Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo13.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
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 :).Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo13.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAD
Exactly, therefore having control over his oilQuote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
So it was worth going in to get oil?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo13.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
No you are mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frodo13.
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?