Is Islam, the new Nazi ?

Page 27 of 41 < 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 >

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 4.01pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 3.56pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.49pm To do this, you need to make people feel part of our culture. I'd argue that the creeping islamophobia in our society actually has the opposite effect. Have you considered that American security security services have done a better job protecting their homeland from muslim attacks. (they could do a better job protecting citizens from school shootings mind) In America I mainly put it down to the success of their integration of cultures into what being an 'American' is.....I think that has a massive affect and it is what I'm referring to really....Maybe too aggressively at time. As for the US internal security.....I'd be surprised if they were any better than most....A mixture of excellent and incompetent.....Mind you...I don't know how much money they throw at it to be fair....Maybe they are very good but it's kept quiet. Outside of the elite army units of the US army....I don't have much faith in the US machine in that sense. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 3.56pm) Agree, as an outsider I think it's easier to define what being American is. Part of that is knowing that they are a hodgepodge of immigrants. Easier done being a relatively young nation. Britain is also a hodgepodge of different people's arriving to these shores over centuries, yet we seem reticent to acknowledge this.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 4.01pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 3.56pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.49pm

To do this, you need to make people feel part of our culture. I'd argue that the creeping islamophobia in our society actually has the opposite effect.
Have you considered that American security security services have done a better job protecting their homeland from muslim attacks. (they could do a better job protecting citizens from school shootings mind)

In America I mainly put it down to the success of their integration of cultures into what being an 'American' is.....I think that has a massive affect and it is what I'm referring to really....Maybe too aggressively at time.

As for the US internal security.....I'd be surprised if they were any better than most....A mixture of excellent and incompetent.....Mind you...I don't know how much money they throw at it to be fair....Maybe they are very good but it's kept quiet.

Outside of the elite army units of the US army....I don't have much faith in the US machine in that sense.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jun 2014 3.56pm)

Agree, as an outsider I think it's easier to define what being American is. Part of that is knowing that they are a hodgepodge of immigrants. Easier done being a relatively young nation.
Britain is also a hodgepodge of different people's arriving to these shores over centuries, yet we seem reticent to acknowledge this.

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 22 Jun 14 4.08pm
Any invasion with George Bush as the Commander-in-Chief was nailed on to be a fvck-up further down the line. And whose clever idea was it to sack the Iraqi Army around 2004 thereby making a significant number of them very disaffected,wageless and armed. These ISIS lot are Sunnis. The Iraqi Army was majority Sunni. The towns and cities falling are Sunni. The Baa'th Party was mostly Sunni. We had ignorant clowns running the war from the west. Blair doing his Superhero bit again after Kosovo and the neo-cons deciding to go after Saddam after 9/11 even though there was zero connection. They needed an 'enemy' to defeat and he was their chosen patsy. And, they made an enemy of many of the Iraqi people in doing soi even though they mostly themselves wanted him gone. That takes a special kind of stupidity. This would all have never have happened if George Bush snr and his cronies hadn't allowed Saddam to keep power back in '91 even though he had been defeated. 'Eh? What's that George? - you gonna let him stay even though he is a murderous tyrant because Iran don't like you? Good decision that, cowboy' Edited by Kermit8 (22 Jun 2014 4.13pm) Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 22 Jun 14 4.08pm

Any invasion with George Bush as the Commander-in-Chief was nailed on to be a fvck-up further down the line. And whose clever idea was it to sack the Iraqi Army around 2004 thereby making a significant number of them very disaffected,wageless and armed.

These ISIS lot are Sunnis. The Iraqi Army was majority Sunni. The towns and cities falling are Sunni. The Baa'th Party was mostly Sunni.

We had ignorant clowns running the war from the west. Blair doing his Superhero bit again after Kosovo and the neo-cons deciding to go after Saddam after 9/11 even though there was zero connection. They needed an 'enemy' to defeat and he was their chosen patsy. And, they made an enemy of many of the Iraqi people in doing soi even though they mostly themselves wanted him gone. That takes a special kind of stupidity.

This would all have never have happened if George Bush snr and his cronies hadn't allowed Saddam to keep power back in '91 even though he had been defeated. 'Eh? What's that George? - you gonna let him stay even though he is a murderous tyrant because Iran don't like you? Good decision that, cowboy'

Edited by Kermit8 (22 Jun 2014 4.13pm)

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 22 Jun 14 4.19pm
Quote Kermit8 at 22 Jun 2014 4.08pm Any invasion with George Bush as the Commander-in-Chief was nailed on to be a fvck-up further down the line. And whose clever idea was it to sack the Iraqi Army around 2004 thereby making a significant number of them very disaffected,wageless and armed. These ISIS lot are Sunnis. The Iraqi Army was majority Sunni. The towns and cities falling are Sunni. The Baa'th Party was mostly Sunni. We had ignorant clowns running the war from the west. Blair doing his Superhero bit again after Kosovo and the neo-cons deciding to go after Saddam after 9/11 even though there was zero connection. They needed an 'enemy' to defeat and he was their chosen patsy. This would all have never have happened if George Bush snr and his cronies hadn't allowed Saddam to keep power back in '91 even though he had been defeated. 'Eh? What's that George? - you gonna let him stay even though he is a murderous tyrant because Iran don't like you? Good decision that, cowboy' Edited by Kermit8 (22 Jun 2014 4.11pm) Yeah, ISIS are being built up on the media as walking through Iraq....Whatever happens it won't be that. To be fair to Bush Snr.....And that's not something I say alot.....My brother was in one of those tanks speeding towards Baghdad in the first Gulf war. Schwarzkopf came in over the radio f--ing and blinding telling them to pull back.....He wasn't happy about it. He told them that Bush Snr had been told by middle eastern rulers that unless he stuck purely to the UN resolution that he would lose their support for the war. Read into that what you will....But Bush Snr had a hard decision to make.....Staying there would have been every difficult without support. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

22 Jun 14 4.19pm

Quote Kermit8 at 22 Jun 2014 4.08pm

These ISIS lot are Sunnis. The Iraqi Army was majority Sunni. The towns and cities falling are Sunni. The Baa'th Party was mostly Sunni.

Edited by Kermit8 (22 Jun 2014 4.11pm)

Yeah, ISIS are being built up on the media as walking through Iraq....Whatever happens it won't be that.

To be fair to Bush Snr.....And that's not something I say alot.....My brother was in one of those tanks speeding towards Baghdad in the first Gulf war.

Schwarzkopf came in over the radio f--ing and blinding telling them to pull back.....He wasn't happy about it. He told them that Bush Snr had been told by middle eastern rulers that unless he stuck purely to the UN resolution that he would lose their support for the war.

Read into that what you will....But Bush Snr had a hard decision to make.....Staying there would have been every difficult without support.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 4.24pm
Quote Kermit8 at 22 Jun 2014 4.08pm Any invasion with George Bush as the Commander-in-Chief was nailed on to be a fvck-up further down the line. And whose clever idea was it to sack the Iraqi Army around 2004 thereby making a significant number of them very disaffected,wageless and armed. These ISIS lot are Sunnis. The Iraqi Army was majority Sunni. The towns and cities falling are Sunni. The Baa'th Party was mostly Sunni. We had ignorant clowns running the war from the west. Blair doing his Superhero bit again after Kosovo and the neo-cons deciding to go after Saddam after 9/11 even though there was zero connection. They needed an 'enemy' to defeat and he was their chosen patsy. And, they made an enemy of many of the Iraqi people in doing soi even though they mostly themselves wanted him gone. That takes a special kind of stupidity. This would all have never have happened if George Bush snr and his cronies hadn't allowed Saddam to keep power back in '91 even though he had been defeated. 'Eh? What's that George? - you gonna let him stay even though he is a murderous tyrant because Iran don't like you? Good decision that, cowboy' Edited by Kermit8 (22 Jun 2014 4.13pm) Self righteous handwriting liberal bum gravy. Oops sorry, wrong thread.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 22 Jun 14 4.24pm

Quote Kermit8 at 22 Jun 2014 4.08pm

These ISIS lot are Sunnis. The Iraqi Army was majority Sunni. The towns and cities falling are Sunni. The Baa'th Party was mostly Sunni.

Edited by Kermit8 (22 Jun 2014 4.13pm)

Self righteous handwriting liberal bum gravy.
Oops sorry, wrong thread.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jun 14 6.11pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 4.19pm Quote Kermit8 at 22 Jun 2014 4.08pm Any invasion with George Bush as the Commander-in-Chief was nailed on to be a fvck-up further down the line. And whose clever idea was it to sack the Iraqi Army around 2004 thereby making a significant number of them very disaffected,wageless and armed. These ISIS lot are Sunnis. The Iraqi Army was majority Sunni. The towns and cities falling are Sunni. The Baa'th Party was mostly Sunni. We had ignorant clowns running the war from the west. Blair doing his Superhero bit again after Kosovo and the neo-cons deciding to go after Saddam after 9/11 even though there was zero connection. They needed an 'enemy' to defeat and he was their chosen patsy. This would all have never have happened if George Bush snr and his cronies hadn't allowed Saddam to keep power back in '91 even though he had been defeated. 'Eh? What's that George? - you gonna let him stay even though he is a murderous tyrant because Iran don't like you? Good decision that, cowboy' Edited by Kermit8 (22 Jun 2014 4.11pm) Yeah, ISIS are being built up on the media as walking through Iraq....Whatever happens it won't be that. To be fair to Bush Snr.....And that's not something I say alot.....My brother was in one of those tanks speeding towards Baghdad in the first Gulf war. Schwarzkopf came in over the radio f--ing and blinding telling them to pull back.....He wasn't happy about it. He told them that Bush Snr had been told by middle eastern rulers that unless he stuck purely to the UN resolution that he would lose their support for the war. Read into that what you will....But Bush Snr had a hard decision to make.....Staying there would have been every difficult without support. George Bush Snr, made the right decision. It was a UN Operation to liberate Kuwait, not to act as an aggressor to a sovereign state. There is no doubt that the US could have turned over Iraq in 1991 after the first gulf war, at a relatively easy pace. His son was less interested in the rule of law. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jun 14 6.11pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 4.19pm

Quote Kermit8 at 22 Jun 2014 4.08pm

These ISIS lot are Sunnis. The Iraqi Army was majority Sunni. The towns and cities falling are Sunni. The Baa'th Party was mostly Sunni.

Edited by Kermit8 (22 Jun 2014 4.11pm)

Yeah, ISIS are being built up on the media as walking through Iraq....Whatever happens it won't be that.

To be fair to Bush Snr.....And that's not something I say alot.....My brother was in one of those tanks speeding towards Baghdad in the first Gulf war.

Read into that what you will....But Bush Snr had a hard decision to make.....Staying there would have been every difficult without support.

George Bush Snr, made the right decision. It was a UN Operation to liberate Kuwait, not to act as an aggressor to a sovereign state. There is no doubt that the US could have turned over Iraq in 1991 after the first gulf war, at a relatively easy pace.

His son was less interested in the rule of law.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 22 Jun 14 6.19pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 4.19pm Quote Kermit8 at 22 Jun 2014 4.08pm Any invasion with George Bush as the Commander-in-Chief was nailed on to be a fvck-up further down the line. And whose clever idea was it to sack the Iraqi Army around 2004 thereby making a significant number of them very disaffected,wageless and armed. These ISIS lot are Sunnis. The Iraqi Army was majority Sunni. The towns and cities falling are Sunni. The Baa'th Party was mostly Sunni. We had ignorant clowns running the war from the west. Blair doing his Superhero bit again after Kosovo and the neo-cons deciding to go after Saddam after 9/11 even though there was zero connection. They needed an 'enemy' to defeat and he was their chosen patsy. This would all have never have happened if George Bush snr and his cronies hadn't allowed Saddam to keep power back in '91 even though he had been defeated. 'Eh? What's that George? - you gonna let him stay even though he is a murderous tyrant because Iran don't like you? Good decision that, cowboy' Edited by Kermit8 (22 Jun 2014 4.11pm) Yeah, ISIS are being built up on the media as walking through Iraq....Whatever happens it won't be that. They're also playing down the fact that they're also the people the West were 'courting' in Syria. They're also being joined by disaffected Sunni's in that area (some wearing their old uniforms). In terms of advances, they have made good progress because its fairly friendly territory. Kirkuk was largely liberated by the Kurds on the basis the Kurds have always held claim to the city. They're quite well organised, because they were originally the Iraqi Sunni insurgents in Iraq as well (who essentially set up ISIS during the Syrian uprisings). They're also quite well supported by a lot of countries like Saudi and Kuwait, who were funding rebels against Assad in Syria. The Iraqi army is a interesting problem, because a lot of people probably joined up because it was the only job in town and the chance to earn bribes and gain a degree of self protection were quite good. Not really traits you desire in a solider. Plus their officer core were all new (ie not from the old Iraqi army), so likely as not cousins friends and family members of politicians etc looking for an easy income. Unsurprisingly they're having problems with a dedicated, experienced fighting force, who are motivated by a cause, with some experienced and trained leadership. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 22 Jun 14 6.19pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 22 Jun 2014 4.19pm

Quote Kermit8 at 22 Jun 2014 4.08pm

These ISIS lot are Sunnis. The Iraqi Army was majority Sunni. The towns and cities falling are Sunni. The Baa'th Party was mostly Sunni.

Edited by Kermit8 (22 Jun 2014 4.11pm)

Yeah, ISIS are being built up on the media as walking through Iraq....Whatever happens it won't be that.

They're also playing down the fact that they're also the people the West were 'courting' in Syria. They're also being joined by disaffected Sunni's in that area (some wearing their old uniforms).

In terms of advances, they have made good progress because its fairly friendly territory. Kirkuk was largely liberated by the Kurds on the basis the Kurds have always held claim to the city.

They're quite well organised, because they were originally the Iraqi Sunni insurgents in Iraq as well (who essentially set up ISIS during the Syrian uprisings). They're also quite well supported by a lot of countries like Saudi and Kuwait, who were funding rebels against Assad in Syria.

The Iraqi army is a interesting problem, because a lot of people probably joined up because it was the only job in town and the chance to earn bribes and gain a degree of self protection were quite good. Not really traits you desire in a solider. Plus their officer core were all new (ie not from the old Iraqi army), so likely as not cousins friends and family members of politicians etc looking for an easy income.

Unsurprisingly they're having problems with a dedicated, experienced fighting force, who are motivated by a cause, with some experienced and trained leadership.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 23 Jun 14 6.26am
Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.54pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am Interesting. [Link] More worrying than interesting. Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq! Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior. Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise. As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am) "Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise". So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control? I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion. Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation. So you think it would be okey dokey to leave it and let Saddam continue with his whimsical murders? You think it ok to allow him to create one of the largest environmental disasters of all time? You think it ok for the people to be deprived the chance to forge their own future by voting on the people they want to run their country? This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation. So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion. Do you think it's okay for fracking companies to cause environmental disasters? I'm not saying what saddam did was ok, my point is that by invading and winning hearts and minds, we have opened a pandoras box which has resulted in the rise of extremism in this country. As for an alternative-I don't know, nor do I pretend to. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm) Should you not know what the alternative is, do you not think you run the risk of being viewed as an empty kettle? Most Iraqis are very glad Saddam is gone. However, the left ignore this and continue to peddle the limp wristed, do nothing, self righteousness of 'not in my name'. Talk to an Iraqi and ask him. Should you ever wander out of nice Chislehurst, pop in the Porter and Sorter and speak to the Kurdish guy who drinks in there. He will show you the whip marks on his arms and back he got from the Ba'ath Party for refusing national conscription and the chance to use chemical weapons on his own people. He is delighted we invaded. Has Saudi Arabia used chemical weapons on its own people or set fire to over seven hundred oil pumps? What about your comrades in China? I don't see you criticising them and they arguably have a far more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia? When has Fracking caused a disaster close to Sadaam's actions in Kuwait (sure, you will trot out the Pennslyania spill, but that is nowhere near it)? The dangers of Fracking have not been proved. Like most of your empty rhetoric, it is theory. No one is saying that their aren't those that are pleased Saddam was overthrown, I've met a few myself. That's not my argument though. My argument is that the invasion of Iraq by the West, under false pretence of WMD's, has exacerbated the problem of terrorism from muslim extremists in the West. Are you contesting that it hasn't? P. S. I see you are confusing personal opinion with self righteous again. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.57pm) I was never contesting that. Please re-read my comments and find another angle to have a go at me. I was saying that the repression of groups and people was far more brutal in the days of Saddam and the real tragedy is that the fundamentalist groups, or rather the people in hem, have the opportunity to run the country under the current democracy, and are choosing to throw away this opportunity and engage in a seemingly never ending cycle of death. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 23 Jun 14 6.26am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.54pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

More worrying than interesting.
Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq!
Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior.
Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise.

As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am)

"Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise".

So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control?

I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion.

Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.

So you think it would be okey dokey to leave it and let Saddam continue with his whimsical murders? You think it ok to allow him to create one of the largest environmental disasters of all time? You think it ok for the people to be deprived the chance to forge their own future by voting on the people they want to run their country?

This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation.

So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion.

Do you think it's okay for fracking companies to cause environmental disasters?
I'm not saying what saddam did was ok, my point is that by invading and winning hearts and minds, we have opened a pandoras box which has resulted in the rise of extremism in this country.
As for an alternative-I don't know, nor do I pretend to.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm)

Should you not know what the alternative is, do you not think you run the risk of being viewed as an empty kettle? Most Iraqis are very glad Saddam is gone. However, the left ignore this and continue to peddle the limp wristed, do nothing, self righteousness of 'not in my name'. Talk to an Iraqi and ask him. Should you ever wander out of nice Chislehurst, pop in the Porter and Sorter and speak to the Kurdish guy who drinks in there. He will show you the whip marks on his arms and back he got from the Ba'ath Party for refusing national conscription and the chance to use chemical weapons on his own people. He is delighted we invaded.

Has Saudi Arabia used chemical weapons on its own people or set fire to over seven hundred oil pumps? What about your comrades in China? I don't see you criticising them and they arguably have a far more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia? When has Fracking caused a disaster close to Sadaam's actions in Kuwait (sure, you will trot out the Pennslyania spill, but that is nowhere near it)? The dangers of Fracking have not been proved. Like most of your empty rhetoric, it is theory.

No one is saying that their aren't those that are pleased Saddam was overthrown, I've met a few myself. That's not my argument though. My argument is that the invasion of Iraq by the West, under false pretence of WMD's, has exacerbated the problem of terrorism from muslim extremists in the West. Are you contesting that it hasn't?
P. S. I see you are confusing personal opinion with self righteous again.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.57pm)

I was never contesting that. Please re-read my comments and find another angle to have a go at me.

I was saying that the repression of groups and people was far more brutal in the days of Saddam and the real tragedy is that the fundamentalist groups, or rather the people in hem, have the opportunity to run the country under the current democracy, and are choosing to throw away this opportunity and engage in a seemingly never ending cycle of death.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 23 Jun 14 6.27am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2014 3.48pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am Interesting. [Link] More worrying than interesting. Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq! Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior. Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise. As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am) "Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise". So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control? I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion. Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation. So you think it would be okey dokey to leave it and let Saddam continue with his whimsical murders? You think it ok to allow him to create one of the largest environmental disasters of all time? You think it ok for the people to be deprived the chance to forge their own future by voting on the people they want to run their country? This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation. So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion. Do you think it's okay for fracking companies to cause environmental disasters? I'm not saying what saddam did was ok, my point is that by invading and winning hearts and minds, we have opened a pandoras box which has resulted in the rise of extremism in this country. As for an alternative-I don't know, nor do I pretend to. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm) Should you not know what the alternative is, do you not think you run the risk of being viewed as an empty kettle? Most Iraqis are very glad Saddam is gone. However, the left ignore this and continue to peddle the limp wristed, do nothing, self righteousness of 'not in my name'. Talk to an Iraqi and ask him. Should you ever wander out of nice Chislehurst, pop in the Porter and Sorter and speak to the Kurdish guy who drinks in there. He will show you the whip marks on his arms and back he got from the Ba'ath Party for refusing national conscription and the chance to use chemical weapons on his own people. He is delighted we invaded. Has Saudi Arabia used chemical weapons on its own people or set fire to over seven hundred oil pumps? What about your comrades in China? I don't see you criticising them and they arguably have a far more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia? When has Fracking caused a disaster close to Sadaam's actions in Kuwait (sure, you will trot out the Pennslyania spill, but that is nowhere near it)? The dangers of Fracking have not been proved. Like most of your empty rhetoric, it is theory. Debatable, China isn't reknown for oppressing people who follow its rules - You can experience a degree of freedom provided you don't speak out. Where as in Saudi having the wrong genitals means being repressed. Its like misery poker though, comparing very repressive regions on a sliding scale is a pointless endeavour. Defending China's human rights record in order to score points on HoL? A new low from Jamiemartin. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 23 Jun 14 6.27am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 22 Jun 2014 3.48pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am)

"Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise".

Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.

This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation.

So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm)

Has Saudi Arabia used chemical weapons on its own people or set fire to over seven hundred oil pumps? What about your comrades in China? I don't see you criticising them and they arguably have a far more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia? When has Fracking caused a disaster close to Sadaam's actions in Kuwait (sure, you will trot out the Pennslyania spill, but that is nowhere near it)? The dangers of Fracking have not been proved. Like most of your empty rhetoric, it is theory.

Debatable, China isn't reknown for oppressing people who follow its rules - You can experience a degree of freedom provided you don't speak out. Where as in Saudi having the wrong genitals means being repressed.

Its like misery poker though, comparing very repressive regions on a sliding scale is a pointless endeavour.

Defending China's human rights record in order to score points on HoL?

A new low from Jamiemartin.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 23 Jun 14 8.07am
Quote matt_himself at 23 Jun 2014 6.26am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.54pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am Interesting. [Link] More worrying than interesting. Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq! Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior. Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise. As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am) "Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise". So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control? I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion. Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation. So you think it would be okey dokey to leave it and let Saddam continue with his whimsical murders? You think it ok to allow him to create one of the largest environmental disasters of all time? You think it ok for the people to be deprived the chance to forge their own future by voting on the people they want to run their country? This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation. So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion. Do you think it's okay for fracking companies to cause environmental disasters? I'm not saying what saddam did was ok, my point is that by invading and winning hearts and minds, we have opened a pandoras box which has resulted in the rise of extremism in this country. As for an alternative-I don't know, nor do I pretend to. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm) Should you not know what the alternative is, do you not think you run the risk of being viewed as an empty kettle? Most Iraqis are very glad Saddam is gone. However, the left ignore this and continue to peddle the limp wristed, do nothing, self righteousness of 'not in my name'. Talk to an Iraqi and ask him. Should you ever wander out of nice Chislehurst, pop in the Porter and Sorter and speak to the Kurdish guy who drinks in there. He will show you the whip marks on his arms and back he got from the Ba'ath Party for refusing national conscription and the chance to use chemical weapons on his own people. He is delighted we invaded. Has Saudi Arabia used chemical weapons on its own people or set fire to over seven hundred oil pumps? What about your comrades in China? I don't see you criticising them and they arguably have a far more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia? When has Fracking caused a disaster close to Sadaam's actions in Kuwait (sure, you will trot out the Pennslyania spill, but that is nowhere near it)? The dangers of Fracking have not been proved. Like most of your empty rhetoric, it is theory. No one is saying that their aren't those that are pleased Saddam was overthrown, I've met a few myself. That's not my argument though. My argument is that the invasion of Iraq by the West, under false pretence of WMD's, has exacerbated the problem of terrorism from muslim extremists in the West. Are you contesting that it hasn't? P. S. I see you are confusing personal opinion with self righteous again. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.57pm) I was never contesting that. Please re-read my comments and find another angle to have a go at me. I was saying that the repression of groups and people was far more brutal in the days of Saddam and the real tragedy is that the fundamentalist groups, or rather the people in hem, have the opportunity to run the country under the current democracy, and are choosing to throw away this opportunity and engage in a seemingly never ending cycle of death. Wasn't having a go, just seeking clarification. I still contest that the invasion paved the way for the rise of fundamentalist groups making it easier for them to recruit. I think that to think that Iraq would just fall into western style democracy is rather facile.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 23 Jun 14 8.07am

Quote matt_himself at 23 Jun 2014 6.26am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.54pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am)

"Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise".

Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.

This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation.

So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm)

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.57pm)

I was never contesting that. Please re-read my comments and find another angle to have a go at me.

Wasn't having a go, just seeking clarification. I still contest that the invasion paved the way for the rise of fundamentalist groups making it easier for them to recruit.
I think that to think that Iraq would just fall into western style democracy is rather facile.

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 23 Jun 14 8.35am
Quote nickgusset at 23 Jun 2014 8.07am Quote matt_himself at 23 Jun 2014 6.26am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.54pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am Interesting. [Link] More worrying than interesting. Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq! Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior. Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise. As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am) "Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise". So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control? I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion. Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation. So you think it would be okey dokey to leave it and let Saddam continue with his whimsical murders? You think it ok to allow him to create one of the largest environmental disasters of all time? You think it ok for the people to be deprived the chance to forge their own future by voting on the people they want to run their country? This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation. So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion. Do you think it's okay for fracking companies to cause environmental disasters? I'm not saying what saddam did was ok, my point is that by invading and winning hearts and minds, we have opened a pandoras box which has resulted in the rise of extremism in this country. As for an alternative-I don't know, nor do I pretend to. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm) Should you not know what the alternative is, do you not think you run the risk of being viewed as an empty kettle? Most Iraqis are very glad Saddam is gone. However, the left ignore this and continue to peddle the limp wristed, do nothing, self righteousness of 'not in my name'. Talk to an Iraqi and ask him. Should you ever wander out of nice Chislehurst, pop in the Porter and Sorter and speak to the Kurdish guy who drinks in there. He will show you the whip marks on his arms and back he got from the Ba'ath Party for refusing national conscription and the chance to use chemical weapons on his own people. He is delighted we invaded. Has Saudi Arabia used chemical weapons on its own people or set fire to over seven hundred oil pumps? What about your comrades in China? I don't see you criticising them and they arguably have a far more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia? When has Fracking caused a disaster close to Sadaam's actions in Kuwait (sure, you will trot out the Pennslyania spill, but that is nowhere near it)? The dangers of Fracking have not been proved. Like most of your empty rhetoric, it is theory. No one is saying that their aren't those that are pleased Saddam was overthrown, I've met a few myself. That's not my argument though. My argument is that the invasion of Iraq by the West, under false pretence of WMD's, has exacerbated the problem of terrorism from muslim extremists in the West. Are you contesting that it hasn't? P. S. I see you are confusing personal opinion with self righteous again. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.57pm) I was never contesting that. Please re-read my comments and find another angle to have a go at me. I was saying that the repression of groups and people was far more brutal in the days of Saddam and the real tragedy is that the fundamentalist groups, or rather the people in hem, have the opportunity to run the country under the current democracy, and are choosing to throw away this opportunity and engage in a seemingly never ending cycle of death. Wasn't having a go, just seeking clarification. I still contest that the invasion paved the way for the rise of fundamentalist groups making it easier for them to recruit. I think that to think that Iraq would just fall into western style democracy is rather facile. Anyone with half a brain would know that you don't just fall into democracy but one would hope that being given the opportunity, after decades of repression, that the people would give it a sustained go. A large part of the Iraqi populace do. Sadly, a sizeable minority wish to mimic Saddam. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 23 Jun 14 8.35am

Quote nickgusset at 23 Jun 2014 8.07am

Quote matt_himself at 23 Jun 2014 6.26am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.54pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am)

"Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise".

Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.

This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation.

So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm)

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.57pm)

I was never contesting that. Please re-read my comments and find another angle to have a go at me.

Anyone with half a brain would know that you don't just fall into democracy but one would hope that being given the opportunity, after decades of repression, that the people would give it a sustained go.

A large part of the Iraqi populace do. Sadly, a sizeable minority wish to mimic Saddam.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 23 Jun 14 8.45am
Quote matt_himself at 23 Jun 2014 8.35am Quote nickgusset at 23 Jun 2014 8.07am Quote matt_himself at 23 Jun 2014 6.26am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.54pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am Interesting. [Link] More worrying than interesting. Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq! Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior. Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise. As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am) "Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise". So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control? I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion. Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation. So you think it would be okey dokey to leave it and let Saddam continue with his whimsical murders? You think it ok to allow him to create one of the largest environmental disasters of all time? You think it ok for the people to be deprived the chance to forge their own future by voting on the people they want to run their country? This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation. So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion. Do you think it's okay for fracking companies to cause environmental disasters? I'm not saying what saddam did was ok, my point is that by invading and winning hearts and minds, we have opened a pandoras box which has resulted in the rise of extremism in this country. As for an alternative-I don't know, nor do I pretend to. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm) Should you not know what the alternative is, do you not think you run the risk of being viewed as an empty kettle? Most Iraqis are very glad Saddam is gone. However, the left ignore this and continue to peddle the limp wristed, do nothing, self righteousness of 'not in my name'. Talk to an Iraqi and ask him. Should you ever wander out of nice Chislehurst, pop in the Porter and Sorter and speak to the Kurdish guy who drinks in there. He will show you the whip marks on his arms and back he got from the Ba'ath Party for refusing national conscription and the chance to use chemical weapons on his own people. He is delighted we invaded. Has Saudi Arabia used chemical weapons on its own people or set fire to over seven hundred oil pumps? What about your comrades in China? I don't see you criticising them and they arguably have a far more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia? When has Fracking caused a disaster close to Sadaam's actions in Kuwait (sure, you will trot out the Pennslyania spill, but that is nowhere near it)? The dangers of Fracking have not been proved. Like most of your empty rhetoric, it is theory. No one is saying that their aren't those that are pleased Saddam was overthrown, I've met a few myself. That's not my argument though. My argument is that the invasion of Iraq by the West, under false pretence of WMD's, has exacerbated the problem of terrorism from muslim extremists in the West. Are you contesting that it hasn't? P. S. I see you are confusing personal opinion with self righteous again. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.57pm) I was never contesting that. Please re-read my comments and find another angle to have a go at me. I was saying that the repression of groups and people was far more brutal in the days of Saddam and the real tragedy is that the fundamentalist groups, or rather the people in hem, have the opportunity to run the country under the current democracy, and are choosing to throw away this opportunity and engage in a seemingly never ending cycle of death. Wasn't having a go, just seeking clarification. I still contest that the invasion paved the way for the rise of fundamentalist groups making it easier for them to recruit. I think that to think that Iraq would just fall into western style democracy is rather facile. Anyone with half a brain would know that you don't just fall into democracy but one would hope that being given the opportunity, after decades of repression, that the people would give it a sustained go. A large part of the Iraqi populace do. Sadly, a sizeable minority wish to mimic Saddam. Which anyone with half a brain saw coming.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 23 Jun 14 8.45am

Quote matt_himself at 23 Jun 2014 8.35am

Quote nickgusset at 23 Jun 2014 8.07am

Quote matt_himself at 23 Jun 2014 6.26am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.54pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am)

"Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise".

Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.

This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation.

So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm)

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.57pm)

I was never contesting that. Please re-read my comments and find another angle to have a go at me.

A large part of the Iraqi populace do. Sadly, a sizeable minority wish to mimic Saddam.

Which anyone with half a brain saw coming.

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 23 Jun 14 8.47am
Quote nickgusset at 23 Jun 2014 8.45am Quote matt_himself at 23 Jun 2014 8.35am Quote nickgusset at 23 Jun 2014 8.07am Quote matt_himself at 23 Jun 2014 6.26am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.54pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am Interesting. [Link] More worrying than interesting. Where does it say ISIS were formed? Iraq! Why Iraq? I'd wager it's because the country was destabilised after the invasion which was started by that well known lefty, George Bush junior. Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise. As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am) "Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise". So, in your mind, the Anfal campaign, using chemical weapons against the Kurds, the Kuwait invasion which involved the burning of one billion barrels of oil by the Iraqi Army, the violent repression of the Sh'iite uprising and the subsequent massacre of the Marsh Arabs was a form of acceptable social control? I would suggest that in Sadaam's day there was plenty of fundamentalist groups, the difference is that under the Democratic Iraq, they can stand to run the country in a democratic process and not be subjected to the tyranny experienced in his time. The fact that don't, is their doing and is not a symptom of democracy, it is a symptom of their inability to proceed in life in a civilised fashion. Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation. So you think it would be okey dokey to leave it and let Saddam continue with his whimsical murders? You think it ok to allow him to create one of the largest environmental disasters of all time? You think it ok for the people to be deprived the chance to forge their own future by voting on the people they want to run their country? This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation. So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion. Do you think it's okay for fracking companies to cause environmental disasters? I'm not saying what saddam did was ok, my point is that by invading and winning hearts and minds, we have opened a pandoras box which has resulted in the rise of extremism in this country. As for an alternative-I don't know, nor do I pretend to. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm) Should you not know what the alternative is, do you not think you run the risk of being viewed as an empty kettle? Most Iraqis are very glad Saddam is gone. However, the left ignore this and continue to peddle the limp wristed, do nothing, self righteousness of 'not in my name'. Talk to an Iraqi and ask him. Should you ever wander out of nice Chislehurst, pop in the Porter and Sorter and speak to the Kurdish guy who drinks in there. He will show you the whip marks on his arms and back he got from the Ba'ath Party for refusing national conscription and the chance to use chemical weapons on his own people. He is delighted we invaded. Has Saudi Arabia used chemical weapons on its own people or set fire to over seven hundred oil pumps? What about your comrades in China? I don't see you criticising them and they arguably have a far more repressive regime than Saudi Arabia? When has Fracking caused a disaster close to Sadaam's actions in Kuwait (sure, you will trot out the Pennslyania spill, but that is nowhere near it)? The dangers of Fracking have not been proved. Like most of your empty rhetoric, it is theory. No one is saying that their aren't those that are pleased Saddam was overthrown, I've met a few myself. That's not my argument though. My argument is that the invasion of Iraq by the West, under false pretence of WMD's, has exacerbated the problem of terrorism from muslim extremists in the West. Are you contesting that it hasn't? P. S. I see you are confusing personal opinion with self righteous again. Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.57pm) I was never contesting that. Please re-read my comments and find another angle to have a go at me. I was saying that the repression of groups and people was far more brutal in the days of Saddam and the real tragedy is that the fundamentalist groups, or rather the people in hem, have the opportunity to run the country under the current democracy, and are choosing to throw away this opportunity and engage in a seemingly never ending cycle of death. Wasn't having a go, just seeking clarification. I still contest that the invasion paved the way for the rise of fundamentalist groups making it easier for them to recruit. I think that to think that Iraq would just fall into western style democracy is rather facile. Anyone with half a brain would know that you don't just fall into democracy but one would hope that being given the opportunity, after decades of repression, that the people would give it a sustained go. A large part of the Iraqi populace do. Sadly, a sizeable minority wish to mimic Saddam. Which anyone with half a brain saw coming. And so we are back in a cycle of Saddam whimsically murdering great swathes of his population at will, should we have not got rid of him. At least the Iraqi people have the choice of their own direction now and have democratic institutions. It takes time but unless people are freed from tyranny they will never have the opportunity to build something better. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 23 Jun 14 8.47am

Quote nickgusset at 23 Jun 2014 8.45am

Quote matt_himself at 23 Jun 2014 8.35am

Quote nickgusset at 23 Jun 2014 8.07am

Quote matt_himself at 23 Jun 2014 6.26am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.54pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 3.37pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 3.01pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 2.53pm

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 12.46pm

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 11.37am

Quote nickgusset at 22 Jun 2014 9.43am

Quote matt_himself at 22 Jun 2014 9.07am

Interesting.

[Link]

As an aside, How much did Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton make from Iraq post invasion? There, IMHO, lies the real reason for the invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 9.52am)

"Saddam was a tyrant, no doubt. But he kept a lid on the growth of fundamentalist groups which are now on the rise".

Don't disagree about Sadams atrocities, they were awful. However to invade and try and impose western style democracy was either a terrible mistake or done so badly that we are in a worse situation.

This is precisely why I am completely against your politics. You speak a lot about what is wrong yet make or support no act that would actually resolve the situation.

So you think it's ok for Saudi Arabia to have a repressive regime. By your logic, you should call for an invasion.

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.03pm)

Edited by nickgusset (22 Jun 2014 3.57pm)

I was never contesting that. Please re-read my comments and find another angle to have a go at me.

A large part of the Iraqi populace do. Sadly, a sizeable minority wish to mimic Saddam.

Which anyone with half a brain saw coming.

And so we are back in a cycle of Saddam whimsically murdering great swathes of his population at will, should we have not got rid of him.

At least the Iraqi people have the choice of their own direction now and have democratic institutions. It takes time but unless people are freed from tyranny they will never have the opportunity to build something better.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 27 of 41 < 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Is Islam, the new Nazi ?

Site Map

Sponsors