Hostile wrote:

Metal Ian wrote:Without provocation?

Saddam Hussein had been a thorn in the UN's balls throughout the 1990s. It was the right thing to do to finally get in there and try to sort the place out once and for all.

Pulling out our troops? 156 dead, boo hoo hoo! It's hardly the Somme now is it? The First World War was far more pointless than the War in Iraq yet people are very reserved in their criticism of it.

Oh, Saddam never did shit to us and you know it. 156 dead troops isn't anything to laugh about either, when their deaths are fully in vain. It also seems like you're ignoring the larger slice of the pie, i.e. the 2.5% of the Iraqi population dead. I'm just gonna keep quoting that statistic until people realise how fucking grotesque it is.

Do you consider a full-blown civil war "sorted out"?

So Saddam didn't invade Kuwait?

156 troops is something to laugh about when you consider the number of people who died in far more pointless wars. 2.5% of the Iraqi population is nothing! It's not as if they are my kith and kin so why the fuck should I care?

Again, I don't give a shit about Iraq's 'civil war'. They'd probably be knocking seven shades out of each other even if had left them to get on with it.

YEAH!!!! THRASH TIL DEATH!!!!!!111111

thrash metal maniac wrote:

Metal Iain wrote:If Saddam had complied with UN Weapon Inspectors we wouldn't have been led to believe that Iraq did have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I remember the UN spent fucking ages in there checking everything, then they made a report, non?

Then you'd also remember the hard time they got in doing it. If Saddam had wanted to show the world he didn't possess Weapons of Mass Destruction he should have been more compliant. He blatantly did have Weapons of Mass Destruction in the early-to-mid 1990s so, by 1998, you have to wonder what he'd done with them.

Oh boy, where to start... okay first of all, have I seen proof that the Iraqi people don't want us in Iraq? Yeah I have, it's called insurgency. Or did you think that all the bombings were "al Qaida"'s work?

The majority of Iraqis had the basic necessities for a free and happy life before the war started. This is a fact which you can do little to deny. You don't need to tell me about the gassing of the Kurds, I know. Saddam was a brutal murderer. Doesn't change the fact that the majority of Iraqis were getting along just fine.

Before the war, there was very little theological separation in Iraq. Sunni's and Shiites lived together, inter-married and prayed at the same mosques. You'd know this if you'd ever read a blog from inside Iraq. So yeah, we made the civil war, and we exacerbate it with our presence every single day.

Your callousness about the body count only goes to show that you clearly don't give a fuck about the Iraqi people, and therefore your defence of the war as having removed their brutal dictator is completely worthless. Also, what the fuck is "hyper-liberal"? Some new dangerous strain of liberal I've yet to contract? If I'm hyper-liberal for opposing the war based on rationale, then doesn't that make you ultra-conservative for your irrational support of the war?

p.s. we do not live in Kuwait. FYI.

jonny_boy34 wrote:If only Bill Hicks was alive today...

Spinning in his fucking grave dude, seriously.

Metal Iain wrote:

thrash metal maniac wrote:

Metal Iain wrote:If Saddam had complied with UN Weapon Inspectors we wouldn't have been led to believe that Iraq did have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I remember the UN spent fucking ages in there checking everything, then they made a report, non?

Then you'd also remember the hard time they got in doing it. If Saddam had wanted to show the world he didn't possess Weapons of Mass Destruction he should have been more compliant. He blatantly did have Weapons of Mass Destruction in the early-to-mid 1990s so, by 1998, you have to wonder what he'd done with them.

Sold them on e-bay no doubt.

Oh look, here comes Hull down the motorway in a car.

I can't wait to go on Question Time.

"I THINK WE SHUD BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!!!!1111"

*cheering*

Shugmaster wrote:

Metal Iain wrote:

thrash metal maniac wrote:

Metal Iain wrote:If Saddam had complied with UN Weapon Inspectors we wouldn't have been led to believe that Iraq did have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I remember the UN spent fucking ages in there checking everything, then they made a report, non?

Then you'd also remember the hard time they got in doing it. If Saddam had wanted to show the world he didn't possess Weapons of Mass Destruction he should have been more compliant. He blatantly did have Weapons of Mass Destruction in the early-to-mid 1990s so, by 1998, you have to wonder what he'd done with them.

Sold them on e-bay no doubt.

That made me chuckle indeed.

Shugmaster wrote:

Metal Iain wrote:

thrash metal maniac wrote:

Metal Iain wrote:If Saddam had complied with UN Weapon Inspectors we wouldn't have been led to believe that Iraq did have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I remember the UN spent fucking ages in there checking everything, then they made a report, non?

Then you'd also remember the hard time they got in doing it. If Saddam had wanted to show the world he didn't possess Weapons of Mass Destruction he should have been more compliant. He blatantly did have Weapons of Mass Destruction in the early-to-mid 1990s so, by 1998, you have to wonder what he'd done with them.

Sold them on e-bay no doubt.

to North Korea I bet

Hostile wrote:Oh boy, where to start... okay first of all, have I seen proof that the Iraqi people don't want us in Iraq? Yeah I have, it's called insurgency. Or did you think that all the bombings were "al Qaida"'s work?

Insurgency, by definition, implies a minority otherwise they'd be called revolutionaries.

Hostile wrote:The majority of Iraqis had the basic necessities for a free and happy life before the war started. This is a fact which you can do little to deny. You don't need to tell me about the gassing of the Kurds, I know. Saddam was a brutal murderer. Doesn't change the fact that the majority of Iraqis were getting along just fine.

I can deny it. Show me the statistics.

To say that Iraq was basically a haven in the time between the Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf War, Nato bombing campaigns in 1993 and 1998 and 2003 is pretty laughable.

Hostile wrote:Before the war, there was very little theological separation in Iraq. Sunni's and Shiites lived together, inter-married and prayed at the same mosques. You'd know this if you'd ever read a blog from inside Iraq. So yeah, we made the civil war, and we exacerbate it with our presence every single day.

Again, evidence. Reading a blog doesn't count. I could write a blog about civil injustice in Glasgow and I'm sure some twat somewhere would take it at face value.

Hostile wrote:Your callousness about the body count only goes to show that you clearly don't give a fuck about the Iraqi people, and therefore your defence of the war as having removed their brutal dictator is completely worthless. Also, what the fuck is "hyper-liberal"? Some new dangerous strain of liberal I've yet to contract? If I'm hyper-liberal for opposing the war based on rationale, then doesn't that make you ultra-conservative for your irrational support of the war?

p.s. we do not live in Kuwait. FYI.

No, I don't give a fuck about the people in Iraq. Why should or would I? This is what I mean by 'hyper-liberalism'. You're going on and on about problems that don't concern you in any way, shape or form.

And no, we don't live in Kuwait but more Britons lived there than in the Falklands. Besides, we basically claimed the land after the Second World War.

thrash metal maniac wrote:

Shugmaster wrote:

Metal Iain wrote:

thrash metal maniac wrote:

Metal Iain wrote:If Saddam had complied with UN Weapon Inspectors we wouldn't have been led to believe that Iraq did have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I remember the UN spent fucking ages in there checking everything, then they made a report, non?

Then you'd also remember the hard time they got in doing it. If Saddam had wanted to show the world he didn't possess Weapons of Mass Destruction he should have been more compliant. He blatantly did have Weapons of Mass Destruction in the early-to-mid 1990s so, by 1998, you have to wonder what he'd done with them.

Sold them on e-bay no doubt.

to North Korea I bet

Americaaaa...Fuck Yeah!!!!

As a wise being once said, war affects us all.

Metal Iain wrote: 2.5% of the Iraqi population is nothing! It's not as if they are my kith and kin so why the fuck should I care?

right, you're obviously too up your own arse to have a serious debate about this. Anything you don't like the sound of you label and dismiss as 'hyper liberal'. Comparing the Iraq war to the Somme in order to justifiy it is the most ridiculous argument i've ever heard. It's like condoning genocide in the Sudan just because a bigger one happened in Germany.

Weapons inspectors went inside Iraq and checked everything and were satisfied that Saddam had no weapons. Thats why the UN didn't support the war. All the facts and realities are staring you in the face but you're dismissing them because you don't like hippies basically.

I mean come on Iain you hardly have to be a 'hyper liberal' to see that the war was unjustified, that thousands of people have been killed (although you dont care about that) and that the middle east is now a much more volatile and unstable place because of the war.

boovidge wrote:Weapons inspectors went inside Iraq and checked everything and were satisfied that Saddam had no weapons. Thats why the UN didn't support the war. All the facts and realities are staring you in the face but you're dismissing them because you don't like hippies basically.

I mean come on Iain you hardly have to be a 'hyper liberal' to see that the war was unjustified, that thousands of people have been killed (although you dont care about that) and that the middle east is now a much more volatile and unstable place because of the war.

/thread

boovidge wrote:

Metal Iain wrote: 2.5% of the Iraqi population is nothing! It's not as if they are my kith and kin so why the fuck should I care?

right, you're obviously too up your own arse to have a serious debate about this. Anything you don't like the sound of you label and dismiss as 'hyper liberal'. Comparing the Iraq war to the Somme in order to justifiy it is the most ridiculous argument i've ever heard. It's like condoning genocide in the Sudan just because a bigger one happened in Germany.

No, what I said was basically along the lines of 'who cares if 156 of our soldiers have died in Iraq; hundreds of thousands died in the Somme and that was part of a far more pointless war.' In my opinion, 156 British casualties is hardly worth a second thought and I really don't care about how many Iraqis die because I have no right to care about them. Why do you care about them? If you care that much you should watch Rambo II and III, stop talking and get in there!

And, I assume you refer to the Jewish Genocide, the bulk of which happened in Poland btw.

boovidge wrote:[Weapons inspectors went inside Iraq and checked everything and were satisfied that Saddam had no weapons. Thats why the UN didn't support the war. All the facts and realities are staring you in the face but you're dismissing them because you don't like hippies basically.

The UN did support the war by passing a resolution, but only after The US et al took the initiative.

boovidge wrote: I mean come on Iain you hardly have to be a 'hyper liberal' to see that the war was unjustified, that thousands of people have been killed (although you dont care about that) and that the middle east is now a much more volatile and unstable place because of the war.

The war wasn't justified on the grounds it was initiated on. However, we now know those grounds were fabricated anyway. To be honest, I don't care if the war was unjustified. Again, we have fought far more pointless wars. Hell, we went into our most bloody war, in terms of troops, just because Germany moved its troops through fucking Belgium. I'm not losing any sleep about it.

The Middle East is more volatile now than before the war? So the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian embassy siege, the 6 Days War and all of Turkey's shenanigans in the First World War don't strike you as more volatile than a bunch of idiots blowing up internet cafes in Baghdad?