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
That's simply not true.
Compare that with the daily attacks since the invasion began.
But then again perhaps these people are not terrorists after all but Iraqis resisting the illegal invader and occupier who stills pulls the strings of the "sovereign" Iraqi governing council and maintains more than 100,000 soldiers in the country.
Saddam was a brutal murderer and governed Iraq with an iron fist... but let's not make the mistake of thinking that life there is so much better than it was. One day it will be... but not for a long time yet. The fact is that life for many ordinary Iraqis today is far worse than it was 18 months ago. There are fewer people with running water and electricity still today than they were before March 2003. And don't even mention violence, pillaging, street violence, unemployment...
But they did want to see Saddam ousted, didn't they?
It was never going to be achieved without force. Of course, those who tried to use force had been killed. They didn't have enough power.
I said something similar before the invasion.
I suggested that SA was the real home of terrorism and that the US needed a base to work from.
Had Bush Sr. been genuine instead of transparently duplicitous in his promise to back the Shia uprising in 1993, they would have likely succeeded in achieving the task according to their own indigenous will. However, insofar as the majority will for a theocracy would prevent US interests from regaining its hegemonic control of the nation's resources, they were left to be quashed.
Once again, as with most everything to date which has vindicated the assessments we in the anti-invasion camp said from the start, this IIG will likely prove to be just one more presumptive and myopic effort to impose a foreign paradigm on a culture which has historically rejected such, time and time again.
If you were to take that route there is no end of things you could do. I think most of us would like to see Tony Blair out of government. As Labour is probably going to win the next election again, presumably it's all okay for a foreign power to bomb and invade us, and to save us from another 4 years of Tony.
Not the best analogy I know, but I hope you get my drift.
Saddam was no longer of any threat and was duly contained and essentially reduced to paltry third rate military power. Had Iraqis themselves been supported in determining their own course, his ousting would have been only a matter of time and would have left Iraqis to determine for themselves what their future governance would consist of.
To suggest a foreign controlled, financed and imposed regime is any alternative to what has come before is the height of naivete.
This is a rich demand coming from one who never provides any to back up his claims of fact. LOL
At any rate, even when proof is provided you clearly do not read it and continue to regurgitate the same worn out claims.
You don't want proof Lukesh, you simply want to surround yourself with spin to maintain your comfortable denials of reality and common sense.
I suggest you go live in the fallout of deprivation, disease and death under which the vast majority have lived for the past 13 years thanks to US insisted maintenance of UN sanctions (when numerous calls within the UN to lift the sanctions were quashed by Washington) and tell us how glad Iraqis were to witness yet further destruction and humilitation through occupation.
They do not have any more self detrmination now than when we supported Saddam and will likely never be allowed more than the facade of true self determination and indigenous will once the charade of the IIG is further legitimaised over time by a compliant mainstream media.
I don't think I need to prove that the Iraqis didn't want the US to invade any more than I need to prove that the average person would not appreciate being kneecapped by a stranger at random.
Heavens but you are an intractable unteachable ideologue. Just keep clinging to your denials. Ignorance is bliss after all!
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml
Your reptition of a discredited claim only makes you look increasingly foolish.
Not entirely true though, because he didn't say that they had "unfettered" access.
We both know that the scientists were "encouraged" to have a Saddam loyalist present to "prove" that they weren't betraying the regime.
As usual, there is no black and white here.
Oh well, don't worry about your debate skills. I've not seen too many people who impress me very much on the Internet. Mostly, people like to blow hot air and present their opinions and speculations as facts and/or appoint themselves as official net gurus who are gracing others with their wisdom and wax eloquent. I'm even guilty of this offense from time to time. :rolleyes:
There are quite a few keyboard commandos out there who think they have all of the answers. Just roll with it, and have fun.
If you get annoyed, then step back from the computer and ask yourself, "This is the friggin' internet for God's sakes. Do I really give a rat's butt what a bunch of strangers think of my opinions?" Heck you could be talking to a stark raving nut on the other end of the world, so no point in taking any of it too seriously.
Happy Internet Trails to you and welcome young man! There's not a thing wrong with trying your hand at debate, even when others may not agree. They'll get over it. :cool:
False, you said that Iraqis supported the war.
Page 3 of this thread...
:yes:
I rarely post in this forum, simply because my debating skills are pretty shite but I still read a lot and notice a few things.
Some of the people here are so far up their own arses it's stupid. They may have a few big clever words up their sleeve, but they aint half boring bastards. It seems to be a cometition between a few to see who can come up with the best petty insult using the biggest words.
Edited to add that this is a board aimed at younger people - many of whom I expect have debating skills similar to Lukesh. At least he's having a go. It seems to have bee hijacked by people that think they're are teaching these debating skills when infact all they're doing is pushing people away.
I actually noticed that too. A lot of the older people here, push the people away which this site is aimed at.
Am I one of the older people?
As far as I am concerned I belong to the age bracket of 15-26, and still will in 8 years time.
In that much you could be as guilty as the rest of us.
But I do not act as rudely as you towards the newer and younger posters, which is where it matters.
Well, at least not this specific forum.