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
ask the people who were teaching buying selling trading banking.
the drivers and builders and cafe owners.
befoore the sanctions it was even better ...even whilst waging a war for america against iran.
now is the worst times many generations in that country can remember ...people who welcomed the downfall of madman insane ...are now willing to kill americans ...
What about all the people buried in the mass graves? Or the thousands that just "disappeared"? Could ask them too.
But I appreciate your point in that their was a limited amount of economic revival.
Though I very much dispute the over-inflated figures of people being killed by him. At some point we've even heard "2 million people". The actual figure is probably around 10% of that.
Still a disgusting murdering regime naturally- but the bottom line remains that since the illegal war and subsequent occupation things are much much much worse for ordinary Iraqis than they were 2 years ago.
Excellent! This could yet turn into a Coallition of the Willing against the common enemy.
Yeah I agree that some people may have exagerrated the amount of people killed under Hussein. But I think thats just due to lack of information and the fact that the country was so closed and secretive. I don't think anyone can really put a figure on the amount of people killed because noone really knows.
Your figure of 200 000 could just as well be under estimating how many were killed.
I don't think life is worse for all ordinary iraqis. For some it is considerably worse, for others it is infinitely better.
How many died as a result of sanctions?
A fraction of the amount killed by Hussein no doubt. But still a considerable amount I'd think.
Hussein's regime brought the sanctions on the country though.
Yeah, yeah - and Husseins WMDs brought on the slaughter of Iraqi babies.
Madeleine Albright didn't dispute half a million children. She thought it was a "price worth paying' ........
First 'we' starved them, then 'we' bombed them, then 'we' said Hussein had WMDs and now 'we've' taken control of the oil fields - leaving every single Iraqi in much more danger than they were before.
Jeez that Saddam was a barbarian
:rolleyes:
You're desperate to cling onto palpable bullshit.
You're talking bullshit if you think that our government is more barbaric than Hussein's.
Although point taken "we" (im assuming you mean the West in general?) are far from perfect.
In your opinion I'm talking bullshit.
In reality were you to pile up the bodies that the west is responsible for killing it would be a very, very high pile.
You just think bombing shit out of people from aircraft is civilised.
I most certainly don't.......
First Gulf War: at the very least 120,000 Iraqi casualties (up to 100,000 of them being Iraqi conscripts retreating in defeat, killed in a disgraceful mass murder bombing exercise along the main road between Kuwait and Iraq).
1991- present day: at least 100,000 killed plus up to half million born with hideous deformities, or developed cancer due to the despicable use depleted uranium ammunition.
1991- present day: up to another 100,000 (plus many future victims which I won't even bother adding to the count) killed by the 1 million unexploded cluster bomblets that litter the four corners of Iraq.
1991- present day: Half a million children killed by US and Britain- promoted UN sanctions. Like ftp has reminded us, the US Secretary of State at the time, Madeleine Albright, thought it was a price worth paying.
2003- present day (second Gulf War): at least 100,000 civilians killed plus an undisclosed number of soldiers and fighters- at the very least 30,000.
Total number of people killed by the freedom-loving West: 950,000 and counting
Beats Saddam comfortably, does it not?
Seeing as we will probably pass the million dead mark before the year is over, we ought to have some kind of celebration or something.
better for who?
iraq was an amazingly open country with people coming and going without much difficulty.
saddam loved the west ...he was on good terms with them for many years ...especialy in purchasing any weapons he wished for.
iraq became the most westernised arab country going. bustling shopping centres and bars ...full of alcohol and scantily clad women. the religous nutters more than anyone else hated him for this.
the middle classes were growing and prospering.
new housing develpments were springing up all over baghdad for the well healed proffesionals ...property prices were rising.
if saddam hadn't had ten years of crippling sanctions ...which were responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths ...if instead he had been allowed to continue trading with the world ...the people would have gotten rid of him at some point ...probably with western help.
the country would have continued to prosper.
but no ...americas intentions were to smash the place up and steal whatever was worth stealing.
The point that you refuse to get into your brain Mat, is that this is merely another rotation of the "we refuse to abide by the lessons of history and our repeated screw ups" merry go round which is already tearing Iraq apart even whilst the sheeple swallow media fed lies about democratisation and "a better life" for the Iraqi people.
MR had the right of it and what we have done by invading a sovereign nation on repeated exposed fraudulent pretexts is by our own established rules of international law (Nuremburg Principles, Hague Convention, Vienna Convention, Geneva Convention, UN charter) the clearest acts of disregard of rthose same laws conceivable.
For the wanton pursuit of power and domination and resource control we butchered a nation which did not attack any of the coalition nations nor could and reduced a once modern and thriving economy and populace to ruin. All your slogans and blind irrational jingoism can't justify any of it and only makes you and those who share your ideology complete hypocrites.
Criminals who hold themselves above the precepts of international law have no basis for levelling charges of criminality against any other person or nation. To accept such is to make all concept of the rule of law null and void. It applies equally to ALL or to none.
If the latter than everything our fathers and grandfathers fought and died in WWII to establish is for nought.
Wrong, Iraq was neither thriving nor 'butchered'.
Ive said it before and I will say it again, I have no faith in international treaties, 'multilateralilism' and so called 'international law'.
If countries want to make real changes to the world (usually the United States) , they have been forced to take matters into their own hands.
Iraq was very much the developed jewel of the middle east with general living standards, broad non-discriminatory education, western-based mores about dress and alcohol and other leisure pursuits at all time highs before the Iran/Iraq war (fought only to serve US interests against Iran) began the slide which was subsequently deepened by Western economic sanctions and ongoing infrastructural bombing.
That you further suggest that countries have the authority to "take matters into their own hands" only shows that you indeed espouse hypocritical notions of nothing more than "might makes right" and thus show complete disregard for the same rule of law that was paid for by our forebears in WWII.
And if there be no obligation for the west to adhere to its own established norms of behaviour then even that late and hollow justification for attacking Iraq, namely "non-compliance", falls to the wayside.
I think there is at least something in what you are saying, but I don't agree that it was an open country. It was a barbaric regime with a minority within a minority that prospered (some sunni muslims prospered, most Shias and Kurds were marginalised and oppressed).
It was nothing to do with America wanting to "steal" something from Iraq. They invaded Kuwait remember?
Hurrah!!!!
So, in groovechampion's world that was the reason the Americans invaded Iraq in 2002.
:eek:
It would be fascinating to hear the groovechampion explanation for why that invasion took place.
Revisionist histopry can be soooooo funny.
Not at all, Alladin was talking about the first gulf war was he not?
I did post that at about 2:30 in the morning after a lot of beer so my wording may not have been accurate!
Firstly i am against the war for 3 reasons,
Yound british lads that we will lose, when it isnt really necessary.
Also man inncents will die including children,
America is just invading because it donst like their culture, the same with afghanistan, iraq and now maybe iran,
OK so the women wear cloacks and they cut peoples heads and hands off for punishment, we dont like their culture but that is no excuse for the horros and evil of war, i think bush, and the american administration are trying to force democracy, but maybe they dont want democracy and what right have we to force it upon them,
Also lukesh just asking are you a man or a woman, because your profile says your a man, but your dream date is mark whalberg, so are you gay?
:yes:
or loved up
they are all treated the same cos they are all as ugly as each other ...whilst wearing that stuff.
and ...what about them pesky americans who inject lethal chemicals into their crims ...or electrocute them and gass them ...including children and the mentaly hanicapped ...