Author Topic: Reality Check for British protestors  (Read 153 times)

ITW [the irish boy]

  • Muthafuckin' Double OG
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Karma: -10
  • BOW DOWN
Re:Reality Check for British protestors
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2003, 02:11:07 PM »
I reckon the states and england should stay in iraq to rebuild the mess, but I think there needs to be an independent organisation to oversee the awarding of contracts etc, to make sure bush's mates dont take over the oil and shit. I dont believe withdrawing will help at all however as the country is a complete mess and needs the us army because they fucked out the old police. If the us and britain want legitimacy doing this they need to un or some body to oversee it all, and in that situation, where there is a multilateral leadership, should extra troops be sent in to calm the situation. Would you agree this is the best way forward??
SO MANY PEOPLE THINK THEY KNOW
BUT DO THEY KNOW TO THINK
THINK ABOUT THINKING
BEFORE THEY KNOW NOTHING
DID THEY KNOW SOMETHING
LETS THINK
 

Trauma-san

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 16639
  • Karma: -231
Re:Reality Check for British protestors
« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2003, 09:32:15 PM »
No.  The reason we re-started this war (from 91) is that Saddam was becoming a threat to us, and had openly sympathized with Bin Ladin.  He refused to comply with the U.N. resolutions, 16 different times.  He also, according to reports from both the Clinton and Bush administration, was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, which were clearly in violation of the 16 U.N. Resolutions.  The U.N. knew this, that's why they repeatedly passed resolutions warning Iraq of consequences.  Unfortunately, the U.N. wouldn't enforce their own resolutions, so we had to take out the treat to our country on our own.  (with England and Australia's help).  The threat has been eradicated, but with thousands of troops still in the country, we can't subordinate our army to a governing body other than the United States.  It's a security issue, the U.N. has spent 12 years proving they are inept, why would we let them govern our troops?  

Moot point anyways: Bush has announced he will turn Iraq over to the Iraqi government by July of 2004.  
 

Trauma-san

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 16639
  • Karma: -231
Re:Reality Check for British protestors
« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2003, 09:32:45 PM »
Which I might add, is just in time for election.  LOL Bush is gonna be unstoppable Nov. 2004.  
 

UnstoppableForce

  • Guest
Re:Reality Check for British protestors
« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2003, 11:00:29 PM »
Trauma did you also know that we could'v finished the job in 91 but Bush pulled out. The generals told him that with 2 more days, they could capture Baghdad and bring Saddam down. Bush said "no, pull out".
Did you also know that we put Saddam in power?
We supported him with weapons, financially,etc?
We kept supporting him until he places Iraqi oil under Iraqi control?
Then we say "he's a tyrant, he's evil, he's this and that" when he has been like that since he got there. Yet, we didn't say shit then. Why? Oh yea, the oil.
Did you also know that we secured the oil fields within the first week this time?
If you don't believe me, I'm sure you believe your trusting, honest US government; Kissinger: "OIL IS TOO IMPORTANT A COMMODITY TO BE IN THE HANDS OF THE ARABS". You want the reason of why we're always involved in Middle Eastern affairs... THERE IT IS BITCH
 

ITW [the irish boy]

  • Muthafuckin' Double OG
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Karma: -10
  • BOW DOWN
Re:Reality Check for British protestors
« Reply #19 on: November 19, 2003, 08:11:23 AM »
I dont want to delve back into the war argument again trauma, but I think had the UN wanted to intervene it could have done the job. The fact was it was america pushing for this war and america who ultimately undermined the UN. If there was a case for invasion it would be in places like the Congo where 4MILLION people have died in the recent wars. I agree Iraq had a brutal regime but there was no threat to america from such a regime, and iraq had not launched an attack so I dont agree with that argument.

I do however understand your argument that when having so many troops in iraq it would not be viable to hand them over to a foreign body to control. I think if this was to happen, it would have to be part of a package where more international troops were deployed.
The area I was talking about in terms of an "overseer" is the administration, awarding of contracts and rebuilding work, as I think this lacks legitimacy. While america perhaps controlls the troops, I think it would be more beneficial to have an open and transparent development programme. (BTW i would feel the same reservations about unilateralism if it involved france, or germany etc etc, not just america)
SO MANY PEOPLE THINK THEY KNOW
BUT DO THEY KNOW TO THINK
THINK ABOUT THINKING
BEFORE THEY KNOW NOTHING
DID THEY KNOW SOMETHING
LETS THINK
 

King Tech Quadafi

  • His Royal Highness
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7323
  • Karma: -221
  • i think you betta recognize...
Re:Reality Check for British protestors
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2003, 03:15:21 PM »
interesting

"This swing in the mood of British voters is echoed in the poll's finding that two-thirds of voters believe British and American troops should not pull out of Iraq now but instead stay until the situation is "more stable". "

thatsa  very true statement.. both sides of the argument agree that should be the case...

in America, no.  We still have millions of people that still think we should leave Iraq.  Why? Because their hatred for George Bush is so strong they won't agree with anything he does, so him being in Iraq means they automatically oppose it.  It proves to me, that this subset of people (liberals) doesn't give a shit about common sense, they are only thinking politically, like always.  

*head explodes from the irony of Trauma's posts*
"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

- Lewis Carroll
 

Pink Floyd

  • Guest
Re:Reality Check for British protestors
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2003, 04:07:58 PM »
interesting

"This swing in the mood of British voters is echoed in the poll's finding that two-thirds of voters believe British and American troops should not pull out of Iraq now but instead stay until the situation is "more stable". "

thatsa  very true statement.. both sides of the argument agree that should be the case...

in America, no.  We still have millions of people that still think we should leave Iraq.  Why? Because their hatred for George Bush is so strong they won't agree with anything he does, so him being in Iraq means they automatically oppose it.  It proves to me, that this subset of people (liberals) doesn't give a shit about common sense, they are only thinking politically, like always.  

*head explodes from the irony of Trauma's posts*


Heads cannot explode as a result of irony.