Europe soon to be attacked by nukes and...

[AROCES]

Really now? You have? How?

Yes really, and you could not have said those things yourself before we went in Iraq.

Everyones was not sure and guessing then, the United Nations could have made an official statements that Iraq has no WMD and is not a threat, but they didn't. Instead it has 17 Resolutions that Saddam been monkeying around with.

Edited November 16, 2006 by AROCES

[Mr Slayer]

No, you're just making stuff up to criticise them. Got a bad memory of your own posts?

I guess you're still working the conspiracy angle.

Sorry, I'm not the one "making up" how the coalition troops couldn't find the WOMDs. It's a fact. Regarding the Saddam connection to Al-Qaida, I'm still waiting for it.

Yes really, and you could not have said those things yourself before we went in Iraq.

Everyones was not sure and guessing then, the United Nations could have made an official statements that Iraq has no WMD and is not a threat, but they didn't. Instead it has 17 Resolutions that Saddam been monkeying around with.

The WOMD was a hypothesis that proved to be wrong, meaning, the war was based on a lie.

[AROCES]

The WOMD was a hypothesis that proved to be wrong, meaning, the war was based on a lie.

So, I guess the UN lied about all the 17 Resolutions they had on Iraq?

You may call it a lie if you want to, but the fact of the matter is Saddam gas the Kurds and after 9/11 second guessing was not an option anymore.

Just be glad the world is now certain the 17 UN resolutions did mean something.

[odas]

That's not what I ment Bella......

I gave football religious violence as an example of how some are just drawn to the violence and use religion to hide behind. Technically football and religion has nothing to do with each other but the whole catholic V pros war is what football hooligans fight about.

My question is could violent people be drawn to extreme or fundementalist christian camps/groups and become violent against fundementalist muslims.

Very interesting comparison, Anvil. Unfortunately ignored by most of the members.

I do not want to say yes, but there is a posibility. Every radicalisation inspires the contraradicalisation. Action and reaction. And in this case the question is who is acting and who is reacting. Pro and Contras for any opinion.

Just like in football. The clash between hooligans. It is never for sure who actualy started it.

Very interesting, Anvil.

[Mr Slayer]

So, I guess the UN lied about all the 17 Resolutions they had on Iraq?

You may call it a lie if you want to, but the fact of the matter is Saddam gas the Kurds and after 9/11 second guessing was not an option anymore.

Just be glad the world is now certain the 17 UN resolutions did mean something.

Wait, now you're suddenly reffering to Saddam's gasing of the Kurds (???). We are talking about how they couldn't verify the existence of WOMDs.

Regarding the UN resolutions, they had nothing to do with it. The US walked over UN and started a war without their support.

[__Kratos__]

Sorry, I'm not the one "making up" how the coalition troops couldn't find the WOMDs. It's a fact. Regarding the Saddam connection to Al-Qaida, I'm still waiting for it.

The WOMD was a hypothesis that proved to be wrong, meaning, the war was based on a lie.

Here's what I'm talking about:

Just like they're scaring people in the US and GB, to justify a war for oil. Very simple.

And you just keep trying to dance around that conspiracy that you posted.

It wasn't started on a lie rather then bad intel. You just want it to be a lie.

Very interesting comparison, Anvil. Unfortunately ignored by most of the members.

I do not want to say yes, but there is a posibility. Every radicalisation inspires the contraradicalisation. Action and reaction. And in this case the question is who is acting and who is reacting. Pro and Contras for any opinion.

Just like in football. The clash between hooligans. It is never for sure who actualy started it.

Very interesting, Anvil.

Their God doesn't command them to fight over football though.

Islamic terrorists have Allah to back them up using the Koran.

The US walked over UN and started a war without their support.

That points back to the bad intel.

Edited November 17, 2006 by __Kratos__

[Leonardo]

Kratos,

I agree it was bad intel, however there is a strong suspicion the US and UK Intelligence Services and Governments knew the intel was not strong but went ahead anyway. I would refer you to the 'dodgy dossier' incident in the UK.

No doubt the UK and US Intel Services were under pressure from their respective governments to provide this justification and must hold some blame. However the governments are ultimately responsible.

They knew the intel was weak, they had no real justification (don't mention the UN resolution - that was a sham), yet went ahead anyway. Concealing the weakness of their case with rhetoric.

If you don't want to call that a conspiracy

con‧spir‧a‧cy  /kənˈspɪrəsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhn-spir-uh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -cies.

1. the act of conspiring.

2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

source

then what synonym would you prefer?

[__Kratos__]

Kratos,

I agree it was bad intel, however there is a strong suspicion the US and UK Intelligence Services and Governments knew the intel was not strong but went ahead anyway. I would refer you to the 'dodgy dossier' incident in the UK.

No doubt the UK and US Intel Services were under pressure from their respective governments to provide this justification and must hold some blame. However the governments are ultimately responsible.

They knew the intel was weak, they had no real justification (don't mention the UN resolution - that was a sham), yet went ahead anyway. Concealing the weakness of their case with rhetoric.

Yeah, bad intel.

If you don't want to call that a conspiracy

source

then what synonym would you prefer?

Going on bad intel still isn't a conspiracy.

Even yet, I'm talking about Ash's conspiracy theory that we're there soley for oil.

[Leonardo]

I'd agree oil wasn't the sole (or possibly even the prime) motivation for the action. The motivation is rather secondary to the outcome though - don't you think?

[AROCES]

Wait, now you're suddenly reffering to Saddam's gasing of the Kurds (???). We are talking about how they couldn't verify the existence of WOMDs.

Regarding the UN resolutions, they had nothing to do with it. The US walked over UN and started a war without their support.

OF COURSE! It was one reason the world is uncertain about Saddam, PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR.

YES! The the US walked over the UN and it's never ending Resolutions on Iraq. Kofi Anan was covering up the Oil for food program corruption for one thing.Saddam has actually bought the UN.

[odas]

OF COURSE! It was one reason the world is uncertain about Saddam, PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR.

YES! The the US walked over the UN and it's never ending Resolutions on Iraq. Kofi Anan was covering up the Oil for food program corruption for one thing.Saddam has actually bought the UN.

Sorry guys, but the Swed is not saying anything different then the rest of the world.

And they are all wrong?

Face it. Saddam is ( was ) a dictator and massmurderer. He deserves what he gets.

But, this is not the reason Bush Jr. attacked Irack. He was just doing what Bush Sr. told him to do. Finish the job son, no matter the cost. The Oil belongs to our company.

That Bush ( I am not talking about USA ) attacked Saddam just because he ( Bush ) is a filantropist is what you guys want to believe. As for the rest of the world and myself, I could not even drink it pretty.

[AROCES]

Sorry guys, but the Swed is not saying anything different then the rest of the world.

And they are all wrong?

Face it. Saddam is ( was ) a dictator and massmurderer. He deserves what he gets.

But, this is not the reason Bush Jr. attacked Irack. He was just doing what Bush Sr. told him to do. Finish the job son, no matter the cost. The Oil belongs to our company.

That Bush ( I am not talking about USA ) attacked Saddam just because he ( Bush ) is a filantropist is what you guys want to believe. As for the rest of the world and myself, I could not even drink it pretty.

- There were at least 30 other countries that participated when we went into Iraq. The Swedish and the rest of the world didn't. Who is wrong? Only history will judge that.

One world took action and the other world wants resolutions after resolutions after resolutions.

- What is so wrong with assuring the free flow of Oil? Surely the Oil belongs to the companies, AFTER THEY PAY FOR IT.

- America was attacked, in case you don't know. Bush responded and made a statement that suck attack on American soil will mean a full retaliation from the United States.

Call it making a statement.

[odas]

- There were at least 30 other countries that participated when we went into Iraq. The Swedish and the rest of the world didn't. Who is wrong? Only history will judge that.

One world took action and the other world wants resolutions after resolutions after resolutions.

- What is so wrong with assuring the free flow of Oil? Surely the Oil belongs to the companies, AFTER THEY PAY FOR IT.

- America was attacked, in case you don't know. Bush responded and made a statement that suck attack on American soil will mean a full retaliation from the United States.

Call it making a statement.

First, yes, 30 other countries, including my Bosnia. Why? Mostly because they did not want to be assocciated with the terrorists. You remember: YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US.

Second, there is something wrong with the "free flaw of oil" if it goes to only those companies who not only suported the war, but also initiated it.

Third, America was attacked by terrorists, mostly from big american buddy Saudi Arabia in case you don't know.

The only statement Bush did was his ode to hipocracy.

Bang, bang.

[bLu3 de 3n3rgy]

Very interesting comparison, Anvil. Unfortunately ignored by most of the members.

I do not want to say yes, but there is a posibility. Every radicalisation inspires the contraradicalisation. Action and reaction. And in this case the question is who is acting and who is reacting. Pro and Contras for any opinion.

Just like in football. The clash between hooligans. It is never for sure who actualy started it.

Very interesting, Anvil.

Thanks Odas

Islamic terrorists have Allah to back them up using the Koran.

My point was it can become people just fighting other people for the hell of it and jumping on the bandwagon because somewhere they don't like or agree with what is going on. Terrorism in Britian is nothing new, we had the northern Ireland troubles for decades, ok that was political not religious but it became inter-twinned with religious issues ie the Catholics V Pros. The football hooligism example is just a spin off from that. They still fought and yea no God commanded that.

[Unlimited]

If wars were waged solely on UN resolutions; israel would be next....

[AROCES]

First, yes, 30 other countries, including my Bosnia. Why? Mostly because they did not want to be assocciated with the terrorists. You remember: YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US.

Second, there is something wrong with the "free flaw of oil" if it goes to only those companies who not only suported the war, but also initiated it.

Third, America was attacked by terrorists, mostly from big american buddy Saudi Arabia in case you don't know.

The only statement Bush did was his ode to hipocracy.

Bang, bang.

- Your Bosnia simply agreed that Saddam causing distability in the Middle East is never ending and sided with the United States instead of the United Nations.

- Free commerce, if you don't believe in that then what is your alternative? Who gets to decide then who gets what amount of oil?

- They don't represent Saudi Arabia, right?

[odas]

- Your Bosnia simply agreed that Saddam causing distability in the Middle East is never ending and sided with the United States instead of the United Nations.

- Free commerce, if you don't believe in that then what is your alternative? Who gets to decide then who gets what amount of oil?

- They don't represent Saudi Arabia, right?

- Siding with USA was an expected move for several reasons. I personaly agreed with that.

-free commerce is not quite free in this case

-Then they do not represent Islam either, only the age old simple terrorism view.

[+joc]

Face it. Saddam is ( was ) a dictator and massmurderer. He deserves what he gets.

But, this is not the reason Bush Jr. attacked Irack. He was just doing what Bush Sr. told him to do. Finish the job son, no matter the cost. The Oil belongs to our company.

You can't really be serious.

The following map explains the situation better than any half-baked, moldy, leftist, liberal diatribe:

It really is just that simple folks. Unless you believe that Iran is not a threat...in which case the map will make no sense.

[__Kratos__]

You can't really be serious.

The following map explains the situation better than any half-baked, moldy, leftist, liberal diatribe:

It really is just that simple folks. Unless you believe that Iran is not a threat...in which case the map will make no sense.

Iran is a good handful larger then Afghanistan or Iraq in population. Also they are the re-birth of martyrs (aka suicide bombers) where they are conditioned really from birth to honor dead martyrs and more. The state of Iran even gives the school children free backpacks with the picture of the first martyr in the Iran/Iraq war who was a 13 year old boy. Invading Iran would just be foolish because of the history.

Not to mention the troops there in Afghanistan and Iraq aren't just sitting around watching the sand... They're needed there. They just can't pack up and then march into Iran.

[Mr Slayer]

The following map explains the situation better than any half-baked, moldy, leftist, liberal diatribe:

It really is just that simple folks. Unless you believe that Iran is not a threat...in which case the map will make no sense.

Boy, are we lucky to have whole-grain, hard-core, right-wing aggressors to tell us.

Iran's no threat. Nor are the "taerrorists" (pronounced with Texas accent).

If they were, you would be just like Palestine. America IS perfectly safe, but your government wants you to think you're not.

Programs like "Target: America" (pronounce with hostile voice) and "Are we safe?" (pronounce with anxious tone) are soon to be seen here in Europe as well.

Of course people think they're gonna die the next day because of such media outbursts. It's like the "War of the Worlds"- charade in the 1930's.

As long as you people continue labelling the whole nation of Iran as a "terrorist" state I will go on and not distinguish between the Bush government's "doings" and the US in its entirety.

[+joc]

As long as you people continue labelling the whole nation of Iran as a "terrorist" state I will go on and not distinguish between the Bush government's "doings" and the US in its entirety.

Your argument is old and tired and has no ziphnit! The fact is that Iran does export terror. No one is saying that the entire population are terrorists...however, a large part of the population no doubt hates America purely because of the onslaught of propaganda on TV.

It is also factually known that many Iranians don't hate the West and do loath their own government.

As the map points out....Allied troops are strategically positioned. No one is suggesting either that we are about to march into Iran or that there is any kind of plan for that at all.

It is worth mentioning again as well, that regardless of what American and Allied forces do or do not do...Israel will not allow Iran to achieve Nuclear Club Status. To do so would be to ignore a giant who constantly threatens to destroy them with a nuclear weapon.

I suppose however that AshKat believes that is propaganda too. Nonetheless...before we went into Iraq...we had zero presence in the region...now we have a major presence and if Iran does do anything stupid we have the ability to add rather quickly to a major force already on the ground. Anyone who thinks that our being there is not an important strategic plus has little or no understanding of strategery.

[Unlimited]

Is it just that your from the US? so your sided with the sunni wahabists from saudi arabia. over the shiite of Iran...thats daddy's propaganda filling your head...the only ones who attacked you are saudi radical sunni wahabis.. not Iranian shiites you've just been brainwashed by daddy and sonny boy! to not think the saudis are your enemys. when they are more so than Iran....

[+joc]

Is it just that your from the US? so your sided with the sunni wahabists from saudi arabia. over the shiite of Iran...thats daddy's propaganda filling your head...the only ones who attacked you are saudi radical sunni wahabis.. not Iranian shiites you've just been brainwashed by daddy and sonny boy! to not think the saudis are your enemys. when they are more so than Iran....

It is about Jihad dude! Countries here and countries there...Jihad coming from all of them...of course SA is an enemy...but you don't shoot the bull you are riding...you shoot the bull that is charging at you...sometimes the bull you are riding starts charging...then you have to shoot it and jump off at the same time...that can get messy. Who is really brain washed here? ...daddy and sonny boy...seems like you have an ax to grind with the Bush family...I don't...I just call 'em as I see 'em...without the spin of propaganda from either the left or the right.

[Stardrive]

Is it just that your from the US? so your sided with the sunni wahabists from saudi arabia. over the shiite of Iran...thats daddy's propaganda filling your head...the only ones who attacked you are saudi radical sunni wahabis.. not Iranian shiites you've just been brainwashed by daddy and sonny boy! to not think the saudis are your enemys. when they are more so than Iran....

Contrary to popular belief, most americans side with no particular Islamic faction. No amount of "daddy's propaganda" will sway our loyalties one way or the other.

As a side note, most Islamic countries employ thier religion to exert power and control over the masses. The fact that western nations are more prosperous than they are leads to hard feelings towards the west. They desire what we have, but lack the mental and creative flexablilty required to make it happen (at the moment).

And yes, we know radical factions in Saudi Arabia are more of a threat than Iran is as a nation. And yes, we also know that radical factions have hijacked Islam and are trying to tarnish it's name to the point that all of Islam has no choice but to join thier cause (Jihad).

And joc, you post some excellent points to ponder. But I must disagree with the fat, stupid, can't remember squat, dont know what to do in case of an emergency thing. You know as well as I do that isnt true for all of us. Some, yes, but not all.

Good thread everyone, very interesting read, thanks!

[odas]

Did I miss something? Why did we jump from Irack and the oil to Iran and jihad?

What day is today? What year?

You guys are like Bush, he does not have a clue where he's heading.