one2gamble Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Replace the coalition with the UN or something akin to it and perhaps we can start to take the idea of Democracy in Iraq seriously. sorry I got a kick out of that but What would postponing the elections accomplish? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . nothing Link to post Share on other sites
one2gamble Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 The only 'expense' was the money you were losing by not being in-country and controlling the regions oil flow. oil was the reason we didnt have UN support and it wasnt because certain countries werent getting it *cough* Link to post Share on other sites
Sir T Fireball Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 oil was the reason we didnt have UN support and it wasnt because certain countries werent getting it *cough* I agree. It was because A CERTAIN country wasn't getting it. *cough* (mine's a genuine cough 'cos I got the flu ) Link to post Share on other sites
cpuguru Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 sorry I got a kick out of that but What would postponing the elections accomplish? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . nothing They will fail either way, so they may as well fail sooner... so the US can start dessert storm 3 sooner. In every aspect this regime has rushed everything with regards to Iraq so they might as well rush into the elections and make it a complete cluster:filtered: Link to post Share on other sites
Sir T Fireball Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 cpu, I don't believe they are making a mistake. It's all going to plan. Link to post Share on other sites
Drovers Dog Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Do the maths, ladies and gentlemen. 25M Iraqis in Iraq. 4M Iraqis in "exile". Guess what happens if most of the exiles vote? With secret locations, foot traffic only, no idea who the candidates are, terrorists taking potshots on the way, the biggest block of voters are those who DON'T even live in Iraq. You might say, the ones who escaped or didn't have the guts to tough it out, whatever look as though they will be the ruling voters in safety. The only ones in safety , in fact. These so called elections are a mockery of democracy being forced on an unwilling Iraqi population by the burning Bush and his henchman (poodle) Blair. After all, we've bombed the [enough!] out of them for years, killed thier women and children, looted, tortured and behaved just like the Gestapo in spades and now the Bush and Blair thikn there will be anything remotely like a fair election. Best way is to let them have their own private civil war, just like the USA and sort it out among themselves. After all, it's their country!! You are exactually right, Mate! No matter what happens, it will be considered Democracotic! Just the least that it could ever be considered! After all, nobody wants to accept responsibilkity for what a Stupid Person Did, Mate! Link to post Share on other sites
one2gamble Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 I agree. It was because A CERTAIN country wasn't getting it. *cough* (mine's a genuine cough 'cos I got the flu ) you missed the key word might want to talk to your neighbors Do you honestly think it was ok for Iraq (and its allies, France, Germany, Russia etc) to give the finger to the UN for 10+ years? What is the point of having an international body that is supposed to police nation states if it refuses to do so on its own? The US has been developing new war plans for Iraq for the better part of 8 years.....Why wasnt the UN? The UN's reputation was done, it was time for the US to take care of business. Do you think someone like Saddam, assuming sanctions were lifted wouldnt have rearmed and attempted some really scary actions throughout the world in order to gain some sort of revenge? He already developed plans to kill one of our presidents, you dont think he would try something like that again? Link to post Share on other sites
one2gamble Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 They will fail either way, so they may as well fail sooner... so the US can start dessert storm 3 sooner. In every aspect this regime has rushed everything with regards to Iraq so they might as well rush into the elections and make it a complete cluster:filtered: the great thing about this comment is that even if you believe what you do, I am still right Link to post Share on other sites
Chopdoc Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 The only 'expense' was the money you were losing by not being in-country and controlling the regions oil flow. Save the tired anti-UN rhetoric for the mid-westerners who think the world ends 100 miles from the edge of their street. For the lives of those lost during the "cease fire" I protest your remarks. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir T Fireball Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Do you think someone like Saddam, assuming sanctions were lifted wouldnt have rearmed and attempted some really scary actions throughout the world in order to gain some sort of revenge? He had a decade or more to rearm and our wise leaders telling the world that he had.....got anything either new or legitimate to try qualify the coalitions invasion? . . . . . . . . . . ....didn't think so Link to post Share on other sites
one2gamble Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 (edited) how about the rest of my post smart guy Edited January 24, 2005 by one2gamble Link to post Share on other sites
Sir T Fireball Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 For the lives of those lost during the "cease fire" I protest your remarks. ....for the lives of the tens of thousands taken by the invaders, blah, blah, blah! Game of oneupmanship anyone? Link to post Share on other sites
Chopdoc Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 He had a decade or more to rearm and our wise leaders telling the world that he had.....got anything either new or legitimate to try qualify the coalitions invasion? . . . . . . . . . . ....didn't think so Actually, it has been proven that it was not an abstract idea but a specific and deliberate strategy of Hussein to reduce sanctions so he could do exactly that. That is what was presented to the UN and that is what has been proven to date. It was and is the reason for the invasion. It is in black and white. Very easy to read it. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir T Fireball Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 how about the rest of my post smart guy The rest of it was just so much drivel......you are suggesting that if you don't think the law is doing things YOUR way, then it's ok to take matters into your own hands? Hardly worth the trouble of countering such stupid remarks. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir T Fireball Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 (edited) Actually, it has been proven that it was not an abstract idea but a specific and deliberate strategy of Hussein to reduce sanctions so he could do exactly that. That is what was presented to the UN and that is what has been proven to date. It was and is the reason for the invasion. It is in black and white. Very easy to read it. Speculation. Desperately produced by the leaderships of those it was meant to appease. The Western population at large. A sad and tawdry attempt to make up for being caught out in the original big lie. Edited January 24, 2005 by Sir T Fireball Link to post Share on other sites
Chopdoc Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 ....for the lives of the tens of thousands taken by the invaders, blah, blah, blah! Game of oneupmanship anyone? Sorry, you already lost that one. There was an agreed conditional cease fire that was violated repeatedly by Iraq. In fact all terms of the conditional cease fire were violated. What does it mean when the terms of a cease fire are violated? It means the cease fire no longer is in effect. In addition, Iraq was warned very specifically about the attack. It was more than overt. The war did not violate the standing agreements, it supported them. Saddam Hussein brought it on Iraq, so he is not only responsible for decades of torture and murder but also every single life lost in the most recent conflict. Link to post Share on other sites
Sir T Fireball Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Sorry, you already lost that one. There was an agreed conditional cease fire that was violated repeatedly by Iraq. In fact all terms of the conditional cease fire were violated. What does it mean when the terms of a cease fire are violated? It means the cease fire no longer is in effect. In addition, Iraq was warned very specifically about the attack. It was more than overt. The war did not violate the standing agreements, it supported them. Saddam Hussein brought it on Iraq, so he is not only responsible for decades of torture and murder but also every single life lost in the most recent conflict. I'm glad your conscience is clear Link to post Share on other sites
one2gamble Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 (edited) The rest of it was just so much drivel......you are suggesting that if you don't think the law is doing things YOUR way, then it's ok to take matters into your own hands? Hardly worth the trouble of countering such stupid remarks. The law wasnt being enforced by those who are supposed to enforce it, it had nothing to do with our way or your way. Its on paper, signed by all parties involved. And yes if the law isnt being enforced by those who are supposed to enforce it, its up to those who are willing to enforce the law regardless of the situation at hand. If the police refuse to patrol your street even after a string of robberies, are you going to keep an eye out? Are you going to protect yourself? your property? *talk about stupid remarks* this war wasnt just about Saddam, it was essentially about every wacked out dictator to follow, people should have learned the first few times around not to turn a blind eye to people who cant be trusted in any way. Edited January 24, 2005 by one2gamble Link to post Share on other sites
Chopdoc Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 (edited) Speculation. Desperately produced by the leaderships of those it was meant to appease. The Western population at large. A sad and tawdry attempt to make up for being caught out in the original big lie.SPECULATION!? What rubbish! It is in black and white and was so well before the invasion! It is now supported even by the most staunch detractors of the war. It is quite real, not speculationat all. Original big lie? Now you sound like Michael Jackson...thoae were his exact words in fact. I am in fact speaking of the ORIGINAL POSITION. Edited January 24, 2005 by Chopdoc Link to post Share on other sites
Sir T Fireball Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 SPECULATION!? What rubbish! It is in black and white and was so well before the invasion! It is now supported even by the most staunch detractors of the war. It is quite real, not speculationat all. Original big lie? Now you sound like Michael Jackson...thoae were his exact words in fact. I am in fact speaking of the ORIGINAL POSITION. It's in black and white so it must be true I can show you evidence supporting all those trumped up claims from before the invasion, also in black and white. It won't make them any more truthfull though If the police refuse to patrol your street even after a string of robberies, are you going to keep an eye out? Are you going to protect yourself? your property? Yes I am. However, if the police are preventing any further robberies and in fact, reducing the liklihood of there being anymore, then I would not grab a shotgun and go looking for a 'potential' burglar to blow away just because I don't see enough cops for my liking. Link to post Share on other sites
Drovers Dog Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Why don't we all agree? Somebody really Mucked up? It certainly wasn't us!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Sir T Fireball Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Maybe they did muck up, it's a possibility. Unlike the Coalition having acted illegally. That's a certainty Link to post Share on other sites
Chopdoc Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 It's in black and white so it must be true I can show you evidence supporting all those trumped up claims from before the invasion, also in black and white. It won't make them any more truthfull though So do you disagree with the findings of the Duelfer report as well? I am speaking of SUPPORTED CLAIMS. The vast majority were and have been well supported in fact. Link to post Share on other sites
Drovers Dog Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 OK, Just explain to me, I must be quite STUPID, How did they have anything to do with the Elections in Iraq? Maybe they Invaded them? Link to post Share on other sites
Drovers Dog Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Did Germany, France, Russia and the UN invade Iraq??? Sorry, I must be totally STUPID! Link to post Share on other sites
.png.9d4b89b15b2cd5e65edd93a0e6823dce.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now