If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I don't dispute that too many Iraqis have been killed, thanks to the "insurgents" approach (why "insurgents"?, surely if they are Iraqi then they cannot be insurgent?) and that of the US.
But rather than live in the 24 hour news world where everything has a solution within days, I am ready to take a longer view, which covers five years hence and I still believe that the US action will lead to the kind of Iraq which we all want to see.
Maybe I've just developed a keen sense of patience through trying to get anything done in the NHS
Then you can insprie us with the great beneficial outcomes for the Iraqi people and our moral superiority over the previous cadre of butchers from whom we supposedly came to "liberate" the poor people (whom Bush now calls "thugs" and "terrorists").
The hypocrisies and the war crimes they engender go on and on and on.
Opposing views are more than welcome (in fact needed) on this site but you devalue your own arguments with posts like this.
Do stick around though.
Its the opinion of most UN weapons inspectors that he didn't have any. Look it up.
Evidence?
Evidence?
Yes, by international law.
Most were against it.
I know he had some. 10 years ago. But as far away as 1998 the UN inspectors were saying that most if not all weapons had been destroyed, and the more recent inspections by Hans Blix were establishing very clearly that Saddam didn't have as much as itching powder to speak of.
And yet, the US and Britain would not allow the UN inspectors to carry on their work- because Bush and Blair KNEW they were going to conclude there were no WMDs in Iraq, thus removing the excuse they were giving for going to war.
Does that tell you anything?
What constitutes a threat? Wouldn't you agree that the US and Britain pose a threat to the Middle East, Islam and to world peace at that? And since that is the case, would you advocate other nations to try to remove Bush and Blair by force and wage a war on Britain and the US?
No I got that from every news organisation in the planet- bar the Murdoch mouthpieces naturally. In fact, not a single person, and that includes the mad Texan and his poodle, have been able to provide a single thread of evidence to support the claims that Saddam had links to terrorism- let alone Al Qaida or 9/11.
Notice how even Dubya and Blair have long abandoned those claims.
Er yes the war was illegal. There is such a thing as international law and UN approval. Bush and Blair ignored both.
There are a lot of countries with appalling human rights records. I wonder if you would be so happily advocating a war if, say, France bombed Israel to pieces in an attempt to remove the murderous war criminal who currently sits in power.
That the world is a better place now that he's no longer in power does not give anyone the right to take unilateral action.
The world would be a much better place if Dubya and Blair were not in power. Would you advocate assassinating them?
Where have I said that?
And remember who was shaking the hands of the monster and selling him all those terrible WMDs not so long ago?
The hypocrisy of it all is limitless.
That they are happy that he's gone does not mean that they approved of the illegal war and subsequent occupation by foreign armies (they certainly don't). And I don't know where you get your statistics but the only reason I could think anyone wants the troops to stay is to sort out the fucking mess they've created in the first place. Although a majority would rather see them leave... or dead.
And here we go again…
What gives you the idea that being against the US government is being anti-American? How many times have you been to the US? How many Americans can you count as friends? My guess is that I beat you on both counts…
Source?
Most were against it when it was happening. Its supposedly over now.
Sorry, this makes no sense?
Try to engage in reasoned debate- otherwise I can suggest a few other boards where you'd be far happier.
LOL!
Don't throw your toys out of your pram 'cos you can't keep up with the debate.
ROFLMAO!
IS IT YOU PNJSURFERPOET???
How are you mate? Long time no see!
Heres an article from The Times, saying
"Iraq was probably free of weapons of mass destruction before the war, which would explain why none of the banned arms have been found, Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector, said today"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-704059,00.html
What sources have you got to back up your claims that there are WMD's in Iraq?
What are you on?
And when you're done you could also comment on this:
Give me some sources backing up your claims or shut up.
Look, debate works like this - you put across a point of view and try and back it up with some evidence from credible sources. Other people then agree or disagree with you, using other credible sources. Without verifiable credible sources, I might as well claim that the moon is made of green cheese and I live there and rule the world.
So...back up your claims.
Love it! You can't back up your claims so you just do a massive flounce! Well done!
Or a very poor attempt at trolling.
No because of your mention of anti-American views actually.
I am aware that English people supported the war.
Looks like the right winger still can't present a solid case for anything and run away shouting slanderous invective when they know they cannot respond intelligently.
Hey I know, just tell everyone that GOD told us to invade. The prophet in the White House is, after all, in direct communion with the almighty, dontcha know!
Hell, I support the war, I even read the Sun (amongst others), but I would never suggest that Murdoch would be a good leader...
Dude, all the users of this forum ask you to do is back up your arguments - as they do - rather than just make a statement expecting them to accept it.
Expect to be questioned on your opinions, and question other users on theirs. Believe it or not you might learn something...
Funnily enough, I actually agree with you there - up to a point.
I would even add that Iran can have a destabilising influence on Iraqis inorder to push things in a direction which suits them.
Again I wouldn't just blame the UK and US for the mire but recognise that other nations have an interest in how Iraq progresses.
I don't think that the US has handled the "post-war" very well. It's worth noting that, according to a recent opinion poll - I think it was the BBC but I cant find the link just now - the vast majority of Iraqis are pleased to see Saddam gone and yet at the same time would love to see the US forces leave now.
Naturally they have the "colonial" fears that you voiced and I would support them there.
Sadly, as we all know, oil in too much of an interest to the US...
Well, firstly, Bush doesn't refer to them all[i/] as thugs or terrorists. Just the small minority who are fighting. And that is a small minority.
The benefits will only become apparent once the US hands power over, or once the UN gets involved. With the US forces staying there you won't see it... they offer too much of a convenient target for those who want to impose their will on the Iraqi population...
Absolutely, there isn't a single paper which doesn't have it's own agenda. And yes, people are snobbish against the Sun but I guess you'll have to live with that. I would suggest that you look for more "reputable" sources to support your claims...