Private Military Companies

[EwfrGomulee]

Hello,

I'd like to talk about Private Military Companies or Mercenarys as most people like to call them and the people working for them.

I hear that the UK and America want to pull a lot of troops out of the Middle east in the hope that there will be less people with guns there to scare the population.

If the UK and America DO leave the Middle east it will be up to Private Military Companies to pretty much take over.
Not take over take over but to then become the occupying force.
Mercenarys get a standard pay of about $/£60.000 per annum... and that's grunt, lowest of the low pay.

These people are highly trained and extremely efficiant.
But allowing them to gain a foothold in places like the Middle east will start to lead to conflicts between them and the Citizens of which ever country they are in.

They get into trouble with British and US troops, they are constantly outnumbered when they come under fire and usually use too much force to drive away their enemys.

Although I know a few Mercs' I do not think we should leave countrys open for them to just walk in and become the occupying force.

YES there will be a Government they will have to answer to but if they wanted they could pretty much run the place.

If you get something asking you if you think we should leave the Middle East... say NO!, we should stay and honour our committment.

[Mandez]

no thats just wrong, we need to pull out.

i take it you dont give a crap about our soldiers dying there?
who cares what happens to the middle-east its not our problem.
just the safety of our soldiers, we need to get them out of there.

[EwfrGomulee]

Our Soldiers signed up to the Army willingly, when they did so they told the Army, AirForce, Navy ect; that they would fight for Queen and Country and do as told by the British ruling Government.

You do NOT sign up to become a Soldier just because you want to fire a weapon for free on a firing range.

I care very much for our troops out in combat zones and I ALWAYS! stand and salute the fallen and even go as far as to have a minutes silence.
I find it extremely insulting to be told I do not care for our Soldiers, I have the utmost respect for Soldiers and will show my respect accordingly.

Also, when we invaded the Middle East to help them with the United States of America we promised them Security via our Military.
I feel we should stand by our promise to help these people, if we do not and just declare victory without actually winning anything we will lose the, already fragile, trust of pretty much all Middle Eastern and other countrys.

We will be seen as Trigger happy combat junkies.
We must remember that when we invaded we took out and scared many militia forces who dumped people down wells full of dead bodies, alive and let them die down there.

We have scared many Terrorist groups into what some of them would call ''Jihad''. This means we have them and CAN beat them if we try harder.
There is no point simply saying ''Al Qaeda'' is the one big Terrorist threat we have scared because ''Al Qaeda'' is so vast and has so many different sections and cells operating on such a large scale and under many different names Al Qaeda is simply the grand daddy name of them all.

Again, I DO care deeply for our and our allied troops who are getting killed or wounded but you must remember that Soldiers are Soldiers and they are Soldiers for a reason.
When they signed up for whatever section of the Military they went into they told the Military they would go to War if told to by the Military.

[Mandez]

yeah they joined the army for a reason,
but its like vietnam mate,
we arnt gona do much good over there now we're just gona keep getting attacked, we cant stop it either cause like i said in vietnam they had to pull out.

in their country you dont know who's the terrorists which is gona make it kinda impossible to win over there, all we are doing now is policing the place and every so often a soldier dies.

if we pull out it doesnt mean the soldiers are not doing their duties, its jsut that i dont think gordon brown and the queen are gona be very happy about their soldiers dying, i mean after all we have the best trained soldiers in the world,

the middle-east doesnt need us, the only reason they put these jihad's on us is because we invaded in the first place, if we pull out and just let them have their civil wars and let them get on with their lives eventually a government will appear, hopefully a capitalist one.

its stupid leaving our soldiers there to die, its a pointless war we will never win.

oh yeah and also i think the mercs should be out there, they sign up to being one, their life is more on the lines than a soldiers why dont they go out and take over the fighting.

[EwfrGomulee]

Unfortunately for us Gordon Brown is a complete ***... I am sorry but it must be said.

He was not elected. GET HIM OUT!

[Breakfloor]

ok, i have a few things to say. for the airforce, navy and army each troop has to sign a security/insurance contract to be shipped out. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO GO.

and we never promised the US security. we offered them our support. and if your one of those idiot civilians who salute the forces then you should be shot. you do not have the permission to salute ANYTHING. learn the rules of the military before you criticise us.

[Mandez]

lol yeah, your like a policeman you havent been to Iraq,
if you want to be able to say that type of stuff, join the army, get shipped out to iraq, then say if you'd rather be out there or not.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Soliders join up the armed forces to protect our country, in the Iraqi invasion, Iraq and Saddam posed no threat to anyone in the world therefore our soliders shouldn't be over there. If I was in the army before the war and I got told to go, i'd rather face prison than go to a country and kill innocent civiallians and bring down a safe and secure country and turn it into a hell hole.

[Jinc]

-:Undertaker:-, what does that have to do with the topic? Please don't try to turn this into a thread about the moralities of invading Iraq... yet another chance for you to make a BNP reference.

Anyway..
The growing Iraqi army actually out-numbers the number of US and British troops currently stationed in Iraq. You seem to have completely exaggerated what little fact you have..
The last major presence of 'Mercenaries' in Iraq was 2004. Private companies located in the major cities in Iraq wanted to protect thier employees, as it was feared that the presence of both US troops and extremists would put them in danger.
Although the extensive coverage of military operations in the media distorts the public's view of order in Iraq and Afghanistan, the governments have strengthened considerably recently. I am doubtful as to whether these 'mercenaries' can really cause a continuing problem in the country. They certainly will not be able to 'run the place' once our troops are gone.

[EwfrGomulee]

When I said ''run the place'' I did not quite mean literally.

Also to answer some other people who think showing Soldiers the respect they deserve.
Yes I AM a Civilian however most of my family have served Queen and Country.
For this reason I feel I SHOULD always greet Soldiers in a friendly manner and show them some respect.

After all, I'd rather be ''an ideot civilian who salutes soldiers'' than be some annoying little rodent child who thinks gangsters are cool. :)

There is no real estimate by any government or agencies when it comes to the number of private soldiers in the Middle East.
There are companies who are open about their operations and some we do not even know exist.

To add, I am NOT a Police Officer. I am, however training to become a Police Officer.
What I do as a Civilian is Voluntary Street Patrol, this does not include Police duties such as stop, search or arrests.
Simply a visual crime deterrant.

Back to the topic:
as I stated before, Saddam was actually putting people down wells full of dead rotting corpses and leaving them there to die.
Anyone who opposed him would suddenly dissapear.
I hate mindless killing as much as the next person but if highly trained officials beleive we are under threat then they have a duty to take action for the safety of the country.

You cannot blame people for a mistake, obviously there was a threat there otherwise we would not have decided to tody along with America.
Also, you're false. Only if you sign up for specific trades within the airforce, army and navy do you get a choice as you if you go out into combat however if you're called upon by your government to go into combat you WILL have to go.
Royal Military Police serve as frontline troops in Iraq
Royal Air Force Police Guard bases in Iraq with the possibility of being attacked.
Also, if you're not interested in the defence of your country when you join the Military, which ever trade you choose to go into, why join? what is the point?.

There is NO point in signing up for being in the Infantry and then stating that you're a Pacifist or against the war.
You signed the dotted line and now you have to obey your orders.
As for outright refusing to go? have you ever been courtmarshalled? have you spent time in a Military prison?

Military courtmarshall is not a leniant as Civilian court.
Oh and to those of you unable to come up with any argument other than ''YOU STOOPID'' please do not bother posting. It's a waste of my ADSL speed.

[Mandez]

yeah well anyway, after your 14 page essay on what you think,
i still think we should just bring them home, and im sure the majority of the country want them back aswell.
you talk as if you have been in the army and know what is going on over there,
but realistically your just a trainnee policeman dont pretend you know about the millitary,
your views are kinda strange, tbh id rather have some mercenaries out there dying for money and have our army back over here, yeah you join the army to go to war, but its stupid having an army getting killed for no reason, we can pull out of Iraq now, so we should and stop people dying.

[Jinc]

The last time conscription was used in Britain, men and women under the age of 21 were not allowed the vote. They had far fewer rights than people of the same age to today. It was this age group that was targetted for consciption back in WW2, so it's unlikely that the government would be so successful if they tried it again today.

[Mandez]

whats err conscription got to do with anything?

[Jinc]

Sorry, my post is a response to the one EwfrGomulee posted before yours. He mentioned it..

[Mandez]

oh ok then.

[Technologic]

I think if we ****** up the middle east we are kinda obliged to fix it...

[-:Undertaker:-]

-:Undertaker:-, what does that have to do with the topic? Please don't try to turn this into a thread about the moralities of invading Iraq... yet another chance for you to make a BNP reference.

Anyway..
The growing Iraqi army actually out-numbers the number of US and British troops currently stationed in Iraq. You seem to have completely exaggerated what little fact you have..
The last major presence of 'Mercenaries' in Iraq was 2004. Private companies located in the major cities in Iraq wanted to protect thier employees, as it was feared that the presence of both US troops and extremists would put them in danger.
Although the extensive coverage of military operations in the media distorts the public's view of order in Iraq and Afghanistan, the governments have strengthened considerably recently. I am doubtful as to whether these 'mercenaries' can really cause a continuing problem in the country. They certainly will not be able to 'run the place' once our troops are gone.

Yet another example of a person tricked into believing the BNP are racist, you go on their website and find me anythign racist on there please. The Iraqi Government is still incredibly weak and is held up by the Allies, Iraqis now have no water, not enough food and business is slowing down and terrorists have now made Iraq their home, the Iraqi Government has NO CONTROL.


When I said ''run the place'' I did not quite mean literally.

Also to answer some other people who think showing Soldiers the respect they deserve.
Yes I AM a Civilian however most of my family have served Queen and Country.
For this reason I feel I SHOULD always greet Soldiers in a friendly manner and show them some respect.

After all, I'd rather be ''an ideot civilian who salutes soldiers'' than be some annoying little rodent child who thinks gangsters are cool. :)

There is no real estimate by any government or agencies when it comes to the number of private soldiers in the Middle East.
There are companies who are open about their operations and some we do not even know exist.

To add, I am NOT a Police Officer. I am, however training to become a Police Officer.
What I do as a Civilian is Voluntary Street Patrol, this does not include Police duties such as stop, search or arrests.
Simply a visual crime deterrant.

Back to the topic:
as I stated before, Saddam was actually putting people down wells full of dead rotting corpses and leaving them there to die.
Anyone who opposed him would suddenly dissapear.
I hate mindless killing as much as the next person but if highly trained officials beleive we are under threat then they have a duty to take action for the safety of the country.

You cannot blame people for a mistake, obviously there was a threat there otherwise we would not have decided to tody along with America.
Also, you're false. Only if you sign up for specific trades within the airforce, army and navy do you get a choice as you if you go out into combat however if you're called upon by your government to go into combat you WILL have to go.
Royal Military Police serve as frontline troops in Iraq
Royal Air Force Police Guard bases in Iraq with the possibility of being attacked.
Also, if you're not interested in the defence of your country when you join the Military, which ever trade you choose to go into, why join? what is the point?.

There is NO point in signing up for being in the Infantry and then stating that you're a Pacifist or against the war.
You signed the dotted line and now you have to obey your orders.
As for outright refusing to go? have you ever been courtmarshalled? have you spent time in a Military prison?

Military courtmarshall is not a leniant as Civilian court.
Oh and to those of you unable to come up with any argument other than ''YOU STOOPID'' please do not bother posting. It's a waste of my ADSL speed.

I have never read about Saddam putting people down wells full of corpses so if you can find some evidence it would be nice. Even if he did, look at Iraq then and today, then they had water, food, western liberties, western clothes and security, now they have none of them. There WAS NO THREAT to us, Saddam posssed no Nuclear, Chemical or Biological weapons so you are talking complete CRAP there. If you watch Farenheit 9/11 a American Solider was talking Moore and he refused to go back to Iraq to kill innocent people, if people stood by their morals then we'd never have invaded Iraq.

[Jinc]

Yet another example of a person tricked into believing the BNP are racist, you go on their website and find me anythign racist on there please. The Iraqi Government is still incredibly weak and is held up by the Allies, Iraqis now have no water, not enough food and business is slowing down and terrorists have now made Iraq their home, the Iraqi Government has NO CONTROL.

I don't know if you're stupid or just plain arrogant.
Where in my post did I imply that I think the BNP are a racist party? Once again, you confront any mention of your support for the BNP by accusing people of thinking they're racist.

Also, why on earth would they post any content on the website which suggests they are a racist party? This thread isn't the place for me to state my views on the party, but whether they are racist or not, they arn't going to upload blatantly racist information on the website- its not exactly going to get them votes.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't know if you're stupid or just plain arrogant.
Where in my post did I imply that I think the BNP are a racist party? Once again, you confront any mention of your support for the BNP by accusing people of thinking they're racist.

Also, why on earth would they post any content on the website which suggests they are a racist party? This thread isn't the place for me to state my views on the party, but whether they are racist or not, they arn't going to upload blatantly racist information on the website- its not exactly going to get them votes.

If I mentioned the Conservative Party then you woudn't have said anything on my saying Conservative. Oh ok let's assume the BNP are racist :rolleyes:

[Frodo13.]

If I mentioned the Conservative Party then you woudn't have said anything on my saying Conservative. Oh ok let's assume the BNP are racist :rolleyes:

The BNP is racist. A undercover journalist once went to work for the BNP, and they would be tell its members not to say racist things in public, but would talk racist amongst themselves privatly.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The BNP is racist. A undercover journalist once went to work for the BNP, and they would be tell its members not to say racist things in public, but would talk racist amongst themselves privatly.


Depends what you class as racist, oviously they can't say certain things like 'Throw all non working immigrants out' on the news becaue they'd be taken to court by some moron.
If they were very racist then I suspect it would of been a supporters meeting.
I would support the BNP anyday over Labour who have lied to us for 10 years, it would be nice to see a new government not full of lies.

[Lycan]

Depends what you class as racist, oviously they can't say certain things like 'Throw all non working immigrants out' on the news becaue they'd be taken to court by some moron.
If they were very racist then I suspect it would of been a supporters meeting.
I would support the BNP anyday over Labour who have lied to us for 10 years, it would be nice to see a new government not full of lies.

No the Videos were of senior party members and organisers :)

I Back Labour 100% :)

[Jinc]

If I mentioned the Conservative Party then you woudn't have said anything on my saying Conservative. Oh ok let's assume the BNP are racist :rolleyes:

No Undertaker, the point is, you didn't mention any political party. You started to turn this into a thread about the moralities of invading Iraq in the first place. I told you about it, and you completely overblew the situation and accused me of implying that the BNP are a racist a party.

It seems whenever you get involved in controversial topics such as this one, that's where the conversation goes and the thead ends up getting closed.

It's already happened since you posted that reply.

[Virgin Mary]

I think I should be the ruler of Britain, I'd make it good because I didn't go to Eton or Oxford and I think politics are **** so I'm a normal person.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No the Videos were of senior party members and organisers :)

I Back Labour 100% :)

If you back Labour then you can't really blame me for supporting BNP. Do yuo back Labour after they invaded a innocent free country which posed no threat? Do you back Labour after crime rates have blown through the roof? Do you back Labour after throwing money at the NHS and hoping it will get better? Do you back Labour for giving away a large chunk of our rebate? Do you back Labour for the immigration disaster?


No Undertaker, the point is, you didn't mention any political party. You started to turn this into a thread about the moralities of invading Iraq in the first place. I told you about it, and you completely overblew the situation and accused me of implying that the BNP are a racist a party.

It seems whenever you get involved in controversial topics such as this one, that's where the conversation goes and the thead ends up getting closed.

It's already happened since you posted that reply.

One thread got closed and that wasn't because of me, I did mention a party I mentioned the BNP and why not talk about the morals of going into Iraq? Is the topic of innocent people too boring for you all now?

[Jinc]

Do yuo back Labour after they invaded a innocent free country which posed no threat?

terrorists have now made Iraq their home, the Iraqi Government has NO CONTROL.

Contradict yourself much? Thanks for proving you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.


One thread got closed and that wasn't because of me, I did mention a party I mentioned the BNP and why not talk about the morals of going into Iraq? Is the topic of innocent people too boring for you all now?

This thread was made for the purposes of discussing private military companies in Iraq. If you want to make some bias complaint about the way Iraq was invaded, and try once again to prove that the BNP is not a racist party, you can make your own thread.

Let's get back on topic, shall we?

[Frodo13.]

If you back Labour then you can't really blame me for supporting BNP. Do yuo back Labour after they invaded a innocent free country which posed no threat? Do you back Labour after crime rates have blown through the roof? Do you back Labour after throwing money at the NHS and hoping it will get better? Do you back Labour for giving away a large chunk of our rebate? Do you back Labour for the immigration disaster?

Where is your brain Undertaker? Saddam killed thousands of his own people. The people of Iraq were fleeing to other countrys. (some to Britain - one of the reason UK is a country with high imigration). Even though there were no 'weapons of mass destruction', the government had every reason to belive so. The Iraq war isn't over some stupid oil theory like you think, but because Blair and Bush thought Saddam was a danger to the world and his own country.

I sorta agree with the rebate. I think its used effectivly on education, transport ect but not on benefits and stuff.

Immigration disaster?? LOL! Immigration is good for our ecconomy. People do come to our country to avoid persecution in there home country. If Britain can act as a place of safety, and if these people are working hard, and approving the British ecconomy, then I dont think its a massive problem. I disagree if they sponge off the Government, but I also think the same for people of British origin. If they cba to work, and not paying tax, they shouldn't use our services.

The NHS has, and always will be for the government to keep stable, trust me, if you look through history you will see that the NHS has always faced problems, at least Labour have tried to do something about it. If they wern't spending any money on it I suppose you would complain then? You contradict yourself Undertaker :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

Contradict yourself much? Thanks for proving you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.



This thread was made for the purposes of discussing private military companies in Iraq. If you want to make some bias complaint about the way Iraq was invaded, and try once again to prove that the BNP is not a racist party, you can make your own thread.

Let's get back on topic, shall we?

You misunderstood.

Iraq never used to have terrorists, now it does.


Where is your brain Undertaker? Saddam killed thousands of his own people. The people of Iraq were fleeing to other countrys. (some to Britain - one of the reason UK is a country with high imigration). Even though there were no 'weapons of mass destruction', the government had every reason to belive so. The Iraq war isn't over some stupid oil theory like you think, but because Blair and Bush thought Saddam was a danger to the world and his own country.

I sorta agree with the rebate. I think its used effectivly on education, transport ect but not on benefits and stuff.

Immigration disaster?? LOL! Immigration is good for our ecconomy. People do come to our country to avoid persecution in there home country. If Britain can act as a place of safety, and if these people are working hard, and approving the British ecconomy, then I dont think its a massive problem. I disagree if they sponge off the Government, but I also think the same for people of British origin. If they cba to work, and not paying tax, they shouldn't use our services.

The NHS has, and always will be for the government to keep stable, trust me, if you look through history you will see that the NHS has always faced problems, at least Labour have tried to do something about it. If they wern't spending any money on it I suppose you would complain then? You contradict yourself Undertaker :rolleyes:

The Iraq war WAS because of Oil, George Bush W & H both have oil company links, Dr Rice also has Oil links, so does Donald Rumsfeld and Díck Cheney. More people are dying in Iraq than ever before, because of us. You HAVE to be strict in the Middle East to keep a country stable, look at Pakistan at the moment, they don't fear Perevz so they won't think twice about toppling him and letting some extremist government in.

Immigration is not good for our country, the number who commit crimes and who sponge off us outweighs the good immigrants, same with doctors, we have 4,000 of our own Junior Doctors unable to find work now thanks to immigration.

I have always said that the NHS needs new management NOT money, so I haven't contridicted myself.

[Jinc]

You misunderstood.

Iraq never used to have terrorists, now it does.

Who do you think we are? This is becoming a joke now.. where are you finding this nonesense?
There is a presence of Terrorists in most of the middle eastern countries, and it has been that way for years. They have only become more noticable now that we have troops in Iraq, and they are making attacks on our soldiers. It's extremely unlikely that they are going to run away, or just sit there waiting to be defeated.

Also, I'm not going to say anything about the relevance of oil fields in Iraq, but it cannot be denied that the old regime resulted in hundreds of civillians being killed each year.
It was a dictatorship- that's fact, and people were being killed. Amnesty International was campaigning for the government there to be brought down for years. Even if the presence of oil there did sway our political leaders, there was an obvious need to bring down Saddam.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Who do you think we are? This is becoming a joke now.. where are you finding this nonesense?
There is a presence of Terrorists in most of the middle eastern countries, and it has been that way for years. They have only become more noticable now that we have troops in Iraq, and they are making attacks on our soldiers. It's extremely unlikely that they are going to run away, or just sit there waiting to be defeated.

Also, I'm not going to say anything about the relevance of oil fields in Iraq, but it cannot be denied that the old regime resulted in hundreds of civillians being killed each year.
It was a dictatorship- that's fact, and people were being killed. Amnesty International was campaigning for the government there to be brought down for years. Even if the presence of oil there did sway our political leaders, there was an obvious need to bring down Saddam.

Saddam executed terrorists as he saw them as a threat to national security, terrorism has risen in Iraq because no one can stop them. The fall of Saddam has brought more death so it was a bad move.

[-Xiangu-]

Saddam executed terrorists as he saw them as a threat to national security, terrorism has risen in Iraq because no one can stop them. The fall of Saddam has brought more death so it was a bad move.


ive read the whole thread a few times and you havent contradicted yourself once. you practically meant that there were few terrorists before we invaded and that we have just increased the number there making it a more dangerous place.

i agree completely +rep

edit: must spread

[Frodo13.]

Saddam executed terrorists as he saw them as a threat to national security, terrorism has risen in Iraq because no one can stop them. The fall of Saddam has brought more death so it was a bad move.

Saddam killing 'terrorists' may be justifed, but nothing can justify him killing people he thought to be 'pro-west', killing innocent Shitte's [which would just be like Gordon Brown passing a law to kill Catholics], terrorising Kurds, who didn't like Saddam's policys and the punishment of the Iraq football team because they lost a match. Lets face it, Saddam was evil and brutal, and a Middle East Hitler. He needed to go, and lets remember, its the murders he commited that lead to his execution, not because he was standing in the way of a oil plant.

It was belived Saddam was a threat to the world and his own country, thats why we went into Iraq. I personnaly think the only reason the UK is in Iraq is because USA saved are butts in WW2.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Saddam killing 'terrorists' may be justifed, but nothing can justify him killing people he thought to be 'pro-west', killing innocent Shitte's [which would just be like Gordon Brown passing a law to kill Catholics], terrorising Kurds, who didn't like Saddam's policys and the punishment of the Iraq football team because they lost a match. Lets face it, Saddam was evil and brutal, and a Middle East Hitler. He needed to go, and lets remember, its the murders he commited that lead to his execution, not because he was standing in the way of a oil plant.

It was belived Saddam was a threat to the world and his own country, thats why we went into Iraq. I personnaly think the only reason the UK is in Iraq is because USA saved are butts in WW2.

Actually you have it the wrong away around, Sunni Muslims are pro-west like himself and Shitte's are anti-west. The Kurds were punished because you cannot rule a Middle Eastern Country with a group of people trying to topple you and disrupt stability. It was the Oil which led to his downfall, otherwise if he is claimed to be the Hitler of the Middle East, why don't we go and invade China which has more coal and resouces than Iraq and has a worse Human rights record? Blair wasn't so anti-chinese was he? It wasn't 'believed', the majority of the world including the UK saw through the lies that Labour and the Republicans put out to the world, the only people who were in belief that Saddam had WMD were the Americans, and they didn't believe it out of stupidity, they believed it because they had just been attacked by terrorists and were right behind the president.

[Frodo13.]

Actually you have it the wrong away around, Sunni Muslims are pro-west like himself and Shitte's are anti-west. The Kurds were punished because you cannot rule a Middle Eastern Country with a group of people trying to topple you and disrupt stability. It was the Oil which led to his downfall, otherwise if he is claimed to be the Hitler of the Middle East, why don't we go and invade China which has more coal and resouces than Iraq and has a worse Human rights record? Blair wasn't so anti-chinese was he? It wasn't 'believed', the majority of the world including the UK saw through the lies that Labour and the Republicans put out to the world, the only people who were in belief that Saddam had WMD were the Americans, and they didn't believe it out of stupidity, they believed it because they had just been attacked by terrorists and were right behind the president.

Conservatives are trying to topple Brown, should we kill all them to? I dont think so. And USA already had controll of all the oil plants before Gulf War 2...

[MAD]

Saddam killing 'terrorists' may be justifed, but nothing can justify him killing people he thought to be 'pro-west', killing innocent Shitte's [which would just be like Gordon Brown passing a law to kill Catholics], terrorising Kurds, who didn't like Saddam's policys and the punishment of the Iraq football team because they lost a match. Lets face it, Saddam was evil and brutal, and a Middle East Hitler. He needed to go, and lets remember, its the murders he commited that lead to his execution, not because he was standing in the way of a oil plant.

It was belived Saddam was a threat to the world and his own country, thats why we went into Iraq. I personnaly think the only reason the UK is in Iraq is because USA saved are butts in WW2.
I agree with the post except the last bit. UK and USA are good friends so backing each other up is important. WW2 showed US cared about UK and made the relationship stronger :).

[-:Undertaker:-]

Conservatives are trying to topple Brown, should we kill all them to? I dont think so. And USA already had controll of all the oil plants before Gulf War 2...

That is far different from what i'm talking about, the Kurds wanted Iraq to be dominated by them and not sunni muslims. Just like the Shitte's wanted to topple Saddam so they could create an islamic state. Also America was not in control of the oil fields, America actually put sanctions on Saddam to stop him selling his oil.


I agree with the post except the last bit. UK and USA are good friends so backing each other up is important. WW2 showed US cared about UK and made the relationship stronger :).

Yes but with backing comes common sense, you should not back something if it's wrong just because your mates with a country. In WWII Hitler was a threat, Saddam was not.

[Frodo13.]

That is far different from what i'm talking about, the Kurds wanted Iraq to be dominated by them and not sunni muslims. Just like the Shitte's wanted to topple Saddam so they could create an islamic state. Also America was not in control of the oil fields, America actually put sanctions on Saddam to stop him selling his oil.


Exactly, therefore having control over his oil

[-:Undertaker:-]

Exactly, therefore having control over his oil

So it was worth going in to get oil?

[Frodo13.]

So it was worth going in to get oil?

Sorry to sound rude, but you are stupid. USA already owned many oil plants in Iraq, they had no need to get Iraq oil. USA went in to stop the evil man that was ruling Iraq, the man that terrorised his own people, the man that got executed for those exact crimes. End of.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Sorry to sound rude, but you are stupid. USA already owned many oil plants in Iraq, they had no need to get Iraq oil. USA went in to stop the evil man that was ruling Iraq, the man that terrorised his own people, the man that got executed for those exact crimes. End of.

No you are mate.
First you come up with a load of rubbish about how Iraq was a threat when it wasn't, secondly you came up with the idea that sunni muslims are the extremists and not the shitte's which again is wrong, and now you come up with this crazy stupid idea that we went there to save a group of people from a evil man yet it just so happens all the people who support the war are set to gain from it, is that a mistake?

[-Xiangu-]

No you are mate.
First you come up with a load of rubbish about how Iraq was a threat when it wasn't, secondly you came up with the idea that sunni muslims are the extremists and not the shitte's which again is wrong, and now you come up with this crazy stupid idea that we went there to save a group of people from a evil man yet it just so happens all the people who support the war are set to gain from it, is that a mistake?

lmao frodo got owned.

on topic

agreed (again)

[Frodo13.]

No you are mate.
First you come up with a load of rubbish about how Iraq was a threat when it wasn't, secondly you came up with the idea that sunni muslims are the extremists and not the shitte's which again is wrong, and now you come up with this crazy stupid idea that we went there to save a group of people from a evil man yet it just so happens all the people who support the war are set to gain from it, is that a mistake?

No you are. In every post you come out with absolute crap ideas, crap views, and your crap personality shows through. You can't listen to anyones views, which shows just one of your many bad qualities of your personalities. Imo, you just need to go out once in a while. Your views are a minority. Saddam killed thousands, and was hung for there murders...end of.

[-Xiangu-]

No you are. In every post you come out with absolute crap ideas, crap views, and your crap personality shows through. You can't listen to anyones views, which shows just one of your many bad qualities of your personalities. Imo, you just need to go out once in a while. Your views are a minority. Saddam killed thousands, and was hung for there murders...end of.

how dare you say someones views are crap!

views are personal opinions and you had a debate with undertaker about this subject. he has stayed civilised throughout the debate (more or less) and then there is you saying that his views are "crap" well obviously in this case you cant stand a debate and have to resort to being narrow minded and immature

-rep

[-:Undertaker:-]

No you are. In every post you come out with absolute crap ideas, crap views, and your crap personality shows through. You can't listen to anyones views, which shows just one of your many bad qualities of your personalities. Imo, you just need to go out once in a while. Your views are a minority. Saddam killed thousands, and was hung for there murders...end of.

LOOK AT YOURSELF.

You have lost the arguement with that now and how can you have a go at me for telling you the truth. You have changed stories all through this thread and just then when I showed all the things you got wrong you come out with that!


how dare you say someones views are crap!

views are personal opinions and you had a debate with undertaker about this subject. he has stayed civilised throughout the debate (more or less) and then there is you saying that his views are "crap" well obviously in this case you cant stand a debate and have to resort to being narrow minded and immature

-rep

Thank you, +rep if I can :)

[Frodo13.]

LOOK AT YOURSELF.

You have lost the arguement with that now and how can you have a go at me for telling you the truth. You have changed stories all through this thread and just then when I showed all the things you got wrong you come out with that!

Nah, Ive just told it how it is. You are just a very narrow minded individuals, whos beliefs and views are farfetched, and amongst a massive majority of Britain, are believed as wrong. You try telling the rest of Britain how 'amazing' Saddam is and lets see how many people would response with disgust.

Edited by mat64 (Forum Moderator): Please respect other peoples views and opinions.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Nah, Ive just told it how it is. You are just a very narrow minded individuals, whos beliefs and views are farfetched, and amongst a massive majority of Britain, are believed as wrong. You try telling the rest of Britain how 'amazing' Saddam is and lets see how many people would response with disgust.

Actually you'll see a overwhelming majority of British people are against Labours slaughter of the Iraqi people and you'll actually find a majority think Iraq was better off with Saddam. It is also FACT it was better with Saddam as they had mroe rights, water, electric and most important of all, security.

[Browney]

Actually you'll see a overwhelming majority of British people are against Labours slaughter of the Iraqi people and you'll actually find a majority think Iraq was better off with Saddam. It is also FACT it was better with Saddam as they had mroe rights, water, electric and most important of all, security.

Comments like that make me wonder what if any other political party had commited themselves to the war. And it'll always be the government in charge that'll take the stick. I suppose it's easy for the minority parties as they can slate the party in charge's ideas without needing to create new ones themselves.

[-Xiangu-]

Nah, Ive just told it how it is. You are just a very narrow minded individuals, whos beliefs and views are farfetched, and amongst a massive majority of Britain, are believed as wrong. You try telling the rest of Britain how 'amazing' Saddam is and lets see how many people would response with disgust.

there you go again disrespecting other peoples views :/

[-:Undertaker:-]

Comments like that make me wonder what if any other political party had commited themselves to the war. And it'll always be the government in charge that'll take the stick. I suppose it's easy for the minority parties as they can slate the party in charge's ideas without needing to create new ones themselves.

The Conservatives did support the war sadly, but it was Labour who invaded and were in power to make that decision, thus it's Labours War.

[Browney]

The Conservatives did support the war sadly, but it was Labour who invaded and were in power to make that decision, thus it's Labours War.

I don't get this terminology. You say Labour invaded like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown ran in there brandishing flails. Labour didn't invade, Britain invaded. Yes Labour made the decision but they make that decision on behalf off the country. The whole point of government is surely that the public vote for a party who's policies they agree on. And if Labour are get the most people, the majority of the country trust Labours judgement. (Even if I admit they abused that trust when they invaded but hey-ho. :eusa_whis)

Oh and for the record, I'm pretty easy going with parties. I'm not a die-hard Labour fan, nor a die-hard Conservative. I just wouldn't want you getting too comfortable now would I? Nothing like a few questions to pry out some opinions. ;)

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't get this terminology. You say Labour invaded like Tony Blair and Gordon Brown ran in there brandishing flails. Labour didn't invade, Britain invaded. Yes Labour made the decision but they make that decision on behalf off the country. The whole point of government is surely that the public vote for a party who's policies they agree on. And if Labour are get the most people, the majority of the country trust Labours judgement. (Even if I admit they abused that trust when they invaded but hey-ho. :eusa_whis)

Oh and for the record, I'm pretty easy going with parties. I'm not a die-hard Labour fan, nor a die-hard Conservative. I just wouldn't want you getting too comfortable now would I? Nothing like a few questions to pry out some opinions. ;)

I hate the way you use 'Britain', The public did NOT agree to this illegal invasion and it's one of the reasons Labour has lost so much popularity.

[Browney]

I hate the way you use 'Britain', The public did NOT agree to this illegal invasion and it's one of the reasons Labour has lost so much popularity.

But by Labour being voted into power we chose Labour to make this decision. We, the public, voted Labour to fulfill the general publics ideas, surely? And thus, weren't Labour acting on the public's behalf and opinions?

[Virgin Mary]

But by Labour being voted into power we chose Labour to make this decision. We, the public, voted Labour to fulfill the general publics ideas, surely? And thus, weren't Labour acting on the public's behalf and opinions?
But that wouldn't apply to the people who didn't vote for Labour.

[Browney]

It would apply to everyone as the majority have voted this country to be run by Labour. And if you said that only Labour control Labour people then it will spiral until conservatives won't listen to Labour policemen or so on.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But by Labour being voted into power we chose Labour to make this decision. We, the public, voted Labour to fulfill the general publics ideas, surely? And thus, weren't Labour acting on the public's behalf and opinions?

More English people, I am English, voted Conservative rather than Labour ni the last election. Labour is a government no one in England wants. To the point, yes Labour are elected but with power, comes responsibility. They should act on what the people want, not what they don't want and the Iraq invasion was a don't.

[Browney]

More English people, I am English, voted Conservative rather than Labour ni the last election. Labour is a government no one in England wants. To the point, yes Labour are elected but with power, comes responsibility. They should act on what the people want, not what they don't want and the Iraq invasion was a don't.

I seem to remember, not sure if it's just me and my social group, that everyone was behind Iraq under the belief Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Admittably, they eventually discovered that there wasn't nuclear warheads and other dangerous items.

But it's very easy for outsiders to look from the out, in on the situation. Because when all is said and done, no one but Mr.Blair had to make that decision. And he made it knowing that he will take the blame if (although we would later learn it was more a matter of when) anything would go wrong. And I'm almost 100% that if he had known there were no WMD, that he would not invade. That, my friend, is the beauty of hindsight.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I seem to remember, not sure if it's just me and my social group, that everyone was behind Iraq under the belief Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Admittably, they eventually discovered that there wasn't nuclear warheads and other dangerous items.

But it's very easy for outsiders to look from the out, in on the situation. Because when all is said and done, no one but Mr.Blair had to make that decision. And he made it knowing that he will take the blame if (although we would later learn it was more a matter of when) anything would go wrong. And I'm almost 100% that if he had known there were no WMD, that he would not invade. That, my friend, is the beauty of hindsight.

Actually your thinking America who the Bush Administration has scared into believing this threat when there wasn't one at all. If you cast your mind back to 2003, the biggest protests the world had ever seen happened in London, Manchester, Paris, Moscow and so on.

Of course Blair knew there was no WMD, the pictures Colin Powell supplied to the UN to make a case weren't secret Nuclear Bunkers, they were disused sweet factorys.

Everybody knew Saddam had no WMD unless your were naive and believed the lies about it all.

[Browney]

Actually your thinking America who the Bush Administration has scared into believing this threat when there wasn't one at all. If you cast your mind back to 2003, the biggest protests the world had ever seen happened in London, Manchester, Paris, Moscow and so on.

Of course Blair knew there was no WMD, the pictures Colin Powell supplied to the UN to make a case weren't secret Nuclear Bunkers, they were disused sweet factorys.

Everybody knew Saddam had no WMD unless your were naive and believed the lies about it all.

So are you saying that Blair knew there were no WMD but still invaded anyway? Or are you saying Blair didn't know and it was all a massive mistake?

[-:Undertaker:-]

So are you saying that Blair knew there were no WMD but still invaded anyway? Or are you saying Blair didn't know and it was all a massive mistake?

I am saying he knew it was no WMD.

[Browney]

So if you don't mind my asking why would you suggest he would go to war which costed the lives of 100 British soldiers and countless Iraq citizens?

[Frodo13.]

I wouldn't even attempt to debate with Undertaker, his opinion is ALWAYS the right one...:rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

So if you don't mind my asking why would you suggest he would go to war which costed the lives of 100 British soldiers and countless Iraq citizens?

Oil, Oil and more Oil.


I wouldn't even attempt to debate with Undertaker, his opinion is ALWAYS the right one...:rolleyes:

I have to say, at least I don't give out the wrong facts and insult other people, unlike you.

[-Xiangu-]

Oil, Oil and more Oil.



I have to say, at least I don't give out the wrong facts and insult other people, unlike you.


you seem to rule over this section of the forums don't you :P

[Virgin Mary]

But surely the people who didn't vote for the leading party don't expect it to make decisions on their behalf, hence why they didn't vote for them. I'm sure that's one of the reasons proportional representation is used in some countries.

[Browney]

But surely the people who didn't vote for the leading party don't expect it to make decisions on their behalf, hence why they didn't vote for them. I'm sure that's one of the reasons proportional representation is used in some countries.

We the public, as a whole, expect the government in charge to act on the best intrests of the majority of people. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can please some of the people some of the time. Which is a shame but democracy has it's faults.

And about the oil comment, is there solid proof we have benifited from the Iraq war? Firstly, have our oil supplies increased? Secondly, have we profited including the cost of going to war? I honestly don't know and I wouldn't like to assume there wasn't. :P

Oh and Frodo, I like the way Undertaker is loyal (or stubborn if you wish ;)) to his opinions. Atleast he doesn't go licking other peoples feet and following trends when a high ranking member posts. (That wasn't aimed at you by the way.)

[-:Undertaker:-]

We the public, as a whole, expect the government in charge to act on the best intrests of the majority of people. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but you can please some of the people some of the time. Which is a shame but democracy has it's faults.

And about the oil comment, is there solid proof we have benifited from the Iraq war? Firstly, have our oil supplies increased? Secondly, have we profited including the cost of going to war? I honestly don't know and I wouldn't like to assume there wasn't. :P

Oh and Frodo, I like the way Undertaker is loyal (or stubborn if you wish ;)) to his opinions. Atleast he doesn't go licking other peoples feet and following trends when a high ranking member posts. (That wasn't aimed at you by the way.)

We have actually benefitted from the invasion, the USA and UK haven't but the people in power have. George H Bush, George W Bush, Dr Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and **** Cheney are all on the boards of big oil companies which have benefitted widely from the Iraq invasion.

Oh and thanks, +rep

[Browney]

So all these big capitalist Americans have benifeted but have any UK businessmen or women? Or did Blair just invade to strengthen the UK's and USA's "special relationship"? Yet again you probably know more about this subject than I do.

Which reminds me, the people who are against our alliance with America will be happy as it seems Bush isn't quite warming to Prime Minister Brown.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So all these big capitalist Americans have benifeted but have any UK businessmen or women? Or did Blair just invade to strengthen the UK's and USA's "special relationship"? Yet again you probably know more about this subject than I do.

Which reminds me, the people who are against our alliance with America will be happy as it seems Bush isn't quite warming to Prime Minister Brown.

I, being a Conservative have always supported a relationship with the United States Of America, we have the same values and share the same common ground. However I think the Iraq Invasion was a complete mass murder and Blair was wrong to support it. There are many thories that all seem as probable as the next on why Blair supported the Americans. One that seems far fetched but isn't when you read about the whole Bush Era is that the Bush Administration had something on Blair and said to him, if you don't support us then we'll let it out. I thought this was far fetched when I first read about it until I learnt about what Bush and his cronies have done before. When Bush was runnign for governer in Texas, A women was running against him. She was far in the lead until some mysterious phone calls around to Newspapers claimed she was a Lesbian. She lost and Bush won. Another example is when Bush was running against Al Gore for President. Fox News swung it his way but all the other News channels said Gore had won. Bushs' Chairman of his campaign was also the vote count women who was in control of vote counting that election. She had the power to knock peoples votes off the scores.

[Cypher-]

I think theres a difference between showing respect for soldiers who are honouring commitments from their queen and not showing respect to soldiers who are bloodthirsty and love killing "ragheads" as they call them for the sake of it. I find that disgusting.

[iTechnical]

Our Soldiers signed up to the Army willingly, when they did so they told the Army, AirForce, Navy ect; that they would fight for Queen and Country and do as told by the British ruling Government.



Yes, but they have families. They'd give up their position for their families.
Wouldn't you? My cousin is serving in Iraq. I say we pull 'em out.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Our soliders signed up to protect the country, in Iraq there was no threat so we didn't need protecting from anything thus it's a waste of lives. If I was in the military I would have choosen Jail rather than go to Iraq and kill innocent poor people.