishing you attacked them first", for though kinda people they are just the war mongering type I mean really HOW ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH could raq ever attack the USA? their weapons reach as far as Israel if your scared and stupid enough think Iraq could get you by bombing or in dare I say it invasion well your one scared ****less idiot. On a more General Note if the people who support this war was were actually involved in it they would very quick to change their minds.

Well thats it now its time to get burned.
 
i wouldn't bother sending the UN back. they're probably not going to last, as an international institution, for any more than 5 years. they'll discentigrate just like the League of Nations did.
 
Originally posted by Joey
i wouldn't bother sending the UN back. they're probably not going to last, as an international institution, for any more than 5 years. they'll discentigrate just like the League of Nations did.
The League didn't work initially because the Senate feared they wouldn't be able to decide whether or not to declare war(like it's made a difference in the past 55 years....) so the US didn't join, then UK backed out, and then it was only France and a bunch of new, weak countries.
 
Well I can tell you with certainty that since 1992 saddam has been responsible for literally "hundreds of thousands of deaths."

Specifically for starters... after that gulf war, when 15 or the 18 provinces of Iraq rose in rebellion against saddam... there were over 100,000 people murdered for their effort to obtain revolution.

I also want to remind you that statistics like that do not reflect the fact that many more die of starvation due to Saddam's own policies and un-willingness to co-opererate with the worlds demands. (u.n.)

I also want to remind you that 60+ % of Iraq was reliant on food supplies from the U.N.

Saddam was indeed a dictator who was responsible for the genocide of his people in the days since the first gulf war.

So on that alone, I believe you are out of line trying to speak on this issue.

Sorry to be so harsh, but I have no patience for the un-informed opining on issues as contravertial and delicate as this one.

I also for that reason will not even put forth any of my own
opinion.

Plus its pretty obvious that you havent been watching the celebration of the Iraqi people... the horror for them was with saddam, not precision guided weapons. (of course you havent seen it if you only watch cnn or the other network news channels.)

Have fun with this one everybody... Im sure it will be full of factual accounts of history and even more informative accounts of what is going on in the current events of the world.

Enjoy everybody, enjoy.

I also wanna remind you that flaming only works when the person is hanging around the forum to be burned...

cya around. Well actually, no, I probably woulnt see you around being that I never go into the forums like this due to threads like this...
 
My bad, I will edit...

The problem is... it still is a false statment.

Bill clinton put through an effort his entire administration to bomb and destroy infostructure in Iraq.

Bill was gung ho about Saddam and Iraq during the last 3 years of his administration and I think you all should take that into account.

And that is still of very little signifigance in terms of the overall message and factual content of the original post.

although I appreciate the fact that you noted my error and pointed out the need for correction.
thanks.
 
I don't think that George Bush was in office during that decade that Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq without a peep fom the rest of the world. So I don't think you can hold him responsible for the action or inaction of others. However, I would say that Amnesty International has never stopped their campaign agianst Saddam Hussein's regime. They have continually asked the UN to intervene to no avail. I think that I could say that you have not seen anything about Saddam Hussein on the news outlets you use, but do not assume that no one has been reporting on the long list of atrocities.

As per the Peace Agreement that Saddam Hussein signed at the end of the Gulf War, he was responsible for seeing that the weapons that the UN had designated as illegal; including Scud long range missiles, Al Massoud medium range missiles, as well as bio- and chemical weapons that he has used in the past; were destroyed to the approval by the UN inspectors. For 10 years he was allowed to defy that very UN order. The UN was never required by the Agreement to search Iraq for weapons caches. Saddam Hussein was responsible for adequatley proving that the wepaons were destroyed and he blatantly avoided doing so. Instead he continued to manufacture newer versions of the Al Massoud missile which was proved in battle to have a range of up to 900 kilometers, over 800 kilometers more than the UN approved range.

Saddam Hussein would still be in place in Baghdad today, if he has chosen to abide by the Agreement that he signed. Instead he chose to defy the Agreement and he has paid the price along with those who supported him. Along the way he also placed the citizens of his entire nation in danger.

War is a terrbile thing and civilians and non-combatants will pay a high price, especially when one of the armies uses them as human shields.
 
I think I have reached the saturation of exasperation point. The wars over its time now to let the results speak for themselves.
 
Originally posted by rjensen11
The League didn't work initially because the Senate feared they wouldn't be able to decide whether or not to declare war(like it's made a difference in the past 55 years....) so the US didn't join, then UK backed out, and then it was only France and a bunch of new, weak countries.

and i can see a good deal of a) (m/d)istrust and b) lack/misplacement of faith there, so i think it's more than likely a few nations will leave. it's just as likely that will snowball and take the entire thing down with it.

IMO.
 
It's got nothing to do with the fact that you have an unpopular viewpoint. It's got everything to do with the fact that you've taken that view from an uninformed background, and so you're not defending it very well.

If you want to take it personally, go ahead. But if I were you I'd do some real research on world history before I went about making more big statements like the one above.
 
Dude, (my California upbringing showing thru) Keeno,
The military has found drums of Biological and chemical agents. So the question of whether they are indeed a possible danger is moot.

Saddam is second in his capacity for evil only to Hitler. He is known to kill off all those who show strong leadership qualities, and ideals different from his.
It wouldn't do to have a strong leader rise up that disagreed with him.

His government "worked" based on abject terror. His people live in squalor, while he had many opulent palaces.
He's responsible for siphoning off aid given to the people by the US and other countries. Then he calls us the "great Satan."

If you found a pup and fed and nourished him. Put a roof over his head, etc. and he turned around and decided to bite a huge chunk out of your hindquarters, you'd have him put down because he's unstable, and capable of anything...
See the parallel?
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
It's got nothing to do with the fact that you have an unpopular viewpoint. It's got everything to do with the fact that you've taken that view from an uninformed background, and so you're not defending it very well.

If you want to take it personally, go ahead. But if I were you I'd do some real research on world history before I went about making more big statements like the one above.

right please explain to me how you and everyone else against me in this forum seem to no a lot more about this war than me do you have a 24/7 iraq channel telling you everything for the past 10 years
 
We "no" a lot more about it because we have experienced the last 12+ years and have followed current events for most of that time. PLUS we are careful to look at mulitple sources, and decide which ones are offering more credible information.

Did I believe Colin Powell when he was citing chapter and verse of Iraq's bait-and-switch games before the war? He had lots of pictures and dates to back him up, so he's more credible than an acknowledged dictator with a history of violence.

Do I believe Tommy Franks when he says we're going home as soon as Iraq is run by freely-chosen Iraqis? A lot more than I believe the old regime's Information Minister, who was claiming that the Republican Guard was preparing to smash the "brutal invaders" even as Coalition tanks were rolling through town after town.

You're always welcome to draw your own conclusions. But for your own sake, it's better to draw them carefully.
 
Originally posted by keeno_uk
right please explain to me how you and everyone else against me in this forum seem to no a lot more about this war than me do you have a 24/7 iraq channel telling you everything for the past 10 years
I agree with Duke. You are opposing the war on the basis that "War is Bad".
For that sentiment, you will get no disagreement from me.
War sucks! This is from the view point of someone who sat off the coast of Beirut in the '80's watching stuff blow up and listening to copious amounts of AK fire.
For that "little conflict" we got truly involved after a 2 and a 1/2 ton truck full of explosives crashed into a barrack full of sleeping US Marines.
It seems that lately, (the last 20 years or so) that folks that don't like us, or what we stand for, think the best way to "send us a message" is to "sucker punch" us.
When they find out that we don't have a "glass jaw" and that we WILL be hitting back. We become the "Bully".
Explain that to me, and I'll try to explain one more time why the US felt it neccessary to put the "boot of freedom" on Saddam's neck.
 
A fact that I neglected to mention is the barracks was on embassy grounds, making it soveriegn American soil. So in reality they committed an ACT OF WAR on U.S. soil.

You KNOW (not 'no') that if we were to run a Chevette with an M-80 taped to its hood, we'd be considered to be fomenting war. (Unless it was the French embassy. They would surrender.)

I know I'm beginning to sound like a pit bull on a hambone. But this particular issue just hacks me off. :banghead:
 
well maybe I was wrong about this and I'll admit that my actions were unsavery anyways to that I really think this war is gonna have some seriously bad effect on us. If not America than the U.K. mainly London and Manchester since these cities have the most muslims in the whole of England I swear we are gonna start getting some severe terrorist attacks
 
about .00004% of all Muslims are even half that extroverted. you must realize that all the crimes are being committed by radicals of the particular religion; not evey single member of the faith.
 
I see these men regular down in highbury I got a few muslim mates who chat about these things man I Know that the majority of the muslim people condemn the actions of the radical activists and there actions but lets not rule out that they could be here or coming here through our asylum seekers program
 
Back