Iraqi Flag removed and replaced with a interim Flag..

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ill post when and in whatever thread I would like.

If you post then at least post something that contributes.

Surely it's only a matter of time before they go mouldy then.

On a more serious note, Iraq's in a period of transition. There's nearly always going to be some resistance to change, but that change is often for the better in the long term. I mean, the UK could still be under an absolutist monarch ruling with 'divine right', but thanks to Cromwell and his pals the country's more democratic!

Iraq didn't need changing, and as I and Jordy have said the Middle East works far differently compared to the west. Full Democracy does not work in the Middle East and Africa.

On a totally unrelated note, hasn't the British Garrison in Basra completely pulled back to Basra Airport to maintain a training and support role, not a peacekeeping one, because our General's felt the Iraqi Police could handle it on their own?
We're totally hanging in there for the oil!!

And, I'm going to follow Undertaker and claim that Hitler was good too!! He modernised Germany, brought it out of the depression, maintained order in his Empire... Hell, he was amazing for Europe. Don't hate Hitler, Hug a Hitler!!

:rolleyes:

The companies are in control of the oil now, soliders have nothing to do with the oil anymore. Also if you have done History Hitler was good for the majority of Germans at the start, he brought them back wealth and pride. The difference between Hitler and Saddam is that Hitler invaded numerous countrys to build an Empire, whereas Saddams Iran and Kuwait wars were disputes between the countrys. Saddam and the Ba'ath party never sought to build a empire.

[drama]

Hasn't the Iraqi parliament got better things to do than create new flags?

Your country is on the verge of civil war, oh lets design a new flag!

looooollll.

[---MAD---]

So how was Iraq when you went 11 years ago? At least when Saddam was incharge you could actually go to Iraq, as you just admitted you can't go with the state it's in now.

It was a pile of junk thats what it was. It was very dangerous you couldn't even leave the house when you felt like it. You had to be very careful and left only for important things ie restocking food, school etc.

I only went to Iraq twice under Saddam. That shows how bad it was. I haven't been to Iraq yet since Saddam fell however family go and come there often and tell me what has changed for the better and what has changed for the worse.

Yeah it's fantastic how everyones family members are dead and how the hardline people now rule. I cannot understand how you can say it's better. Terrorists are now ripe in Iraq when before there were none, Roads are ruined, buildings destroyed, American companies are now pumping out the oil, no water due to pipes ruined, families being displaced and electric gone.

Mate, under Saddam family members were killed too. Now its just far more public. Under Saddam you would be put in prison for life and could not say a thing about it. You would get torchered etc for no valid reason.

Undertaker, roads are easy to repair, buildings are easy to replace. At least theres freedom where Iraqs can demonstrate, they can celebrate, they can get on with their religious activities. Fair enough terrorists try to stop this but the killings are far lower than under Saddam. Living under the fear of Saddam was far, far worse. Terrorist attacks happen all over the world, even in stable countries like the USA and UK. Its just that the region itself is unstable because of the neighbours too scared to tackle Al Q and other terrorist groups.

Let the americans take the oil, its not like they can take it all. Its sort of a pay back for what they have done for Iraq . I don't even think theres actual proof of them doing it although they probably are.

Like I said earlier, electric and water have been a problem for decades. Saddam never repaired the lines. Same for telephones. Now at least people can easily contact family without having to try get through operator for hours on end.

On a more serious note, Iraq's in a period of transition. There's nearly always going to be some resistance to change, but that change is often for the better in the long term. I mean, the UK could still be under an absolutist monarch ruling with 'divine right', but thanks to Cromwell and his pals the country's more democratic!

Yes I agree.

[Jordy]

It was a pile of junk thats what it was. It was very dangerous you couldn't even leave the house when you felt like it. You had to be very careful and left only for important things ie restocking food, school etc.

I only went to Iraq twice under Saddam. That shows how bad it was. I haven't been to Iraq yet since Saddam fell however family go and come there often and tell me what has changed for the better and what has changed for the worse.

You say Iraq is better now, but you admitted you went twice under Saddam and never under the fall of Saddam? So it is a lot worse now than it used to be.

When Iraq sorted out any 'Rebels' and who's boss I'm sure they would of then fixed the phone line's and power etc, but they where still in the process of bringing peace & security, they needed more time for their radical middle eastern plan to work.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It was a pile of junk thats what it was. It was very dangerous you couldn't even leave the house when you felt like it. You had to be very careful and left only for important things ie restocking food, school etc.

I only went to Iraq twice under Saddam. That shows how bad it was. I haven't been to Iraq yet since Saddam fell however family go and come there often and tell me what has changed for the better and what has changed for the worse.

Mate, under Saddam family members were killed too. Now its just far more public. Under Saddam you would be put in prison for life and could not say a thing about it. You would get torchered etc for no valid reason.

Undertaker, roads are easy to repair, buildings are easy to replace. At least theres freedom where Iraqs can demonstrate, they can celebrate, they can get on with their religious activities. Fair enough terrorists try to stop this but the killings are far lower than under Saddam. Living under the fear of Saddam was far, far worse. Terrorist attacks happen all over the world, even in stable countries like the USA and UK. Its just that the region itself is unstable because of the neighbours too scared to tackle Al Q and other terrorist groups.

Let the americans take the oil, its not like they can take it all. Its sort of a pay back for what they have done for Iraq . I don't even think theres actual proof of them doing it although they probably are.

Like I said earlier, electric and water have been a problem for decades. Saddam never repaired the lines. Same for telephones. Now at least people can easily contact family without having to try get through operator for hours on end.

Yes I agree.

Saddam did repair the infastructure in Iraq, more to the point it never really needed replacing because Iraq had no terrorists/bombs destroying it all. Yeah let Bush/Rice/Rumsfeld and others take their blood oil from Iraq. Can I also ask what muslims are your family? If they are sunni they will most likely of supported Saddam and more freedom, if not then they will be Shiite muslims who normally prefer women covered up, women not allowed top jobs.

Terrosist never existed in Iraq under Saddam and you know it. Saddams security kept that country together. You mentioned no cinemas, well to be honest I would rather no cinemas and security rather than sitting in a cinema having my head blown off. Full Freedom in Iraq will never work as proven in Kenya and Pakistan, and if the Shiites continue to rule then Iraq will have less freedom than it had with Saddam Hussein. Yes bridges and roads can be repaired, but that costs money and that's something Iraq no longer has.

See below for the build up if Iraqs services that never before existed.

Modernization program
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, as vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, formally the al-Bakr's second-in-command, Saddam built a reputation as a progressive, effective politician.[17] At this time, Saddam moved up the ranks in the new government by aiding attempts to strengthen and unify the Ba'ath party and taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following.
Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, he closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.
At the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On June 1, 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, dominated the country's oil sector. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.

Promoting women's literacy and education in the 1970s


Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).[18][19]
To diversify the largely oil-based Iraqi economy, Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign revolutionized Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas.
Before the 1970s, most of Iraq's people lived in the countryside, where Saddam himself was born and raised, and roughly two-thirds were peasants. But this number would decrease quickly during the 1970s as the country invested much of its oil profits into industrial expansion.
Nevertheless, Saddam focused on fostering loyalty to the Ba'athist government in the rural areas. After nationalizing foreign oil interests, Saddam supervised the modernization of the countryside, mechanizing agriculture on a large scale, and distributing land to peasant farmers.[13] The Ba'athists established farm cooperatives, in which profits were distributed according to the labors of the individual and the unskilled were trained. The government's commitment to agrarian reform was demonstrated by the doubling of expenditures for agricultural development in 1974-1975. Moreover, agrarian reform in Iraq improved the living standard of the peasantry and increased production, though not to the levels for which Saddam had hoped.[attribution needed]
Saddam became personally associated with Ba'athist welfare and economic development programs in the eyes of many Iraqis, widening his appeal both within his traditional base and among new sectors of the population. These programs were part of a combination of "carrot and stick" tactics to enhance support in the working class, the peasantry, and within the party and the government bureaucracy.
Saddam's organizational prowess was credited with Iraq's rapid pace of development in the 1970s; development went forward at such a fevered pitch that two million persons from other Arab countries and Yugoslavia worked in Iraq to meet the growing demand for labor.

[PaintYourTarget]

Also if you have done History Hitler was good for the majority of Germans at the start, he brought them back wealth and pride. The difference between Hitler and Saddam is that Hitler invaded numerous countrys to build an Empire, whereas Saddams Iran and Kuwait wars were disputes between the countrys. Saddam and the Ba'ath party never sought to build a empire.

I have done History, and I did say Hitler was good for Germany, at what point did I say he wasn't? And, Saddam sought to invade Kuwait because he believed it was his nation's land... Now, where have I heard that before?

[---MAD---]

Can I also ask what muslims are your family? If they are sunni they will most likely of supported Saddam and more freedom, if not then they will be Shiite muslims who normally prefer women covered up, women not allowed top jobs.

That is totally incorrect. Suni and Shiite have no differences in regards to women. The only difference between the 2 groups is who they thought was meant to be prophet (I won't get into that here).

I am telling you what I experianced when I went there. Electricity was avalible a few hours a day. Water was barely ever avalible, we had to collect it in buckets etc. And telephone lines were a mess. This is in Baghdad - the capital city.

The whole cinema thing was aimed at the Saudi arabia thing not Iraq .

Saddam did repair the infastructure in Iraq, more to the point it never really needed replacing because Iraq had no terrorists/bombs destroying it all.

Yes but he did start wars with Kuwait and Iran which lead to a lot of infrustracture damages.

The whole thing about amazing health system is totally not true. People used to (and still do) leave the country for operations.

I also never suggested "full freedom".

Full Freedom in Iraq will never work as proven in Kenya and Pakistan

People in Iraq were scared to talk to their neighbour about politics because of how controlling the government was.

Also, if people really like Saddam, why were they so happy when his statue was taken down when he no longer had control? They even got slippers and shoes and hit the statue with it. Proves how much they had respect for him eh ? Why do you think 5 million people left Iraq during his regime?

Saddams security kept that country together.

By killing millions of innocent citizens. Anyone could do that. If the USA wanted, they could do just the same. Kill anyone who speaks against them etc.

I think all the deaths in the past few years in Iraq doesn't sum up to even half of the number of people he killed/torchered in 1 year.

The country is no where near as bad as it sounds. Sure some areas are far too dangerous to be in but some areas are much better off.

[Frodo13.]

That is totally incorrect. Suni and Shiite have no differences in regards to women. The only difference between the 2 groups is who they thought was meant to be prophet (I won't get into that here).

I am telling you what I experianced when I went there. Electricity was avalible a few hours a day. Water was barely ever avalible, we had to collect it in buckets etc. And telephone lines were a mess. This is in Baghdad - the capital city.

The whole cinema thing was aimed at the Saudi arabia thing not Iraq .


Yes but he did start wars with Kuwait and Iran which lead to a lot of infrustracture damages.

The whole thing about amazing health system is totally not true. People used to (and still do) leave the country for operations.

I also never suggested "full freedom".


People in Iraq were scared to talk to their neighbour about politics because of how controlling the government was.

Also, if people really like Saddam, why were they so happy when his statue was taken down when he no longer had control? They even got slippers and shoes and hit the statue with it. Proves how much they had respect for him eh ? Why do you think 5 million people left Iraq during his regime?


By killing millions of innocent citizens. Anyone could do that. If the USA wanted, they could do just the same. Kill anyone who speaks against them etc.

I think all the deaths in the past few years in Iraq doesn't sum up to even half of the number of people he killed/torchered in 1 year.

The country is no where near as bad as it sounds. Sure some areas are far too dangerous to be in but some areas are much better off.

:eusa_clap
Finally we get someone with first hand experiance, rather then someone who gets his facts off the internet.

[-:Undertaker:-]

That is totally incorrect. Suni and Shiite have no differences in regards to women. The only difference between the 2 groups is who they thought was meant to be prophet (I won't get into that here).

I am telling you what I experianced when I went there. Electricity was avalible a few hours a day. Water was barely ever avalible, we had to collect it in buckets etc. And telephone lines were a mess. This is in Baghdad - the capital city.

The whole cinema thing was aimed at the Saudi arabia thing not Iraq .


Yes but he did start wars with Kuwait and Iran which lead to a lot of infrustracture damages.

The whole thing about amazing health system is totally not true. People used to (and still do) leave the country for operations.

I also never suggested "full freedom".


People in Iraq were scared to talk to their neighbour about politics because of how controlling the government was.

Also, if people really like Saddam, why were they so happy when his statue was taken down when he no longer had control? They even got slippers and shoes and hit the statue with it. Proves how much they had respect for him eh ? Why do you think 5 million people left Iraq during his regime?


By killing millions of innocent citizens. Anyone could do that. If the USA wanted, they could do just the same. Kill anyone who speaks against them etc.

I think all the deaths in the past few years in Iraq doesn't sum up to even half of the number of people he killed/torchered in 1 year.

The country is no where near as bad as it sounds. Sure some areas are far too dangerous to be in but some areas are much better off.

Actually Sunni and Shiite do have differences, it has been mentioned on various programmes/newspaper/news programmes, if there was no difference in their beliefs then they wouldn't be fighting for power would they. The Health Service is true, as Iraq was one of the leading nations in the Arab world along with Saudi Arabia., again that's why Saddam recieved that award from the UN. 'They' as in Shiites were happy because he was against their beliefs, it's the same here were certain people support Socialism and some support Capitalism.

Them people were targeted because they were trying to destabilise the country by rioting. As Jordy and I have said you have to rule with a iron fist. The country is far worse off, just look at the country, roads falling apart, kiddnapping of children, terrorism, anararchy in a breaking down society.

:eusa_clap
Finally we get someone with first hand experiance, rather then someone who gets his facts off the internet.

In that case you surely can't comment on the Nazi rule because you weren't there :rolleyes:

[alexxxxx]

I've seriously had enough of the Undertaker spreading his conservative HATE towards whatever the government does. The conservatives would probably have gone to war too. They were influenced HEAVILY by the Americans. And MUCH less British forces are in Iraq than the Americans, and they control Baghdad and the North, where much of the fighting, civil unrest takes place, not Basra (which we no longer take full responsibility for, as mentioned before hand). When the conservatives come to power in a couple of years time (cause they will - they'll start spreading crap about the EU Treaty soon, where there is nothing particularly WRONG with it, just the fact that labor hadn't bothered telling the public anything about it) they'll come to power promising things which they can't deliver.

There's my 2 (euro) cents. =P (Euro is much stronger than the pound and dollar, and still rising)

Do you read the Daily (Hate-)Mail by the way?