4 years on

[quote="SOD"]The gun-shop owner & the US govt thought that it was perfectly OK for Cho Song Ho to own a gun.

lets thank the NRA shall we..

then you have a large percentage of people in the US who support the war in Iraq are the people who support the death penalty. yet for some odd reason are against abortions...contradiction at the highest level lol

and no i am not anti american,,just the ones who support Bush and his mad man thinking

"lets block stem cell research....yet put more money towards killing more of our troops and iraqis so we can have more money when i leave office as my daddy told me to"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RALLY TEAM GB

Originally Posted by raphael123
Do you blame the man who sold Cho Song Ho (whatever his name was) for the murders of those at Virginia Tech?



i dont think you want me to get into this one..i may upset you even further

---

You haven't upset me, it seems like your the one who's upset here :(

Feel free to tell me what you think, you tease :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RALLY TEAM GB

please not that i am no peace freak or what not, but it just fooks me off when people say that the war in iraq is a good thing.......

all those families either british, american or iraqi loosing family and friends for what.......nothing

thats my rant over with

---

I'm sure the millions of iranians who died, and all their family members weren't exactly jumping with joy when the world was letting Saddam get away with it. Or the Kurdish population happy to see America invade Iraq, promise to help then, and then walk out...or the marsh arabs.

And I hardly think that America's poverty problems can be compared to that of Iraq. Sorry, but no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

I'm sure the millions of iranians who died, and all their family members weren't exactly jumping with joy when the world was letting Saddam get away with it. Or the Kurdish population happy to see America invade Iraq, promise to help then, and then walk out...or the marsh arabs.

---

And where were the American right-wingers then, the same ones who raise the human rights justification for going to war today, when the human rights abuses were actually being committed? I don't remember them clamouring for an invasion. This is one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy about the whole war, as far as I'm concerned — this sudden concern for human rights on the part of individuals who had very rarely shown any such concern in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SOD

Would have been better for the CIA not to have championed Saddam in the 1950s, and for the west to have not armed Saddam in the 1980s.

---

Yet is there any sign of the USA realising that such short-termist support for your enemies' enemies at one time can very easily come back to haunt you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Yet is there any sign of the USA realising that such short-termist support for your enemies' enemies at one time can very easily come back to haunt you?

---

Not likely. In Iraq they only had enemies. Shiites who were an enemy of Saddam now want to be friends with Iran who is an enemy of the US who was an enemy of Saddam who was an enemy of Iran. Well, maybe they were friends with the Kurds who were enemies with Turkey who is a friend of the US. Confused? You won't be after this episode of Soap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And where were the American right-wingers then, the same ones who raise the human rights justification for going to war today, when the human rights abuses were actually being committed? I don't remember them clamouring for an invasion. This is one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy about the whole war, as far as I'm concerned — this sudden concern for human rights on the part of individuals who had very rarely shown any such concern in the past.

---

You're doing it again. Just because you made a mistake in the first place, doesn't mean two wrongs make it right.

Can't people make a mistake, and try not to do it again, without the whole 'well you should have done this to start with..' like with the Harry being accepted into the army.

You can't change the past BDunnell, yet you always drag it back up. That can't be changed. We've got to look to the future (after we've learned from our mistakes - which in both cases I'm sure have been).

The leaders involved in 91 got critizised for leaving them with Saddam in power, this time, when they don't, and they carry out what they planned, they get critizised. It's a lose lose situation, so you may as well lose :dozey:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raphael123

You're doing it again. Just because you made a mistake in the first place, doesn't mean two wrongs make it right.

Can't people make a mistake, and try not to do it again, without the whole 'well you should have done this to start with..' like with the Harry being accepted into the army.

You can't change the past BDunnell, yet you always drag it back up. That can't be changed. We've got to look to the future (after we've learned from our mistakes - which in both cases I'm sure have been).

The leaders involved in 91 got critizised for leaving them with Saddam in power, this time, when they don't, and they carry out what they planned, they get critizised. It's a lose lose situation, so you may as well lose :dozey:

---

If everyone took your view, there would never be any Government inquiries into anything, no matter how serious, no scrutiny of important events after they happen, and no blame attached to wrongdoing because the important thing is to 'look ahead'. This is Tony Blair's line every time his Government gets into trouble — just draw a veil over it, because it will soon go away. Well, sometimes it won't. There would also be no historical record other than the official version, because, according to your view, there's no need to rake up the past. Sometimes, I think there is a very real need to do so.

As for what happened in 1991, you have to ask yourself why the Coalition then didn't take the opportunity to remove Saddam when they certainly had their chances. Except you won't ask yourself that, because it was in the past. I think it's rather important given what is happening now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And where were the American right-wingers then, the same ones who raise the human rights justification for going to war today, when the human rights abuses were actually being committed? I don't remember them clamouring for an invasion. This is one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy about the whole war, as far as I'm concerned — this sudden concern for human rights on the part of individuals who had very rarely shown any such concern in the past.

---

If you look at the history of actions in the UN involving Iraq, the vast majority of human rights issues related resolutions came at the hands of the US and UK, who I might add were also the ones who used physical means to protect people within Iraq by way of the no fly zones.

To claim that those people who on a number of occasions were subject to hostile acts while supporting the no fly zones somehow didn't care about human rights isn't a very accurate statement. And to claim that the administrations of those countries didn't care shows total disregard for the fact that they funded that protection.


The western powers did create Saddam, and I'll be the first to admit that. Those same people were for the most part wanting to rid Iraq of him in the Gulf War, but the political influence of the European nations had a large part in not desiring to do so. I'm sure both would have done things differently if they knew what the end result would be.