Allah Allakbar!

ok you've just confirmed what i thought you thought... that it's a war against iraq not saddam and that everyone man/woman/child is a target in your eyes..

thanks for finally showing your true colours

 

A war against any Islamic extremist governments would gain my full support. Unfortunately even Bush isn't so brave/stupid.
Since 9/11 the west has finally realised it faces a serious fundamentalist threat and thank fuck we're fighting back.
"Our futures will not be decided by terrorists" - George dubya, about 10 minutes ago.

 

iraq doesn't have an extremist islamic government.. in fact tariq aziz is a chaldean (christian)..

in fact it's one of the only non-extremist islamic countries in the immediate area.. of course that could well change soon

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MA, Landlord:
How many presidents carry rifles and dress in military fatigues?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the ones who look good in them?
you may also find that members of the british royal family as leaders of the military wear military uniform... though some have actually served their country in a combat capacity... as has saddam..

i don't think it would have looked good in the eyes of the american public if draft dodgers bush and clinton wore military uniforms

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="verdana">quote

glad to see you have recognised this.. makes a change from the 'dumb sand nigger' bullshit that often gets spouted by the usual ignorant fuckwits

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="verdana">quote

hmmm.. they don't have the internet?... i heard different...

economic growth based on oil production?.. funny.. the dow jones took a hell of a tumble yesterday when people figured out that the oil wells weren't as secure as the propaganda machine would have us believe

the iraqi economy was pretty fucking healthy before the iran-iraq war... nationalised oil and all that... made the average iraqi citizen quite well off..

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="verdana">quote

The dow jones tumbles when a president gets caught with his dick out of his pants. and it's not a great indicator of future economic growth

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="verdana">quote:</font><HR>nationalised oil and all that... made the average iraqi citizen quite well off..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There's alot of things that need to be looked at when analyzing a countries economic growth potential. Like the unemployment rate, national GDP, technology infrastructure, median income per family, etc. If you can show that these were better under state run oil production instead of a free market economy. I'd agree with you.

Point well taken on the British wearing uniforms and although I think most Iraqis are technoly savy and smart, they're still sandniggers looking for handouts and aid paid for by my tax dollars.

 

your tax dollars?.. everythings going to be paid for out of iraqi oil.. the war.. the rebuilding.. in the end everything..

and it's a little hard to analyse the economic growth potential of a country that has been through 25 years of war or sanctions... but you can be sure that iraq could do perfectly well without outside aid/investment thank you very much if they didn't get their infrastructure periodically obliterated

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="verdana">quote

Oh ok, I guess the checks will start rolling in like they did when we drove Iraq out of Kuwait and got rid of the Taliban.

Guess Afghanistan didn't need our "interference" or aid either. They seemed to be doing we'll under the Taliban with their public executions and abuse of women and all.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nursey:
"Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What exactly is democratic about the security council? It has 5 permanent members of supposedly military powers, and the other eleven (am I right, 11?, can't remember and cant be arsed checking) revolve around the other members of the UN. There isn't a single vote cast on seats inside the council, and any resolution can be scrapped at a whim, as the french have so kindly proven. It's already been proved that the security council isn't a true representation of international opinion anyway. Putting it simply, if you want people to work within the United Nations, you have to make the United Nations work, and it doesn't.
If anything good comes of this, it'll be that dicks like the french wont have the ability to veto any resolution and the americans wont be able to stop others from entering palestine to monitor the actions of the Israeli army.
And I would just like to compliment you on the resolve of your countrymen Nursey, I hope all Iraqi's are proud of their sacrifice infront of sadam's horizontal mortar and anti-aircraft fire in Basra earlier today.

 

slumlord - how is post-taliban afghanistan doing these days?

canine - if the US had gotten the majority vote they sought.. and france had used their veto as they promised to do.. america would have gone ahead without the resolution, but would still have had the 'moral' case in that they had the majority vote... but they still couldn't get that majority after weeks of diplomatic threats and bribery

 

If the UN had carried out it's duties and dissarmed Iraq in less than 12 years there would have been no need for a new resolution or a 'moral' victory.
I noticed you mentioned that the west placed sadam in power, I'd like to know how this happened, as everyone knows about the civil wars that were raged throughout iraq and ended with the baath party's victory at a time when Sadam was not the party leader. He worked his way up to the position. I'd assume that you meant that the west in effect supported him, because he was a nationalist and not an islamic extremist like the other arab nation leaders in the area. So I suppose you would have liked for the west to have started sanctions against Iraq 23 years ago before any of this happened? It's not like you keep it a secret that you blame the sanctions for the deaths of Iraqi's. It's the wests fault for not exploring deplomacy now, and it's the wests fault for exploring diplomacy 23 years ago, is that what you're saying?

 

yes the west gave saddam the power to wage war against his enemies... the ba'ath party did not always have this power of course.. from 1969 iraq became rich through oil exports.. so the CIA armed kurdish seperatists.. which kept iraq in a desirably weakened position.. but in 1980 after the iranians overthrew the shah the west needed iraq to fight their war.. so they armed them...

so was that diplomacy? using different peoples inherent 'beefs' with each other to manipulate the balance of power in a region... that's diplomacy?

 

Heaven forbid the west should wish to support a nation that by it's own constitution is a democracy against Islamic Extremists who only believe in one islamic nation. Why do you expect the west to care about the sovereignty of iraq now if it wasn't supposed to then? That's almost as bad as Nursey's argument she gave me the other week that Iraq's invasion into Kuwait in 1991 was justified because the US ambasador to iraq gave them the nod to do so. If all that is needed to invade a country is approval from an american, not even a politician, then give up your opposition to this war, cos they have approval now.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="verdana">quote

Considering they just had their first soccer game in their stadium instead of a public execution, they're doin quite well.

 

Although Islam is the offical state religion and 95 percent of the population is muslim, you're right Iraq doesn't have an extremist government. They have an extremist dictator. How many presidents carry rifles and dress in military fatigues?


The Iraqi people are technology savy and intelligent. Too bad they can't give their input into these forums since Saddam banned the internet and thereby crippled their economic growth and based it solely on oil production.

I'm not sure military action is the best way to do it, but getting rid of saddam is absolutely neccessary. We got rid of a dictator in Japan 50 years ago and their economy and technological advancement has flourished. hopefully it will happen in Iraq when their dictator is killed.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by canine_STD:
That's almost as bad as Nursey's argument she gave me the other week that Iraq's invasion into Kuwait in 1991 was justified because the US ambasador to iraq gave them the nod to do so. If all that is needed to invade a country is approval from an american, not even a politician, then give up your opposition to this war, cos they have approval now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't say it 'justified it'
canine. I was just recounting the story of Iraq's betrayal by Saudi Arabia, Kuquait, President Mubarek of Egypt and America after the Iran-Iraq war which resulted in a war-weary Iraq having little option but to invade Kuwait.

But thanks for congratulating me on my ties to such a brave, proud, dignified and noble people. I have to say, although i wholly expected them to give their best shot at defending themselves i have been awe inspired by what i have seen. And those people aren't just fighting for their own rights, they're fighting for all our rights. If America gets away with this we're all fucked.

 

Dont be silly Nursey, Kuwait gave 10 billion dollars to Iraq to fund the Iraq - Iran war. And that's how he thanked them for it, murdering them by the thousands because they wouldn't put the future of their oil industry on the line by raising prices and increasing the cash flow into sadam's pockets after he spent all his money on his 10 year war.
For fucking years the arab world, and hippies have argued that the gulf war was all about america's need for cheap oil, maybe it was, I dont give a fuck. But I know the Americans turned down sadam's offer of extremely cheap oil in return for turning a blind eye to his invasion of kuwait, and no matter how little they pay kuwait for their oil, they haven't invaded and tried to steal it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Nursey:
But thanks for congratulating me on my ties to such a brave, proud, dignified and noble people.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I missed that bit, but I'll take it from that comment that you aren't descended from iraq's shite muslim population?

 

and here was me thinking he was just a little bit pissed that they were slant-drilling into iraqs oil field

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by canine_STD:
Dont be silly Nursey, Kuwait gave 10 billion dollars to Iraq to fund the Iraq - Iran war. And that's how he thanked them for it, murdering them by the thousands because they wouldn't put the future of their oil industry on the line by raising prices and increasing the cash flow into sadam's pockets after he spent all his money on his 10 year war.
For fucking years the arab world, and hippies have argued that the gulf war was all about america's need for cheap oil, maybe it was, I dont give a fuck. But I know the Americans turned down sadam's offer of extremely cheap oil in return for turning a blind eye to his invasion of kuwait, and no matter how little they pay kuwait for their oil, they haven't invaded and tried to steal it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't be silly Canine, Kuwait was supposed to give 10 billion dollars to Iraq for fighting Iran which protected Kuwait...but how much did they actually give? Half a million dollars. Quite a difference don't you think? And on top of that:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="verdana">quote:</font><HR>The current conflict had its origins in the brutal 1980-88
war between Iraq and Iran. Iraq charged that while it was locked
in battle, Kuwait was engaged in stealing $2.4 billion of oil
from the Rumaila oil field that ran beneath the vaguely-defined
Iraq-Kuwait border and was claimed in its entirety by Iraq; that
Kuwait had built military and other structures on Iraqi
territory; and worst of all, that immediately after the war
ended, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates began to exceed the
production quotas established by the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC), flooding the oil market, and driving
prices down. Iraq was heavily strapped and deeply in debt
because of the long war, and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
declared this policy was an increasing threat to his country --
"economic war", he called it, pointing out that Iraq lost a
billion dollars a year for each drop of one dollar in the oil
price.{7} Besides compensation for these losses, Hussein
insisted on possession of the two Gulf islands which blocked
Iraq's access to the Gulf as well as undisputed ownership of the
Rumaila oilfield.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read this before you spout anymore propaganda, silly!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by canine_STD:
Dont be silly Nursey<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh...and i don't have a lot of respect for 'friends' that behave like belittling arrogant twats. Even Lomo...who has a lot more conflicting opinions with me than you do didn't resort to that, so i still have respect for him.