Printable View
What morons.Quote:
Conservative Central Office released information claiming that more than half of girls – 54% – in the most deprived communities fell pregnant before their 18th birthday.
This claim was not only untrue but also breathtakingly ignorant. A crucial decimal point was missing – the real figure is 5.4%.
Now if you had asked me before yesterday what the correct figure was I would not have known but my common sense would have told me that 54% looked highly suspect.
Yes I heard about this the other day. I thought it was absolutely classic. They definitely won't live that down for a long time. I imagine the researcher has been fired or executed. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Saucy
Lol I think the more annoying thing is that some people would have believed that :(
And they still kept to their point. They actually believed it was 54% "/ What morons. Shows how out of touch that party is.
Yes but some people would believe anything. =]Quote:
Originally Posted by Inseriousity.
that statistic is bull crap anyway,
their have been bare people who have been preganant before 18 remember this world is billions of years old. and trillions have been 18/
A mistake, technical of course which was overlooked. Not that the Labour Party hasnt had its fair share of mistakes, just like the 'mistake' ofpretendingthinking Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
A mistake yes. But when it was presented to their leaders, they believed it without thinking "wait a minute, that figure seems a bit off". Clearly shows how out of touch that shameful party is.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Was it presented to Tory leaders? - if so, again a technical oversight and probably one of many statistics they see in a day. Although i'd agree with you there, all three main parties are out of touch because while Cameron should be soaring in the polls with this pathetic government in office - hes not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saucy
People want to hear toughness on the EU, immigration, crime and so on - not the fact Cameron wants to open our borders upto 'gay' Africans. I seriously do not know of one difference between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, and thats coming from an ex-Conservative supporter.
When I heard the "lets open borders to gay Africans", I couldn't believe it. Its ridiculous. That man is a moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
But unlike so many threads this is about the conservative party and the Iraq enquiry is still going and no judgment has been made on it yet. You have absolutely no proof or facts to back up 'pretending'. This thread is about facts and it was a pretty big technical error.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Agreed, the only reason he became Tory leader is because he was seen as the 'Teflon Tony' solution to the Conservatives being in opposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saucy
Of course it is about the Conservative Party, and i'm just pointing out kindly to all the Labour supporters on here that the Labour Party has also made mistakes, serious and questionable mistakes. On Iraq, Iraq did not have any Weapons of Mass Destruction so I really dont need to wait for a toothless enquiry to deliver its verdict, of which if there was ever anything important in there it would be censored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
Well when your intelligence tells you that he has it and there's no doubt about it, what are you supposed to believe?Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
The intelligence was asked to say that, the day after 9/11 the director of the CIA was told by the US secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld "Iraq, Saddam - get back to me." The Director of that branch then said "but Saddam has nothing to do with this." but that didnt seem to make any difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saucy
Ontop of that, the pictures Colin Powell held up to the United Nations of a weapons storage/factory facility was infact an abandoned sweet factory.
If you are telling me that poor Tony and the rest of his crooks didnt know the real truth then you are kidding yourself into defending him. Claire Short and Robin Cook took the honourable route and instead of putting themselves first and their careers and going along with this illegal invasion, they put their morales first and resigned. The rest of the Cabinet stuck because they are all too greedy and up themselves to have any morality.
Most MP will rather have their jobs and its understandable. And Saddam wasnt attacked because of 9/11.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Oh so it doesnt matter if somethings totally immorale and most of the people you represent are against it, aslong as the MP keeps their job thats fine by you and is 'totally understandable'? - an interesting take on democracy you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saucy
And tell that to Donald Rumsfeld who pressured the CIA and other intelligence agencies into making some connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 so they could help justify their illegal invasion in which the Bush family and the Bin Laden family have made hundreds of millions out of, along with other corporations and oil companies which had links to prominent members of the Bush administration.
No, I was saying most MPs will support it regardless as they want to keep their jobs, I never said its fine. STOP THINKING THAT I THINK ITS FINE. YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK BUT YOU DON'T. Its not clever at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
I DONT PRETEND TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK SO STOP DOING IT TO ME. OR IF YOU WANT, I WILL DO IT TO YOU 24/7 TO SHOW YOU HOW ANNOYING IT IS "/ You seriously frustrate me.
And I think its obvious that the main reason put forward to attack Iraw was the WMD - not really 9/11. Everyone knows the real reason was the oil ...
Anyway please keep this thread on topic and not change it to Labour and war etc again.
Glad you agree that MPs made the right decision in supporting the Iraq war. :)
No you clearly said "Most MP will rather have their jobs and its understandable. And Saddam wasnt attacked because of 9/11." - thus saying in reply to my post about resigning to keep your morales and your opinion that MPs put their jobs before their opinions/representatives in which you said was 'understandable' - no it is not understandable and its not acceptable. You are not elected to parliament as a 'job' you are supposedly elected to do what your consituents want and to stick to your opinion and if it means resigning over something as important as a war then you do so; just as Claire Short and the late Robin Cook did. I'm not twisting anything, your words not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saucy
The time will come when the Conservatives are in office and Labour are in opposition, to which you and others will be posting 'Tories waste £3 million on.." and so on - and i'll be right here to show how hypocritical it is saying that when you suppported Labour no matter what and no matter whether they were right or wrong.
If something is understandable, it doesn't mean I agree with it or that its fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
For example:
"Its understandable why he killed his wifes murderer". <---- However, it doesn't mean the person writing that thinks its fine.
Please don't make me teach you English.
I mentioned how Claire Short and the late Robin Cook put their opinions and ideals before their job and you replied by basically defending the MPs who didnt by saying that its 'understandable'. Understandable is usually used when you agree with something, aka you can find par with the person and find a viable reason why they did that. So you actually agree that an MP should put their beliefs before their career? - if so, excellent because thats true democracy and we agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saucy
idiots. it's just a statistic to them, it means nothing. they need to jump off their high horses if they wish to win this election, which seemed almost impossible for them to lose only a couple of months ago.
WMD were not found - it does not mean there weren't any. Sadam Hussein had broken 10 UN resolutions before anyway in respect of them anyway. :S I cannot be so cynical, or as highminded, to just dismiss the enquiry as 'toothless' or question it's independence. I may have to eat my words when it does come out but I hope not. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
The enquiry, if you saw the questioning of Mr Blair you would see how toothless the enquiry really is. He is a slimeball who is very good at avoiding questions and none of them pressed him, they asked him a question and he went off on a big speech about something totally not related to the question asked and then they went to the next question. It shouldn't even be an enquiry, should be held at a court where they should all be tried to see how guilty/innocent they all really are. I'm sure we'd get a lot more skeletons coming out of the closet when they are all fighting to save their own skins than that of Blair and co.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
So we should just invade countries on the pretext of 'we dont like him so we think he could have WMD' - come on now, and with regard for resolutions - you mean like the countless UN resolutions Israel has broken?. It is not upto the United Nations to tell Iraq or Iran what to do and in regards to Iran, Israel has a fully-fledged illegal nuclear weapons programme in operation that it still denies having but Iran is not allowed to build nuclear power plants.
One rule for us, another for them?
Something has gone wrong it would seem, however if a minor mistake like this is worthy of a thread it makes me wonder what the Labour party have. Why don't you create some threads on some amazing new policies the Labour party has to bring? Is criticising a minor conservative mistake the best the Labour party can do?
Maybe you should learn from Michael Howard who lost the last election by focusing his campaign on criticism of Labour. It won't work.
Everyone has also overlooked that the statistic is 5.4% anyway, I see that's it a whole lot better than 54% but it is by no means something to shout about, that is still an incredibly worrying statistic and further proof of the so-called "Broken Britain", I'm not a fan of the term but it has to be said.
Don't agree with that, Howards campaign in 2005 was pretty successful in the circumstances provided and Howard did get more votes in England than Blair did. Howard gained 33 seats in a FPTP system in which it was very hard to gain a swing, especially considering the amount of votes they had to pull away from Blair. If Howard was leader now, or even Hague then i'm pretty sure the Conservatives would be far more popular in the polls - afterall they should be as this government is possibly the most disasterous government we have ever had.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordy
Cameron is isolating Tory voters more and more, England is right-wing and theres no doubt about that. Cameron does he not call himself the 'heir to Blair' and says the Conservatives are the same as the Liberal Democrats?. Everytime I read the comments on the Telegraph or the Daily Mail (most Conservative newspapers) all I see is the usual "I used to vote Conservative but me and my family are all voting BNP/UKIP". Infact its been said that the Tory vote could be lower than opinion polls suggest as they have been losing Council By-elections for a period of time now.
As i've said in past, swap Cameron for Hannan, Johnson, Hague or even IDS and you'd have yourself a strong majority in the polls which would translate into a strong parliamentary majority. If you ask anyone nowdays, and even myself who follows politics avidly - I can't actually name one difference between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.
It was was an improvement yes but it was by no means successful seeing as he wasn't elected. One of the main reasons for this is he focused his campaign on just criticizing Blair and his government constantly rather than talking about policies (Which were actually quite good, although controversial). The voter didn't like his nasty style election campaign and if Labour choose to go down that road, it's just another nail in their coffin.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Dan, you know that is an extremely symplistic argument in respect of Iraq and you may think Tony Blair is a slimeball so we will agree to disagree on that one as we obviously agree to disagree on the virtues of Margaret Thatcher. I am not going to go on about the global terrorist threat again because you can't see my point if view on that either. As far as Israel is concerned it is a very complicated area and I didn't know they had nuclear weapons - do you have a link to this? I do have sympathies with the Palestinians over this issue and feel perhaps that Israel is being treated far too sensitively in respect of the land issues. Maybe too much has been made on their 'history' and it's time not to forget but to be a bit more firm with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
This makes me support my signature even more :D
With regards to Israels Nuclear Weapons it does almost definitely have them yes. They don't really release statistics on them or anything seeing as they illegally hold them, if they were to admit to carrying them they would be breaking international law, although it's widely accepted they do have them. The same goes for Pakistan & India.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_...ss_destruction
It's mainly the British who surprisingly helped them with their nuclear programme, with assistance from France and the US.
If Israel were to get rid of their nuclear weapons I'm pretty certain that Iran would no longer feel threatened so much and probably stop making theirs as well, but the West just seems to support Israel and can't see anything from Iran's perspective.
No that is the bottom line of it, no matter how many times you say you think Saddam Hussein might have WMD still hidden, no matter what you say about Afhganistan and how we could win it - both are totally and utterly different to the Falklands. In regards to Thatcher, if Nazi Germany (comparable as the regime in Argentina was a brutal undemocratic regime in collapse) invaded and annexed Dover would you support sitting down for talks or would you support military action? - its very different when the shoe is on the other foot isnt it which adds to what Jordy said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
In regards to Israel I believe the guy who exposed the nuclear weapons programme to the British Press (the Times newspaper) was abducted or arrested (one of them) by Mossad and was only released from prison a few years ago. 'A bit more firm' - so its perfectly alright to invade Iraq on the pretext that they might have WMD, but when we know Israel has them we just need to be a 'bit more firm' with them.
It is that exact outlook that breeds hatred towards the western world.
My Dad has a good saying 'if my aunty had balls she would be my uncle'. There is no point making hypothesis on wars that haven't actually happened ie whoever invading Dover. There was general consenus around the world that there should have been negotiations in respect of the Falklands war. It took our troops days to get out there and they could have taken place. If you then say why negotiate with a brutal regime then you have shot yourself in the foot because that's exactly what Iraq was and there were negotiations there. There are so many threads about this now all virtually saying the same thing. Getting back to the Conservatives their reseachers need to be a lot more careful in what information is given as it is making them look quite idiotic and whilst I don't agree with their politics nobody could ever claim that.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Of course there is, if Dover (British sovereign territory) was invaded would you either negociate with the Third Reich or would you try to free Dover? - and the same applies for the Falklands (British sovereign territory) which a brutal regime invaded and occupied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
Negotiatations, so how are you supposed to negotiate with a brutal regime which only occupied our islands because it was on its last legs and needed to drum up support at home? - even more so, I cant find this international outcry at the British regaining their own islands? Do you think if China, the US, USSR or any other country had their islands attacked, they'd be calling for negotiations?
Infact if there was any outcry then it was down to the time the battle took place, when the Falklands was on the USSR still existed and as you may know, half the world was on the USSR side and half on the US side. The Argentine regime at that time declared itself neutral, but was in reality a left-leaning regime which supported the USSR. Also there was some opposition from within the Reagan administration, but only because they felt that the possibility of the USSR and US being drawn in was dangerous. Infact, in the end the US supplied missiles to Britain.
I even read something the other day, although the USSR protested about the retaliation by the United Kingdom (as it would) against the Argentine occupation, a reporter I think it was told by a Russian diplomat at the time; 'We would no longer have considered you a serious country if you hadn't defeated the Argentines.'
The difference between Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falklands is that the Argentines posed a threat and carried out that threat, Iraq did not pose a threat and the small threat posed by Afghanistan is unwinnable. You cannot beat guerilla warfare.
More here; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...s-deepens.html
Britain and many other countries negotiated with the Third Reich. They are probably negotiating with Argentina right now. As I said before but you chose to ignore negotiations went on for years with Iraq which was a brutal regime soQuote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
by defending the straight invasion of Argentina in the 80s you are cointradicting yourself, basically.
It seems you are very isolationist - if it doesn't directly effect the UK then you are not interested. The problem arises when it effects us indirectly and the Iraq situation was extremely volatile and unpredictable:
'During the Presidency of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq used, possessed, and made efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program.
After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction. In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003, under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections.'
From that it shows that Iraq did have WMD which does not just mean nuclear it also means chemical and biological weapons which Iraq used against it's own people as you know. Having found WMD then it was a pretty good assumption to suspect he still had them and had Hussein co-operated fully with the inspections maybe the war may never have happened. Also you are happy to state that Israel has Nuclear Weapons when it is only, in fact, suspected. It has never been confirmed. None have been found. So what's the difference ?
Saddam had already invaded Iran and Kuwait previously and instability in the Middle East would have effected us all and not just because of the oil. Why did we go to war in World War 1 and World War 2? For exactly the same reasons - a tin pot dictator who wanted to get rid of people who he felt did not belong in this world eg. Jews, Gypsys, people with physical and mental disorders. Saddam wanted to rid the world of Kurds. Al Qaeda want to rid the world of 'infidels' and the frightening part of this is that they are recruiting from all countries of the world. They even arrested them in Australia. If an argentinian conflict is more important than that then it is breathtakingly naïve in my personal opinion. Party politics really shouldn't enter into this at all. Whether China, US or other countries would enter into negotiations I don't know and neither do you but I am sure NATO and the UN would encourage it as they do with all conflicts.
were havin a party when thatcher dies :eusa_dancQuote:
Originally Posted by Wig44.
Indeed they did, so as I have asked in the past - you also support attacking China, Israel, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe which have far worse regimes and regimes which actually possess nuclear weapons and whom frequently play diplomatic games with the west? Its a simple yes or know answer, because by your logic you say that anyone who does not comply with your rules/you consider bad/has any weapons that match those of ours then we must take military action.Quote:
Britain and many other countries negotiated with the Third Reich. They are probably negotiating with Argentina right now. As I said before but you chose to ignore negotiations went on for years with Iraq which was a brutal regime so by defending the straight invasion of Argentina in the 80s you are cointradicting yourself, basically.
It seems you are very isolationist - if it doesn't directly effect the UK then you are not interested. The problem arises when it effects us indirectly and the Iraq situation was extremely volatile and unpredictable:
'During the Presidency of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq used, possessed, and made efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program.
After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction. In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003, under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections.'
Of course you wouldnt support taking action against any of them countries because they can smack us back. If i'm quite 'isolationist' then your foreign policy i'd class as cowardly at the least because like a bully would do so, you only support going after the nations you know you can beat. In essence, its not right or wrong you are putting across;- its the argument of 'because I can'
And you wonder why the Arab world loathes the west? - I can tell you that if I was an Arab and my homeland was having that sort of foreign policy placed on it, i'd be first in the queue to free my country from the international, hypocritical bullies who have destroyed my country.
Indeed Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, and did once have a nuclear power plant which was taken out by the Isreali airforce. The UN weapons team headed by Hans Blix found that Saddam Hussein did not have any weapons of mass destruction as they had all been decommissioned in the 1990s. South Africa also used to have nuclear weapons, support going over there aswell then? - On Israel, yes I am 100% sure and so is anybody else with clear eyesight that Israel has a nuclear weapons programme - heres some pictures; http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/index.htmlQuote:
From that it shows that Iraq did have WMD which does not just mean nuclear it also means chemical and biological weapons which Iraq used against it's own people as you know. Having found WMD then it was a pretty good assumption to suspect he still had them and had Hussein co-operated fully with the inspections maybe the war may never have happened. Also you are happy to state that Israel has Nuclear Weapons when it is only, in fact, suspected. It has never been confirmed. None have been found. So what's the difference ?
So you also support taking military action against Israel of which we know has nuclear weapons (unlike Iraq) if they refuse to co-operate in disarming?
If you knew why Saddam invaded Kuwait you'd be singing a different tune, Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was using slant drilling which was using Iraqi oil resources which obviously, are worth hundreds of billions to Iraq. Infact on the programme I watched called House of Saddam a few years ago apparently based on true events, Saddam Hussein caught up with the Emir of Kuwait in his limo at a conference and warned him to stop slant drilling or face the consquences. The Emir refused and cited he had US support so Iraq was powerless to act.Quote:
Saddam had already invaded Iran and Kuwait previously and instability in the Middle East would have effected us all and not just because of the oil. Why did we go to war in World War 1 and World War 2? For exactly the same reasons - a tin pot dictator who wanted to get rid of people who he felt did not belong in this world eg. Jews, Gypsys, people with physical and mental disorders. Saddam wanted to rid the world of Kurds. Al Qaeda want to rid the world of 'infidels' and the frightening part of this is that they are recruiting from all countries of the world. They even arrested them in Australia. If an argentinian conflict is more important than that then it is breathtakingly naïve in my personal opinion. Party politics really shouldn't enter into this at all. Whether China, US or other countries would enter into negotiations I don't know and neither do you but I am sure NATO and the UN would encourage it as they do with all conflicts.
Ontop of that, Hussein also called a senior adminstration offical to Baghdad before the invasion of Kuwait in which he asked if Iraq was to take military action against Kuwait, would the United States intervene? - the answer was no and so Hussein was given the green light by the United States to take military action.
On the issue of the kurds, the kurds tried to bring down the government by using violence and would stop at nothing to overpower the Iraqi government. Iraq was facing civil war, hard for you to comprehend over here in Britain and the western world but when you face the prospect of civil war you have no other choice but to hit back or face total bloodshed. Yes innocent kurds died and the gassing was truly awful, but then again we used gas in WW1 against the Germans anyway so no use trying to tell teh Iraqis right and wrong; Saddam Hussein and Iraq posed no threat to the western world, and thanks to a decade of sanctions Iraq was feeble compared to its neighbours so again, the argument of a 'threat to his neighbours' is quite honestly, total rubbish put forward by the Blair government and Bush administration to try and give the war some kind of justification.
I do know the answer, if your military (which is for fighting/defence) is stationed in the Falklands and you have a Argentinian fleet shooting at you - what do you do? - what would anybody do in a situation like that?
They would shoot back and afterall thats why we have a military.
No because they have not shown the instability or have actually had a track history of invading other countries and use of WMD like Iraq. This is with the exception of Iran who has declared Britain an enemy and who need careful watching. They are not my rules anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
That is just silly to assume what I think and don't think. It's what you think I think and then just tell me I do:S.Quote:
Of course you wouldnt support taking action against any of them countries because they can smack us back. If i'm quite 'isolationist' then your foreign policy i'd class as cowardly at the least because like a bully would do so, you only support going after the nations you know you can beat. In essence, its not right or wrong you are putting across;- its the argument of 'because I can'
Please do not put words into my mouth. The reasons I have already stated in the first paragraph
Again an incredibly out of proportion and sweeping statement which has no actual evidence to back it up. Sure some Arabs do I am sure - the same as some westerners do not like Arabs.Quote:
And you wonder why the Arab world loathes the west? - I can tell you that if I was an Arab and my homeland was having that sort of foreign policy placed on it, i'd be first in the queue to free my country from the international, hypocritical bullies who have destroyed my country.
Quote:
Indeed Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction, and did once have a nuclear power plant which was taken out by the Isreali airforce. The UN weapons team headed by Hans Blix found that Saddam Hussein did not have any weapons of mass destruction as they had all been decommissioned in the 1990s. South Africa also used to have nuclear weapons, support going over there aswell then? - On Israel, yes I am 100% sure and so is anybody else with clear eyesight that Israel has a nuclear weapons programme - heres some pictures; http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/index.html
I have no reason to argue that you are not 100% sure that Israel has nuclear weapons but really that's not the issue. The issue is that it is an opinion and not a fact and that if the world were sure it would be declared as such and not listed as 'suspected' Find me anything to back up your assertion that Hans Blix found there were no WMD weapons, biological or otherwise. He couldn't find any but he did not make a finding that there were none.
No and are the same reasons as given in Paragraph one.Quote:
So you also support taking military action against Israel of which we know has nuclear weapons (unlike Iraq) if they refuse to co-operate in disarming?
This is all alleged there are no facts to back it up. Just because a documentary says it is true doesn't mean it is. It is also alleged that Saddam invaded because he was in huge debt from the war with Iran and Kuwait would not agree to put up oil prices which would have enabled him to pay them off. It is also alleged that Saddam had planned for many months to invade Kuwait long before the row over the disputed border. Make with that as you will.Quote:
If you knew why Saddam invaded Kuwait you'd be singing a different tune, Iraq invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was using slant drilling which was using Iraqi oil resources which obviously, are worth hundreds of billions to Iraq. Infact on the programme I watched called House of Saddam a few years ago apparently based on true events, Saddam Hussein caught up with the Emir of Kuwait in his limo at a conference and warned him to stop slant drilling or face the consquences. The Emir refused and cited he had US support so Iraq was powerless to act.
The Kurds wanted an independent state much like the IRA wanted a united Ireland. Again you grossly overestimate the power of the Kurds and you seem to think that excuses them for using chemical weapons to wipe out a whole town with WMD?Quote:
On the issue of the kurds, the kurds tried to bring down the government by using violence and would stop at nothing to overpower the Iraqi government. Iraq was facing civil war, hard for you to comprehend over here in Britain and the western world but when you face the prospect of civil war you have no other choice but to hit back or face total bloodshed. Yes innocent kurds died and the gassing was truly awful, but then again we used gas in WW1 against the Germans anyway so no use trying to tell teh Iraqis right and wrong; Saddam Hussein and Iraq posed no threat to the western world, and thanks to a decade of sanctions Iraq was feeble compared to its neighbours so again, the argument of a 'threat to his neighbours' is quite honestly, total rubbish put forward by the Blair government and Bush administration to try and give the war some kind of justification.
Warning: Link has images that may disturb some members.
http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html
Hmm I don't think the Argentinians shot at anybody until the UK forces arrivedQuote:
I do know the answer, if your military (which is for fighting/defence) is stationed in the Falklands and you have a Argentinian fleet shooting at you - what do you do? - what would anybody do in a situation like that?
They would shoot back and afterall thats why we have a military.
in the 1980s and there was plenty of time to negotiate while the forces were travelling. Also you can fight and negotiate at the same time which is something that never happened because it was well known that there was no chance of losing. It was the lack of willingness to co-operate that was the problem and I still believe it was a very cynical war and
I am entitled to this opinion.
Its always good to hate somebody your family most likely taught you to hate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eoin
Not shown instability? Not invaded other countries?Quote:
No because they have not shown the instability or have actually had a track history of invading other countries and use of WMD like Iraq. This is with the exception of Iran who has declared Britain an enemy and who need careful watching. They are not my rules anyway.
China
- Ethnic tensions still plague China; the issue of Tibet.
- China still unstable with government using tight controls to stop any outbreaks.
- China still on verge of war with India and Taiwan over border issues.
- China invaded the Kingdom of Tibet and annexed it.
- China invaded North Korea in the Korean War.
Iran
- Mass protests against the hardline government resulting in many deaths.
- Government still uses harsh military-like laws to crackdown on any protests.
- Iran has crossed an Iraqi border and seized control of an oilfield.
- Roadside bombs in Iraq were found to be supplied from within Iran.
Zimbabwe
- Mass instability and lack of law across the country.
- Protests against the government cracked down on.
- People go missing every day because of their political outlook.
- Mugabe remains in control of the military and police to avoid chaos.
- People are starving, disease is rampant.
- Water supplies dwindling as infastructure falls apart at the seems.
Israel
- Has invaded and occupied/occupies; Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Egypt.
- Constantly fighting with Palestine and firing rockets.
- Has built a gigantic concrete wall.
- Regularly flattens settlements so Palestinians cannot use them.
- Remains border disputes between Israel and Palestine/Syria.
North Korea
- Remains on verge of war with South Korea.
- Regular firings across the border.
- Its people remain in poverty.
- Government abducts foreigners.
- Government uses extreme force to crackdown on any unrest.
Perhaps you should reconsider that, whereas on the other hand Iraq was a quiet country in which any ethnic tensions had been cracked down on. The Iraqi government was firmly in control and there were no rifts between the government of Iraq and its neighbours. As I have said earlier before, Iraq was in no position to attack its neighbours, let alone the western world.
So would you support taking military action against these countries, countries which have active nuclear weapons programmes, countries which are in the verge of war with their neighbours/are regularly at war with their neighbours and many who detest the west and have the capability to attack the west (not to mention the military scuffles between NATO ships and Chinese ships)?
So you do support taking action against these countries?Quote:
That is just silly to assume what I think and don't think. It's what you think I think and then just tell me I do:S.
Please do not put words into my mouth. The reasons I have already stated in the first paragraph
Oh no I think you'll find its far more deep-rooted than that. Some of us may not like Arabs (personally haven't heard or know anyone who takes that view) but I notice how the western world doesnt feel the need to fight back against the Arab world in which the Arab people do. I dont see Iraqi/Iranian etc flags being burnt on the streets of London or Washington, however I do see in Iraq and other countries British flags and American flags being burnt in the streets of Baghdad and Tehran.Quote:
Again an incredibly out of proportion and sweeping statement which has no actual evidence to back it up. Sure some Arabs do I am sure - the same as some westerners do not like Arabs.
How are you supposed to find something that does not exist? :SQuote:
I have no reason to argue that you are not 100% sure that Israel has nuclear weapons but really that's not the issue. The issue is that it is an opinion and not a fact and that if the world were sure it would be declared as such and not listed as 'suspected' Find me anything to back up your assertion that Hans Blix found there were no WMD weapons, biological or otherwise. He couldn't find any but he did not make a finding that there were none.
But wait a minute, we actually know Israel has an active and expansive nuclear weapons programme that it attempted to keep hidden from the world until it was exposed. So what makes Israel so different from a country like Iran/Iraq?Quote:
No and are the same reasons as given in Paragraph one.
There was no row as far as I know over any disputed border between Kuwait and Iraq, the issue was slant drilling. Of course Saddam would of took action if Kuwait was also making it difficult for him, but Kuwait are no innocent little darlings like you are making them out to be.Quote:
This is all alleged there are no facts to back it up. Just because a documentary says it is true doesn't mean it is. It is also alleged that Saddam invaded because he was in huge debt from the war with Iran and Kuwait would not agree to put up oil prices which would have enabled him to pay them off. It is also alleged that Saddam had planned for many months to invade Kuwait long before the row over the disputed border. Make with that as you will.
Oh so its ok for the Kurds (like the IRA) to attack the government and the Iraqi people which would of led to full-scale civil war? - the power of the Kurds is quite immense, they had backing from the US which dropped leaflets pursueing them to 'rise up' against the Iraqi government and overthrow it. On the chemical weapons, no I don't think its an acceptable as I have made clear; I believe action against the Kurds was needed but the action taken took far more innocent lives than any normal military action would of resulted in from the Iraqi government.Quote:
The Kurds wanted an independent state much like the IRA wanted a united Ireland. Again you grossly overestimate the power of the Kurds and you seem to think that excuses them for using chemical weapons to wipe out a whole town with WMD?
I also disagree with Israel using the chemical white phosphorus against Palestine in 2008 & 2009.
Yes very terrible as I have said before, dont support the usage of chemical weapons. While we're onto providing pictures of how bad each regime was, heres just a small selection of pictures from the actions of the regimes I mentioned above which you claim are stable, do not use WMD and therefore in your eyes dont seem to warrant military action, but Iraq does.Quote:
Warning: links below contain graphic images.
Israel
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multime...43_464433a.jpg
http://artintifada.files.wordpress.c...9/01/leb54.jpg
China
http://www.asianews.it/files/img/CHI...a_di_morte.jpg
http://img520.imageshack.us/i/pict520gr9.jpg/
http://barbadosfreepress.files.wordp...re-crushed.jpg
http://www.foxnews.com/images/355585/1_67_clash320.jpg
Zimbabwe
http://www.amnesty.org.nz/files/u1/Z...20activist.jpg
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m...11starving.jpg
http://manoamondo.files.wordpress.co...babwe_beat.jpg
Thats just the tip of the iceberg for some of them, if we could get images from the Great Leap Foward i'm sure they would make anyone sick to the stomach not to mention the torture that goes on as we speak in North Korea, China and Zimbabwe against people because they have a religion or because they have an opposing political view.
As for the Falklands, there was fighting before the British military taskforce was sent there in fighting which occured between the advancing Argentinians and the Falkland Islands Defence Force. On negotiation, i'm sure all attempts were made to tell the Argentinians to leave the Falklands, infact the advancing military taskforce from the United Kingdom I think would serve as a pretty clear indication of what choice the Argentinians faced, dont you?Quote:
Hmm I don't think the Argentinians shot at anybody until the UK forces arrived in the 1980s and there was plenty of time to negotiate while the forces were travelling. Also you can fight and negotiate at the same time which is something that never happened because it was well known that there was no chance of losing. It was the lack of willingness to co-operate that was the problem and I still believe it was a very cynical war and I am entitled to this opinion.
On Argentina, the regime would not negotiate. It wouldn't be possible for them to as they only invaded in the first place as a last ditch attempt to hold onto power in Argentina as the country was economically collapsing thanks to the regime. You say co-operate, co-operate over what? If the Nazis took Dover and London, would you be calling for negotiations and peace talks?
If you attack the sovereign territory of another country you are inviting conflict, the Argentinians didnt occupy the Falklands and think "oh its alright the British wont mind" - they took them knowing there was a possibility of the UK sending a taskforce to regain the islands. What is the point in a military if you dont defend your own sovereign land with it?
You keep asking me whether I support invading these other countries and I have answered you more than once.
In paragraph one of my last post:
I should have said probably recent track record, however, I may not approve of these other countries especially Zimbabwe but supporting invasion is something I would consider if the UN and NATO considered it. We are way apart on Iraq - it even sounds like you supported Saddam Hussein's actions against the Kurds :S I do think we should agree to diagree on this one.Quote:
No because they have not shown the instability or have actually had a track history of invading other countries and use of WMD like Iraq. This is with the exception of Iran who has declared Britain an enemy and who need careful watching. They are not my rules anyway
Also what I said about Kuwait and Iraq I researched so please don't just dismiss it and what really gets my goat is you saying 'Kuwait are not the darlings you think they are'. Again you are telling me what I think and I find it bizarre. I don't actually think anything about Kuwait. Poles apart and not worth continuing. Thanks =]
I have just shown how those countries are far more unstable, do have WMD and are still murdering their people - most of which have occured after the gassing of the Kurds in the late 1980s so time isnt an issue. And is time passing by acceptable anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catzsy
On Saddam, yes action needed to be taken to stop Iraq spiralling into full-scale civil war but not the action that was taken and as I have said; I do not agree with the use of gas as it is totally wrong. Do you support the IRA fighting aswell just as the Kurds were to create a breakaway province?
I have researched it, and you brought up Kuwait originally anyway as a way to try and convince me that we needed to get rid of Saddam Hussein as he was 'a danger to his neighbours' despite the fact that Kuwait wasnt just invaded as a spare of the moment thing like you made out, deeper issues behind the issue especially concerning the slant drilling.