US say they need more time to look for weapons of mass destruction.
- Thread starter Gen76
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
what els is there to say.
alot really
they have found what could be pertential sites and mobile sites and there bieng verified also thers a suspicion that theres underground sites and cave networks that makes it very hard to find.
along side this im guessing (and i could be wrong) that your saying that the war wasnt justified.. when yesterday there were reports of 2 mass graves found hundreds of thousands or people women, children torchered, murdered by saddam and his regieme
this is ONLY what has been found sofar, and the sceans of jubilation as the dictator fled and the people had a voice. i think for the US and its now obviously selfish reasons for the war somthing very good has come out of it for iraq and its people.
they have found what could be pertential sites and mobile sites and there bieng verified also thers a suspicion that theres underground sites and cave networks that makes it very hard to find.
along side this im guessing (and i could be wrong) that your saying that the war wasnt justified.. when yesterday there were reports of 2 mass graves found hundreds of thousands or people women, children torchered, murdered by saddam and his regieme
this is ONLY what has been found sofar, and the sceans of jubilation as the dictator fled and the people had a voice. i think for the US and its now obviously selfish reasons for the war somthing very good has come out of it for iraq and its people.
sure he was a prick, but if the US hadnt pulled out the first time those mass graves wouldnt have been there.
As for what they have or havent found, the US gov cant be trusted in anything they say they prove this over and over again.History will show like it has done in the past, i doubt anyting has change in that regard.
As for what they have or havent found, the US gov cant be trusted in anything they say they prove this over and over again.History will show like it has done in the past, i doubt anyting has change in that regard.
gen m8, the us pulled out along with all the other countries which were involved. because they achieved their objectives.
i agree the UN should have thought better about this but my point is don't blame the us solely for this. all other un members also pulled back.
what evidence do you have of this?
i agree the UN should have thought better about this but my point is don't blame the us solely for this. all other un members also pulled back.
what evidence do you have of this?
only one of the pits was a mass grave from the uprising in 91 and yes that was due to the the coalition pulling out and leaving them
but there are masses of graves m8 that date before the 91 war fs
and what you on about what the US said the US have tryed to have as little to do with the mass gave business as possabel the qicker they can sweep it away the quicker the questions about them forcing the pull out in 91 will go away .. the internation comunity is trying to get the US military to secure the sites so that evidence can be gatherd but as it stands there not doing that ...
so whats not to belive
but there are masses of graves m8 that date before the 91 war fs
and what you on about what the US said the US have tryed to have as little to do with the mass gave business as possabel the qicker they can sweep it away the quicker the questions about them forcing the pull out in 91 will go away .. the internation comunity is trying to get the US military to secure the sites so that evidence can be gatherd but as it stands there not doing that ...
so whats not to belive
Propain its common knowledge, i can beleave u missed it during the media coverage of the recent war.
I know Rich, doesnt mean the US`s motives arent dodgy and ilegal.the US gov. are some propper evil bastards and no PR in the world will change that.Its all in the history books.The US doesnt care about iraqi victims, it only care about itself.They r a buncha liars and proove this over and over again, i shouldnt even have to write this.
Fs now u made me rant and i wasnt going to.What proof do u need of how evil the US gov. is, was and prolly will b?
edit: sometimes i think theres hope other times i just wanna carpetbomb the whole friggin capitol.
I didnt just read an article about us politics u know.
I know Rich, doesnt mean the US`s motives arent dodgy and ilegal.the US gov. are some propper evil bastards and no PR in the world will change that.Its all in the history books.The US doesnt care about iraqi victims, it only care about itself.They r a buncha liars and proove this over and over again, i shouldnt even have to write this.
Fs now u made me rant and i wasnt going to.What proof do u need of how evil the US gov. is, was and prolly will b?
edit: sometimes i think theres hope other times i just wanna carpetbomb the whole friggin capitol.
I didnt just read an article about us politics u know.
any of you fools still dont get it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,963994,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,963994,00.html
Or the British in Ireland and South Africa.
Or Germany under the Nazis.
Or the Spanish in South America.
Or the French in Indochina and North Africa.
Or the Italians in Abyssinia.
And so on and so forth. I don't think there is any country on earth, not least the European Nations who can stand up and honestly say that they or their people have not committed appalling crimes against humanity somewhere in their past. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that...
@Grizz - a very interesting article. Of course, it comes from the Guardian which has noted left-leaning sympathies and a pronounced anti-American stance. It was also riddled with communist insurgents and moles placed there by the Soviet Union with the express intention of aiding the destruction of Western Democracy. The Guardian is about as obvious in its prejudices and bias as the Daily Telegraph.
But lets not get too paranoid.
Although it makes one very valid point I suspect: Namely that the reason North Korea has not been attacked is because (a) the US does not have a significant military prescence already in the area and (b) North Korea has nuclear weapons and the missile technology to deliver them.
Last edited:
nether of you got thurs point did you
and the reprecusions of those acts are still with us today let us not forget,
nice to see a good well balanced artical in the gardian!!
and the reprecusions of those acts are still with us today let us not forget,
nice to see a good well balanced artical in the gardian!!
Last edited:
i was pretty sure i had brought up the fact that european imperialism has screwed up areas of the world a great deal, and arguably the entire world months ago 
. alas,
africa -> nuff said
middle east -> nuff said (look at iraq, whose borders were setup based on oil interests, not ethnic or social backgrounds)
now, not to point fingers, but yeah.
. alas,africa -> nuff said
middle east -> nuff said (look at iraq, whose borders were setup based on oil interests, not ethnic or social backgrounds)
now, not to point fingers, but yeah.
the "article" is a comment by a columnist not a report and it doesnt reflect the opinion of the newspaper, really... have u ever watches fox(us)??
as we all know comments r always baised
even though it is baised and may exaggerate some in my opinion it got many very valid points
it is supposed to provoke
@LR yeah u re right about the european imperialism but we admit it was wrong...
@Thur u re listing crimes that people committed to others... hope u arent saying "yeah let them do what they want because we re all guilty anyway"
as we all know comments r always baised
even though it is baised and may exaggerate some in my opinion it got many very valid points
it is supposed to provoke
@LR yeah u re right about the european imperialism but we admit it was wrong...
@Thur u re listing crimes that people committed to others... hope u arent saying "yeah let them do what they want because we re all guilty anyway"
Originally posted by Thuringwethil
@Grizz - a very interesting article. Of course, it comes from the Guardian which has noted left-leaning sympathies and a pronounced anti-American stance. It was also riddled with communist insurgents and moles placed there by the Soviet Union with the express intention of aiding the destruction of Western Democracy. The Guardian is about as obvious in its prejudices and bias as the Daily Telegraph.
insurgents and moles from the cold war! omg! do you think they are still there! god save us all!
then let it be a fair balance against your capitalist 'im all right so fuck everyone else' view then
of course many other nations have done horrific things in the past, but thankfully in many cases a social conscience has developed whereby such things are ideally not allowed to happen again. but as mentioned elsewhere, this clearly hasnt happened with the money grabbing cunts that head the american administration
iraq's borders were setup i believe in the 1920s by the british...
thats what? about 75 years of 'social conscience'?
and yeah, i can't defend the leaders of my countries, but i can't stand people who attack them like they're completely innocent
thats what? about 75 years of 'social conscience'?
and yeah, i can't defend the leaders of my countries, but i can't stand people who attack them like they're completely innocent
yeah the borders were set in 1920. But the main problem in irqq is imo that there are many many different ethnic groups and each of them have different have different interests.
the Kurds for instance want thier own country, they could easier economically keep the country up because of the oil. But if the Kurds have thier own independant state, Turkey will get trouble with the Turkish Kurds because they eager to join the Kurds state / want to build up the own country.
This was just a small example how difficult it is to make new borders.
One solution may be to split Iraq up and many many little countries. Then you will sooner or later have the problem the one of the big neighbour will (try) to annex one or even more of these lilttle countries by attacking them
Another solution may be to leave the borders how they are. the Conclusion: some Conflicht potential because the iraq stays a mixed culture
Summed up: setting borders in the middle east is my opinion a very difficult problem
the Kurds for instance want thier own country, they could easier economically keep the country up because of the oil. But if the Kurds have thier own independant state, Turkey will get trouble with the Turkish Kurds because they eager to join the Kurds state / want to build up the own country.
This was just a small example how difficult it is to make new borders.
One solution may be to split Iraq up and many many little countries. Then you will sooner or later have the problem the one of the big neighbour will (try) to annex one or even more of these lilttle countries by attacking them
Another solution may be to leave the borders how they are. the Conclusion: some Conflicht potential because the iraq stays a mixed culture
Summed up: setting borders in the middle east is my opinion a very difficult problem
People and Nations and political groups I think you'll find.
And no, my point was not to excuse America's recent actions, but rather to point out that many of those currently attempting to take the moral high ground either have a dirty past of their own, or have vested interests shaping their views.
Perhaps I should simply have left it at "Pots calling kettles black."
1. I've never denied that my world view is pro-capitalism and that I have little (read: no) faith in the practicality of the socialist system. That viewpoint has come about from personal experience and study of history both at school and university, where two major points keep standing out:
a. Socialist systems tend to collapse economically, sooner if not later, and
b. Socialist systems tend to centralise power, and thereby reduce political accountability and the rights & freedoms of the citizens.
2. If you're slating the Bush administation, then its odd that you are not slating the Clinton administation too, as there are plenty of illegal acts it got up to as well, and many of those were motivated by oil and the desire to keep petrol prices low in the USA.
Or perhaps you're slating Bush because he's a Republican, and not Clinton because he's a Democrat (and hence more acceptable to your world-view?
)
im sure you know who noam chomsky is thuring, being as smart as you are. he disagrees with your points 1a and 1b in several of his recorded lectures and im sure would suggest such systems have always failed because they have never been allowed to work. who prevented them from working? well im sure i dont need to point that out. but of course your history lessons will never have told you that, and why should you question otherwise...
of course you are welcome to suggest he is a liberal tosser but being a professor at M.I.T. you must concede a very well informed and intelligent one nevertheless....
i am slating both those administrations and many more prior to that as well....
of course you are welcome to suggest he is a liberal tosser but being a professor at M.I.T. you must concede a very well informed and intelligent one nevertheless....
i am slating both those administrations and many more prior to that as well....