Moshulu Rob Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Interesting to see that currently the amount of money the USA has spent on the Iraqi war would be enough to Immunise EVERY child in the world against basic diseases for the next 56 years.Wonder which would be more likely to stop futher terrorism.http://costofwar.com/index-immunization.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benji Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Immunisation for the next 56 years...sod thatWithout the War you wouldn't have got to make this post, then everyone would have missed out on something.I cant wait to see the News headlines on the 5th of June...the day after the night before at Gleneagles, where the G8 are meeting to slice up the Iraqi pie...also there are some 2-4,000 protesters from all over teh world...Should be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hog Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Getting rid of Saddam was the easy part but now the US cant really afford to rebuild Iraq. Perhaps my expectations are high but surely with all that oil, Iraq should really have moved on a lot further than it has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Immunisation for the next 56 years...sod thatWithout the War you wouldn't have got to make this post' date=' then everyone would have missed out on something.[/quote']You may have to explain those two statements...I cant wait to see the News headlines on the 5th of June...the day after the night before at Gleneagles' date=' where the G8 are meeting to slice up the Iraqi pie...also there are some 2-4,000 protesters from all over teh world...Should be interesting.[/quote']I can't see there being that much happening on the 5th June, meself... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 blah, blah, blah, blah, war, blah.It happened, get over it.At least the people of Iraq have basic human rights now and can at least vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benji Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 You may have to explain those two statements...I can't see there being that much happening on the 5th June' date=' meself...[/quote']Ok...But I feel im saying the same thing... There's a mass protest at Gleneagles..when the G8...who are the 8 main leaders of this so-called-thing- Democracy. Get together to divide what they have just stole from Iraq....Things like.....Hmm... How many McDonalds are we putting in baghdad etc etc etcMaybe Im telling porky's by mistake...But I was told of this protest by one of the protesters attending.Iraq, Human Rights I dont think so Mr Blah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Iraq' date=' Human Rights I dont think so Mr Blah.[/quote']Errrr, so are you seriously telling me they were better off under Saddam 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' Hussein than they are now. Get a grip you fruitcake bandwagon jumper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 My brother is going to be posted in Iraq in decemeber.This sucks even more because my sis-in-law in pregnant, due in dec. He wont see it for god knows how long.its scary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benji Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Listen Mr current affairs......That's the thing there were no weapons of mass destruction......And wait for this...the so-called weapons were sold to Iraq from America, remember the Scud missile???America now has the Patriot....the scud x 20.Now who has the weapons of mass destruction? And plz dont say anything about the american funded 9/11 attacks, or better yet the British Funded Nazi campaign??Wool ....... Eyes.....And yes I am saying that they were better under Saddam....maybe he was a strict bastard but look at the Crime Graph compared to Britain... Saddam for Prime Minister i say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Listen Mr current affairs......That's the thing there were no weapons of mass destruction......And wait for this...the so-called weapons were sold to Iraq from America' date=' remember the Scud missile???America now has the Patriot....the scud x 20.Now who has the weapons of mass destruction? And plz dont say anything about the american funded 9/11 attacks, or better yet the British Funded Nazi campaign??Wool ....... Eyes.....[/quote'] ehh, that wasnt aimed at me was it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benji Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 No course not fluffy...It was for Alkailane..Hope your Bro returns safely m8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 No course not fluffy... ok thanks. getting paranoid again there people were having ago at me about nothing (argh, primary school all over again!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 It happened' date=' get over it.At least the people of Iraq have basic human rights now and can at least vote.[/quote']Since when did get blown up by suicide bombers every day become a human right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Saddam himself was enough of a weapon of mass destruction, if you don't believe that you are ignorant. He signed more death warrants and caused more deaths than the hiroshima atom bomb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benji Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Well said Maybe saddam was doing his bit for Humanity....the world is over-populated anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkaline Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Since when did get blown up by suicide bombers every day become a human right?we used to get that here to, they were called the I.R.A and although technically not suicide bombers, try telling the irish it was any different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth_groover Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Maybe Saddam didn't have nukes etc etc, But how many times did he threaten to 'use' them? That's a good enough reason to have him removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Neubeatz Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Time to post this link again.River Bend Blog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 there were no weapons of mass destruction. the whole premise for war was based on a lie. it's illegal to go to war with the objective of regime change, yet that's what they are now saying they did. Rather that than admit the truth which is that it was a war for oil and juicy contracts for Bush's cronies.You can say that Iraq is better now that saddam has gone, and in some ways that may even be true. But it's the way they did it that is so despicable. They lied to the voters. They waged an illegal war with the sole purpose to make money for the west. Anything else that might come of that is just incidental. The war wasn't about Saddamn, it was about the biggest consumer of oil getting easy access to that resource. It was the pursuit of a set agenda (one which was decided by the bush faction long before they came to power) that set the course to war, not human rights or breach of UN directives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Maybe Saddam didn't have nukes etc etc' date=' But how many times did he threaten to 'use' them? [/quote']Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons offensively. This is the same country that is the only one to be found guilty of international terrorism by the world court (in Nicaragua). It's also the same country that is pushing forward the development of new nuclear and sub-nuclear weapons in violation of non-proliferation treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Maybe Saddam didn't have nukes etc etc' date=' But how many times did he threaten to 'use' them? That's a good enough reason to have him removed.[/quote']how many times? none, because he knew he didnt have any, and never had in the past. Iraq had a 10 year long war with Iran, gulf war 1 and operation desert fox, plus 10 years of UN sanctions (which were resposible for the deaths of 1.5 million people), and no usable airforce due to the continued overflights by usa and uk aircraft - and bombing of radar and anti aircraft installations weeks before this latest war. The longest range weapons possesd by Iraq had a 100km range, and they even started to destroy them in the lead up to the invasion. Anyone who has taken the time to read the facts which are easily available, anyone whos awareness of political events extends beyond the realms of the daily record and the sun, knows that Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrinkDrankPunk Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 I personally feel that the whole war in Iraq was a huge mistake on the part of mister Bush and Blair. They never intended it to go on as it has, the must have inticipated rebel factions, but nothing like what is happening now, with the suicide bombers etc.Sadam was an evil bastard and had to be taken out of power, but the American and Brittish "intelligence" coming up with so called "weapons of mass destruction" to give them there window of opertunity. Its pretty fucked up, that place is more of a state now than it was before. Even if they can vote, its still an american puppet-state.so, how long untill North Korea or Iran?Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moshulu Rob Posted May 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Saddam himself was enough of a weapon of mass destruction' date=' if you don't believe that you are ignorant. He signed more death warrants and caused more deaths than the hiroshima atom bomb.[/quote']He was in power solely because America and the UK wanted him in power. He used chemical weapons, (supplied by the US) on his own people, with the direct approval of both the US and the UK. See the photo's of Donald Rumsfeld in Iraq in the early eighties shaking hands with Saddam, just after he used chemical weapons on the kurds.Whilst by no means the greatest country for human rights, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was far better than many other tin pot dictatorships encouraged and condoned by the west.I'm all for the 'West' helping to 'liberate' oppressed people, but how about we start at the bottom and work up. Guess what though, the African countries have no oil, and Saudi Arabia is in bed with Bushco.Making rich Republicans even richer, at the expense of real peoples lives is not the way forward. If you believe that this war had to do with anything other than Oil and a personal vendetta by the monkey in Chief of the USA, it's you who are ignorant. And if you believe that British and American soldiers should be dying daily in Iraq, for a pointless and unjustifiable war, then I suggest you go down to the recruiting office tomorrow and join them.No one will ever argue that Saddam Hussien was an upstanding member of the world community, but to suggest that he was the worst and deserving of 'regime change' first is completely and absolutely ludicrous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripey Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 He was in power solely because America and the UK wanted him in power. I'm all for the 'West' helping to 'liberate' oppressed people' date=' but how about we start at the bottom and work up. Guess what though, the African countries have no oil, and Saudi Arabia is in bed with Bushco.No one will ever argue that Saddam Hussien was an upstanding member of the world community, but to suggest that he was the worst and deserving of 'regime change' [b']first is completely and absolutely ludicrous.Good point, it's particularly apt given that today the uzbekistan government was shooting protesters - and thats a government that the UK and the USA approve of and assist - the UK ambassador to uzbekistan resigned last year because of the human rights abuses in that country and the tacit support the UK was giving to it. Funny how george bush isnt going on a photo shoot and making statements about how he is "with the uzbek people" in their "quest for freedom" as he has been doing this week in the balkans and ex-soviet states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moshulu Rob Posted May 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Good point' date=' it's particularly apt given that today the uzbekistan government was shooting protesters - and thats a government that the UK and the USA approve of and assist - the UK ambassador to uzbekistan resigned last year because of the human rights abuses in that country and the tacit support the UK was giving to it. Funny how george bush isnt going on a photo shoot and making statements about how he is "with the uzbek people" in their "quest for freedom" as he has been doing this week in the balkans and ex-soviet states.[/quote']I think you will find that there is a hell of a lot of oil in Uzbekhistan compared to most of the other Balkan states............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.