U.S. Presidential Race: Official Thread

[Raoul]

Lets allow Iraqis who lived through the ''occupation'' to give their verdict as to whether it was the right or wrong thing to do, in 20-30 years time.

I think people will be surprised by what they say, let us not forget an individual by the name of Saddam Hussein was removed from power. At least now there is some hope for the ordinary Iraqi, five and a half years ago there was none.

By that standard, what about hope for all those living under despotic and totalitarian regimes around the world ?

 

[Alex]

Lets allow Iraqis who lived through the ''occupation'' to give their verdict as to whether it was the right or wrong thing to do, in 20-30 years time.

I think people will be surprised by what they say, let us not forget an individual by the name of Saddam Hussein was removed from power. At least now there is some hope for the ordinary Iraqi, five and a half years ago there was none.

Fair play on that

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

By that standard, what about hope for all those living under despotic and totalitarian regimes around the world ?

Oh, I'm not saying we invaded Iraq purely for humanitarian reasons, far from it in fact.

But is it really such a bad thing to want a major nation in the Middle East like Iraq to be on good terms with the West?

Our enemies needed to know that we wouldn't be afraid to take action, so perhaps Iraq was a symbolic act more than anything else. Sure the links to Al Queda were highly questionable and yes no WMD's were found but if you can take a step back from those two issues, was it really such a terrible mistake after all? Time will ultimately tell of course.

 

[Raoul]

Oh, I'm not saying we invaded Iraq purely for humanitarian reasons, far from it in fact.

But is it really such a bad thing to want a major nation in the Middle East like Iraq to be on good terms with the West?

Our enemies needed to know that we wouldn't be afraid to take action, so perhaps Iraq was a symbolic act more than anything else. Sure the links to Al Queda were highly questionable and yes no WMD's were found but if you can take a step back from those two issues, was it really such a terrible mistake after all? Time will ultimately tell of course.

It certainly was a disingenuous mistake. If you compare the first and second Gulf Wars you will see a stark contrast on the right and wrong ways to start a war. Bush1 managed to get broad international support which served to give the U.S. ethical credibility to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Conversely, Dubya basically went in and tried to pick a fight with Saddam by manipulating the facts to suggest Iraq was building WMDs. The world didn't buy it and it resulted in a variety of 2nd and 3rd tier effects including a loss of political and diplomatic credibility for the U.S. (not to mention thousands dead).

To compound things, Dubya didn't have a credible strategy on what to do after Saddam was ousted. These actions have nothing to do with the Freedom of Iraqis, but are rather a result of a an amateurish vision of foreign policy - particuarly in light of the fact that Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda (unless of course you count the fact that the U.S invation opened the floodgates for them to operate inside Iraq, when they were previously not doing so).

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

It certainly was a disingenuous mistake. If you compare the first and second Gulf Wars you will see a stark contrast on the right and wrong ways to start a war. Bush1 managed to get broad international support which served to give the U.S. ethical credibility to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Conversely, Dubya basically went in and tried to pick a fight with Saddam by manipulating the facts to suggest Iraq was building WMDs. The world didn't buy it and it resulted in a variety of 2nd and 3rd tier effects including a loss of political and diplomatic credibility for the U.S. (not to mention thousands dead).

To compound things, Dubya didn't have a credible strategy on what to do after Saddam was ousted. These actions have nothing to do with the Freedom of Iraqis, but are rather a result of a an amateurish vision of foreign policy - particuarly in light of the fact that Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda (unless of course you count the fact that the U.S invation opened the floodgates for them to operate inside Iraq, when they were previously not doing so).

All the members on the UN Security Council at the time agreed that Iraq had WMD and that wasn't just based on the evidence provided by the US, their own intelligence was pointing towards WMD as well.

China and Russia were always going to veto any resolution which supported the idea of an invasion and getting the Europeans to show some backbone is virtually impossible as we saw in the last century.

How would you have tried to build more international support for the mission?

I still find it a bit odd that no WMD were found and it begs the question, why didn't Saddam allow the inspectors to do their job properly and let them prove there were no WMD?

He obviously didn't want to show weakness but he got it horribly wrong in the end (lets hope Levy doesn't make a similar error and eventually lets us have Berbs).

Agreed about the lack of a post-war plan, that has always been the achilles heal but the blame for that can't all be layed at Bush's door.

 

[Raoul]

All the members on the UN Security Council at the time agreed that Iraq had WMD and that wasn't just based on the evidence provided by the US, their own intelligence was pointing towards WMD as well.

China and Russia were always going to veto any resolution which supported the idea of an invasion and getting the Europeans to show some backbone is virtually impossible as we saw in the last century.

How would you have tried to build more international support for the mission?

I still find it a bit odd that no WMD were found and it begs the question, why didn't Saddam allow the inspectors to do their job properly and let them prove there were no WMD?

He obviously didn't want to show weakness but he got it horribly wrong in the end (lets hope Levy doesn't make a similar error and eventually lets us have Berbs).

Agreed about the lack of a post-war plan, that has always been the achilles heal but the blame for that can't all be layed at Bush's door.

1. What other countries thought regading WMDs is not really relevant to the debate since in the end, the US went it alone. Had there been a hint of legitimate evidence that Iraq had WMDs, you would've seen a broad coalition of support to invade. But all you had is Colin Powell going before the UN and delivering information that has since been discredited.

2. How would I have gathered international support for the mission? That's easy - i would've have invaded. I would've kept up the pressure in Afghanistan, which as we've seen over the past 2 years, would've kept the current Taliban resurgence from occuring.

3. Why was Saddam playing a cat and mouse game with the inspectors? Because as you said, he didn't want to be perceived as not having absolute power to his own people as well as the greater region - particularly after the Iran/Iraq war, Gulf War 1, and the sanctions of the 90s. It was his way of projecting power - albeit naively.

I was in Afghanistan during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and have been in Iraq for 30 of the past 36 months. The Bush adminstration's actions on this entire affair simply dont add up for me.

 

[Sultan]

Oh, I'm not saying we invaded Iraq purely for humanitarian reasons, far from it in fact.

But is it really such a bad thing to want a major nation in the Middle East like Iraq to be on good terms with the West?

Our enemies needed to know that we wouldn't be afraid to take action, so perhaps Iraq was a symbolic act more than anything else. Sure the links to Al Queda were highly questionable and yes no WMD's were found but if you can take a step back from those two issues, was it really such a terrible mistake after all? Time will ultimately tell of course.

You must be insane if you can trade what might happen in the future with the present. Remember more than half a million Iraqis deaths, and around 5000 US deaths. Women and young girls forced to resort to prostitution in order to survive. I don't even have figures on how many Iraqis, or coalition soldiers have been wounded or maimed, and how many Millions of refugees the invasion has created, both internal and external.

Worse still, the nation is now rife with religious sectarian warfare, and what's now one of the biggest training ground for terrorism.

Future might be better eh?

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

1. What other countries thought regading WMDs is not really relevant to the debate since in the end, the US went it alone. Had there been a hint of legitimate evidence that Iraq had WMDs, you would've seen a broad coalition of support to invade. But all you had is Colin Powell going before the UN and delivering information that has since been discredited.

But why agree with the US that Iraq did have WMD, why not just say you didn't agree with them? Especially Russia and China, what possible reason would they have for agreeing with the US interpretation? Its a bit odd, thats all.

2. How would I have gathered international support for the mission? That's easy - i would've have invaded. I would've kept up the pressure in Afghanistan, which as we've seen over the past 2 years, would've kept the current Taliban resurgence from occuring.

I presume you made a typo and meant ''wouldn't''. I believe there would have been similar problems as we experienced in Iraq if we'd concentrated solely on Afghanistan. Surely eventually the same terrorists that flocked to Iraq would have ended up in the tribal areas of Pakistan anyway.

And I think there is an argument that focusing all our resources on Afghanistan could have created an even greater problem than Iraq has. It would have further de-stabilised Pakistan and we shouldn't forget that nation really does have WMD.

History shows us that its far easier to conquer/control Iraq than it is Afghanistan. Of course there is still a hell of a long way to go in Iraq but there is some cause for optimism and if we could help turn Iraq into a functioning democracy, that in itself would be of far greater significance than anything we could achieve in Afghanistan.

3. Why was Saddam playing a cat and mouse game with the inspectors? Because as you said, he didn't want to be perceived as not having absolute power to his own people as well as the greater region - particularly after the Iran/Iraq war, Gulf War 1, and the sanctions of the 90s. It was his way of projecting power - albeit naively.

I was in Afghanistan during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and have been in Iraq for 30 of the past 36 months. The Bush adminstration's actions on this entire affair simply dont add up for me.

Having lived in Afghanistan you must be aware of how difficult it would be to turn the country into a functioning democracy.

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

You must be insane if you can trade what might happen in the future with the present. Remember more than half a million Iraqi deaths, and around 5000 US deaths. Women and young girls forced to resort to prostitution in order to survive. I don't even have figures on how many Iraqis, or coalition soldiers have been wounded or maimed, and how many Millions of refugees the invasion has created, both internal and external.

Worse still, the nation is now rife with religious sectarian warfare, and what's now one of the biggest training ground for terrorism.

Future might be better eh?

I'm not sure if its reached your part of the world yet but there have been significant improvements in Iraq over the past year or so.

Iraqi and American officials estimate the death toll to be around 150,000, still an horrific number but you shoudn't exaggerate the figure to boost your argument.

Yeah, I think the future will be better, much better in fact. I do unfortunately get the feeling that some people on the far left hope that the situation gets worse so that the Americans would be forced to pull out. I wonder what they think would happen if the Americans did pull out? You could probably double that death count of yours for starters.

 

[Cali Red]

Now to get this back to an election thread, Biden in for Veep on the Dems ticket. I'm thinking Romney will be the guy for the Repubs. I'm also not a person who thinks the Veep really makes much of an impact on the ticket. Both seem to give each a bit of a quandry. Biden is a long long time politician and kind of goes against what Obama has been preaching. And I think Romney has differences with McCain lining up with his base.

 

[ooeat0meoo]

Oh, I'm not saying we invaded Iraq purely for humanitarian reasons, far from it in fact.

But is it really such a bad thing to want a major nation in the Middle East like Iraq to be on good terms with the West?

Our enemies needed to know that we wouldn't be afraid to take action, so perhaps Iraq was a symbolic act more than anything else. Sure the links to Al Queda were highly questionable and yes no WMD's were found but if you can take a step back from those two issues, was it really such a terrible mistake after all? Time will ultimately tell of course.

Oh, so apart from:


1. Abu Ghraib

2. Reports of violence escalating to the point that it had been 2 years ago.

3. and after how many years of, how many rediculous sounding 'Operations' we find ourselves at a place of 'Operation Clear, Secure, & Rebuild' as reported by Fareed Zakaree of Newsweek/Washington Post.... in a feature article 4 weeks ago.


Let's define these three terms;

Clear - Kill everything and anything that appears or sounds un-American.

Secure - Kill more of everything that appears or sounds un-American

Rebuild - Be sure to include a Dominos Pizza, Starbucks Coffee Shop, and a Wal-Mart.


If anyone opposes to the latter of the three, repeat.


In which way is this 'to want a major nation in the Middle East like Iraq to be on good terms with the West?'?



Come'on Raoul, you know damn well I couldn't leave this one alone.


In no way shape or form will there be goodwill left behind after 100 years of reshaping Iraq.



______________________________________

One more point:


If the USA had to prove that it was a 'Bad-ass', Afghanistan would have sufficed.

 

[Alex]

Oh, so apart from:


1. Abu Ghraib

2. Reports of violence escalating to the point that it had been 2 years ago.

3. and after how many years of, how many rediculous sounding 'Operations' we find ourselves at a place of 'Operation Clear, Secure, & Rebuild' as reported by Fareed Zakaree of Newsweek/Washington Post.... in a feature article 4 weeks ago.


Let's define these three terms;

Clear - Kill everything and anything that appears or sounds un-American.

Secure - Kill more of everything that appears or sounds un-American

Rebuild - Be sure to include a Dominos Pizza, Starbucks Coffee Shop, and a Wal-Mart.


If anyone opposes to the latter of the three, repeat.


In which way is this 'to want a major nation in the Middle East like Iraq to be on good terms with the West?'?



Come'on Raoul, you know damn well I couldn't leave this one alone.


In no way shape or form will there be goodwill left behind after 100 years of reshaping Iraq.



______________________________________

One more point:


If the USA had to prove that it was a 'Bad-ass', Afghanistan would have sufficed.

Quite the opposite shall happen imo

 

[ooeat0meoo]

Now to get this back to an election thread, Biden in for Veep on the Dems ticket. I'm thinking Romney will be the guy for the Repubs. I'm also not a person who thinks the Veep really makes much of an impact on the ticket. Both seem to give each a bit of a quandry. Biden is a long long time politician and kind of goes against what Obama has been preaching. And I think Romney has differences with McCain lining up with his base.

Jesus 'feckin' Christ... are you joking, REALLY, Romney?


You are clueless, he made such a blundering fool of himself.

If you want someone that would represent the Republicans well... former Sen. John Warner of Virginia would probably be their best option.


*you heard it here first.

http://warner.senate.gov/public/

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

Oh, so apart from:


1. Abu Ghraib

2. Reports of violence escalating to the point that it had been 2 years ago.

3. and after how many years of, how many rediculous sounding 'Operations' we find ourselves at a place of 'Operation Clear, Secure, & Rebuild' as reported by Fareed Zakaree of Newsweek/Washington Post.... in a feature article 4 weeks ago.


Let's define these three terms;

Clear - Kill everything and anything that appears or sounds un-American.

Secure - Kill more of everything that appears or sounds un-American

Rebuild - Be sure to include a Dominos Pizza, Starbucks Coffee Shop, and a Wal-Mart.


If anyone opposes to the latter of the three, repeat.


In which way is this 'to want a major nation in the Middle East like Iraq to be on good terms with the West?'?



Come'on Raoul, you know damn well I couldn't leave this one alone.


In no way shape or form will there be goodwill left behind after 100 years of reshaping Iraq.



______________________________________

One more point:


If the USA had to prove that it was a 'Bad-ass', Afghanistan would have sufficed.

Like I said in my last post, unfortunatley there are some people on the far left who I suspect wish for the situation in Iraq to deteriorate so that the Americans are forced into an embarrassing retreat.

Hello loony numero uno.

 

[ooeat0meoo]

Like I said in my last post, unfortunatley there are some people on the far left who I suspect wish for the situation in Iraq to deteriorate so that the Americans are forced into an embarrassing retreat.

Hello loony numero uno.

Nobody needs to wish Iraq was a bad situation, is a bad situation, and is still headed in a frightening direction...

It just is...

My intentions are not that power... asshole.


Raoul can tell you, your neo-con-speak doesn't work on me.

 

[Alex]

Nobody needs to wish Iraq was a bad situation, is a bad situation, and is still headed in a frightening direction...

It just is...

My intentions are not that power... asshole.


Raoul can tell you, your neo-con-speak doesn't work on me.

to where exactly

 

[surf]

William Hill has Obama at 2/5 and McCain at 7/4. Is Obama really a clear favourite at this point?

 

[Sultan]

Like I said in my last post, unfortunatley there are some people on the far left who I suspect wish for the situation in Iraq to deteriorate so that the Americans are forced into an embarrassing retreat.

Hello loony numero uno.

...and wish further misery on Iraqis'?

The US, due to Bush, and his advisers have humiliated the nation enough without the help of the left.

 

[ooeat0meoo]

Family time...

Sorry I have to leave this joyous Sunday picnic chat...

Hope to see you all soon

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

...and wish further misery on Iraqis'?

The US, due to Bush, and his advisers have humiliated the nation enough without the help of the left.

But at least now there is some hope for a brighter future, under Saddam there was none.

You do realise that if the Americans hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam* would still be in power to this very day don't you?

*He wasn't a very nice bloke btw and was known to indulge in torturing and murdering thousands of his own people every year.

 

[Alex]

But at least now there is some hope for a brighter future, under Saddam there was none.

You do realise that if the Americans hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam* would still be in power to this very day don't you?

*He wasn't a very nice bloke btw and was known to indulge in torturing and murdering thousands of his own people every year.

Yeah I remember a month or two ago on here someone saying that the US should invade one of the African countries because genocide was going on there, I almost spit my beerb out on the computer

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

William Hill has Obama at 2/5 and McCain at 7/4. Is Obama really a clear favourite at this point?

Strongly fancied I would say, rather than a clear favourite.

I just hope that the good folk of the United States of America stick to their guns (sorry) and go for a big Mac (again sorry, I shall get my coat).

 

[Alex]

I am voting for McCain soley based on the that he is a Mc

 

[Sultan]

But at least now there is some hope for a brighter future, under Saddam there was none.

You do realise that if the Americans hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam* would still be in power to this very day don't you?

*He wasn't a very nice bloke btw and was known to indulge in torturing and murdering thousands of his own people every year.

On them basis, there are a number of other countries which need invading.

Have you recently looked at international law regards invading sovereign countries for regime change? For your information it's a crime.

 

[Cali Red]

Jesus 'feckin' Christ... are you joking, REALLY, Romney?


You are clueless, he made such a blundering fool of himself.

If you want someone that would represent the Republicans well... former Sen. John Warner of Virginia would probably be their best option.


*you heard it here first.

http://warner.senate.gov/public/

Holy shit, get the feck over yourself. I said that's who I thought it would be, nothing more. Never said it's what I want and as I said before, I could fecking care less. The Veep doesn't matter. Why don't you relax, have a beer or glass of wine or whatever else will calm you down.

 

[Alex]

On them basis, there are a number of other countries which need invading.

Have you recently looked at international law regards invading sovereign countries for regime change? For your information it's a crime.

Who's gonna try us, the UN, Nato?

 

[Cali Red]

Who's gonna try us, the UN, Nato?

Well they are showing their teeth against Russia.

[NATO]Get out or else we'll have more meetings then tell you to get out again.[/NATO]

 

[Alex]

Well they are showing their teeth against Russia.

[NATO]Get out or else we'll have more meetings then tell you to get out again.[/NATO]

NATO out

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

On them basis, there are a number of other countries which need invading.

Have you recently looked at international law regards invading sovereign countries for regime change? For your information it's a crime.

You must have been furious at Russia's intervention in Georgia then?

A quick glance through that thread tells me you weren't up in arms over that conflict, now I wonder why that might be....

Lucky the US and Nato decided to pop into Bosnia, eh?

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

NATO out

How dare you!!!

Nato stated very bravely that they were ''very concerned'' by what was going on in Georgia.

 

[RedPhil1957]

No, I am saying that the media is mixed with both liberal perspective and extremely conservative perspective... the facts have resulted in motivating a public that has voted for 28 years of radically neo-conservitive/pro-corporate executive branch presidencies.


The result has been...

1. Two of the longest running wars in US history for Oil.

2. Due to deregulation of the corporate powers, millions of people are homeless due to the mortgage crisis.

3. The messure of earnings between the top 5% and those bellow, in the past 28 years have left many more millions without a living wage.

4. Do I, really, need to mention 'Healthcare'?

Cali Red... I am a well read individual. You don't want to challenge me. (Fair warning)




You might be well read but you do seem to have aquired some incorrect information, just thought I would point it out.

 

[Alex]

No, I am saying that the media is mixed with both liberal perspective and extremely conservative perspective... the facts have resulted in motivating a public that has voted for 28 years of radically neo-conservitive/pro-corporate executive branch presidencies.


The result has been...

1. Two of the longest running wars in US history for Oil.

2. Due to deregulation of the corporate powers, millions of people are homeless due to the mortgage crisis.

3. The messure of earnings between the top 5% and those bellow, in the past 28 years have left many more millions without a living wage.

4. Do I, really, need to mention 'Healthcare'?

Cali Red... I am a well read individual. You don't want to challenge me. (Fair warning)




You might be well read but you do seem to have aquired some incorrect information, just thought I would point it out.

I can tell you this healthcare would be 100% fine if we didnt have 15 million illegal aliens, they are bleeding the system because they are getting the best treatment for free

Fine for those who care to actually work for a living as opposed to being an alcoholic or drug addicts

 

[ooeat0meoo]

No, I am saying that the media is mixed with both liberal perspective and extremely conservative perspective... the facts have resulted in motivating a public that has voted for 28 years of radically neo-conservitive/pro-corporate executive branch presidencies.


The result has been...

1. Two of the longest running wars in US history for Oil.

2. Due to deregulation of the corporate powers, millions of people are homeless due to the mortgage crisis.

3. The messure of earnings between the top 5% and those bellow, in the past 28 years have left many more millions without a living wage.

4. Do I, really, need to mention 'Healthcare'?

Cali Red... I am a well read individual. You don't want to challenge me. (Fair warning)




You might be well read but you do seem to have aquired some incorrect information, just thought I would point it out.

For example... ?

 

[Alex]

No, I am saying that the media is mixed with both liberal perspective and extremely conservative perspective... the facts have resulted in motivating a public that has voted for 28 years of radically neo-conservitive/pro-corporate executive branch presidencies.


The result has been...

1. Two of the longest running wars in US history for Oil.

2. Due to deregulation of the corporate powers, millions of people are homeless due to the mortgage crisis.

3. The messure of earnings between the top 5% and those bellow, in the past 28 years have left many more millions without a living wage.

4. Do I, really, need to mention 'Healthcare'?

Cali Red... I am a well read individual. You don't want to challenge me. (Fair warning)




You might be well read but you do seem to have aquired some incorrect information, just thought I would point it out.

 

[Raoul]

Having lived in Afghanistan you must be aware of how difficult it would be to turn the country into a functioning democracy.

Yes it is a challenge given their history, but there are other issues to be tackled in Afghanistan - namely dealing with the Taliban and going after Al-Qaeda elements across the Pakistani border.

 

[Nistelrooy10]

Lets allow Iraqis who lived through the ''occupation'' to give their verdict as to whether it was the right or wrong thing to do, in 20-30 years time.

I think people will be surprised by what they say, let us not forget an individual by the name of Saddam Hussein was removed from power. At least now there is some hope for the ordinary Iraqi, five and a half years ago there was none.

Oh, I'm not saying we invaded Iraq purely for humanitarian reasons, far from it in fact.

But is it really such a bad thing to want a major nation in the Middle East like Iraq to be on good terms with the West?

Our enemies needed to know that we wouldn't be afraid to take action, so perhaps Iraq was a symbolic act more than anything else. Sure the links to Al Queda were highly questionable and yes no WMD's were found but if you can take a step back from those two issues, was it really such a terrible mistake after all? Time will ultimately tell of course.

All the members on the UN Security Council at the time agreed that Iraq had WMD and that wasn't just based on the evidence provided by the US, their own intelligence was pointing towards WMD as well.

China and Russia were always going to veto any resolution which supported the idea of an invasion and getting the Europeans to show some backbone is virtually impossible as we saw in the last century.

How would you have tried to build more international support for the mission?

I still find it a bit odd that no WMD were found and it begs the question, why didn't Saddam allow the inspectors to do their job properly and let them prove there were no WMD?

He obviously didn't want to show weakness but he got it horribly wrong in the end (lets hope Levy doesn't make a similar error and eventually lets us have Berbs).

Agreed about the lack of a post-war plan, that has always been the achilles heal but the blame for that can't all be layed at Bush's door.

I'm not sure if its reached your part of the world yet but there have been significant improvements in Iraq over the past year or so.

Iraqi and American officials estimate the death toll to be around 150,000, still an horrific number but you shoudn't exaggerate the figure to boost your argument.

Yeah, I think the future will be better, much better in fact. I do unfortunately get the feeling that some people on the far left hope that the situation gets worse so that the Americans would be forced to pull out. I wonder what they think would happen if the Americans did pull out? You could probably double that death count of yours for starters.

You really are clueless on some many levels, I dont even know where to start.So I won't even give you the honor of answering your shower of shit point by point.

Life is better for an ordinary Iraqi? In what way is that? If I was an ordinary Iraqi, my life under Saddam would have been much better than it is today. I wouldn't have to worry about getting blown to bits when I go to a freaking supermarket or get my family together for a bloody wedding. Besides, invading Iraq is one thing, occupying it is another. An occupation is never right, how can you say lets wait 30 years? That's the height of the lunacy if I ever saw one

And don't even bring Bosnia into this, you don't know what you're talking about

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

You really are clueless on some many levels, I dont even know where to start.So I won't even give you the honor of answering your shower of shit point by point.

Life is better for an ordinary Iraqi? In what way is that? If I was an ordinary Iraqi, my life under Saddam would have been much better than it is today. I wouldn't have to worry about getting blown to bits when I go to a freaking supermarket or get my family together for a bloody wedding. Besides, invading Iraq is one thing, occupying it is another. An occupation is never right, how can you say lets wait 30 years? That's the height of the lunacy if I ever saw one

And don't even bring Bosnia into this, you don't know what you're talking about

The Bosnian intervention is relevant, it saved a lot of muslim lives remember?

Life has got better for the ordinary Iraqi in the past year or so. If you haven't been able to work this out there is probably little point in continuing the discussion. Or have you choosen to ignore the good news because it doesn't fit into your narrow minded opinion.

Regarding what life would be like under Saddam if he was still in power, did you experience what it was like under Saddam?

History will judge whether the Iraqi conflict was a good idea or not, that's why you need to wait 30 years to let the current situation take its place in history.

 

[p_ps_sock]

The Bosnian intervention is relevant, it saved a lot of muslim lives remember?

Life has got better for the ordinary Iraqi in the past year or so. If you haven't been able to work this out there is probably little point in continuing the discussion. Or have you choosen to ignore the good news because it doesn't fit into your narrow minded opinion.

pot meet kettle

Regarding what life would be like under Saddam if he was still in power, did you experience what it was like under Saddam?

did you? Why don't you give us details on what life was like under Saddam, particularly during the period the US supported Saddam, remember, before he got too big for his boots and didn't do what he was told anymore

History will judge whether the Iraqi conflict was a good idea or not, that's why you need to wait 30 years to let the current situation take its place in history.

or at least long enough for cali red to say Bush is a great president along with the likes of nixon, eh?

seriously though, you can't wash over a disaster in the making by saying to have to wait 30 years to judge it, it can and is being judged now as the disaster it is.

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

or at least long enough for cali red to say Bush is a great president along with the likes of nixon, eh?

seriously though, you can't wash over a disaster in the making by saying to have to wait 30 years to judge it, it can and is being judged now as the disaster it is.

Again I hate to break it to you lefties, but major improvements have been made in Iraq over the past year, perhaps enough significant progress to suggest that there could be a happyish ending to all of this.

Have you noticed that the BBC have pretty much stopped reporting on Iraq and the Mirror newspaper have ended their weekly Iraqi death toll? Now why do you think that could be?

 

[WeWonItTwoTimes]

did you? Why don't you give us details on what life was like under Saddam, particularly during the period the US supported Saddam, remember, before he got too big for his boots and didn't do what he was told anymore

No I didn't, but there have been countless verdicts delivered by people who did. Please tell me you're not trying to suggest that life under Saddam was anything other than horrific are you? At the very least you must be pleased to have seen the back of him?

Regarding the US support of Saddam, they provided under 1% of the arms sold/donated to the Iraqis in the Iran/Iraq war. So pretty minimal support I would say.