What do you truly believe was the reason behind allied forces going into Iraq?

Well, Nuclear Weapons and Saddam Hussain was the reason they went in, as they were a potential threat to World peace.

Mad people in charge....

Saddam's reputation is well known and the superpowers of the USA know a lot more.

Then, you need to look at the cost of the War, from the USA & UK, this runs into Millions of dollars and when the win, which they intend to do so. then, there is a lovely prize.

OIL....

Perhaps Tony Blair did a little deal, so the lovely UK will get a nice piece of the pie?

OIL....

But that is just part of the equasion.

It was the middle-eastern Country, Iraq, who started it..

But the blame is all Saddam, so they say??

Why do people follow a leader in such a way? Because they will die, unless they comply.

Nazism, all over again....






nodisharmony

it will be hard for the army to pull out of iraq now as there is nothing they are fighting for. if they pull out then there are all those innocent guys who died for nothing.

like nod said blair and bush said they thought saddam had nuclear weapons of mass distruction but he didnt.

i blame blair and bush.

my brother is leaving on sunday for irap to be a door gunner

USA sold weapons to Iraq, from fighter jets to artillary.

Why would America sell weapons to a country who would attack them?

Iraq had no nuclear weapons or any WMD of any kind in 2003, America bankrolled Saddam for nearly 20 years, the chemical weapons he used to gas the kurds - the componenst to make them were supplied by....The United States Of America


So you argue that it is just to invade a country to take control of its natural resources, why am I not suprised. So tell me, how does that make the US and Britain any different from the Nazi's



Did they...how so ?

that is by far your most dillusional statement you have ever made

err Rex

One of your Poll-options was:-

- Iraq was threatening to use WMDs against Israel

That is:- "Weapon of mass destruction" ( Nuclear, Chemical Weapons )


They could also use those weapons against "The West", right??

So, due to that, War came about, when America invaded.

BUT, BUT, BUT, you say that Iraq did not start it????

BUT, BUT, BUT, Who threatened to invade?

Who said they had WMD's????



Iraq



America had to act, just on that threat alone.....

So, Iraq should have thought things through, but Saddam doesn't wish to listen, did he??



So you see Rex, (Not so dillusional, is it?)









nodisharmony

no probably racist

iraq said they did NOT of WMDs, but it was obvious they disliked the zionist regime against Palestians

I am aware of most of that Spacebandit.

But, Iraq is a big place and the WMD's could still be there, couldn't they??

America has looked and looked, so they say, but for now, there is nothing.

The USA did supply them, but where are they??

Threats against Israel and perhaps "The West", were real, so War followed, as a result of that threat.

But the USA did give them an option to comply to their demands firstly, all in the name of peace...



You misread it...

I said, that there is a prize to be won, as a result of the USA and the UK winning this War and taking total control.

But that is NOT the real reason for the war, it is just the Prize, which is fortunite, that's all....






I have written that answer, in reply to Rex....








nodisharmony

No, all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons leave a signature that can be detected by military satellite and spy plane, how do you think we knew exactly how many mobile ICBMS the russians had during the cold war.

Then there is the question of bunkers, and therein lies the rub, bunkers need men and machines to build them - even naturally occuring caves for storage need preperation, US spy satellites pinpointed EVERY possible site where WMD could be - NO, they are not there, There were none after 1991 / 92.

After Desert Storm [Gulf War One] Iraq complied with all UN Resolutions regarding its weapons systems, all its WMD were destroyed at that time, a fact verified by the United Nations and accepted by the then US administration


No, and are you really so ill informed ?.

Iraq complied with all UN Weapons Inspectors searches prior to 2003. There was of course some complaints from the Iraqi's about "sovereignty" but every site that was to be inspected was inspected, up to a point, when the inspections prematurely ceased. And what was that point ?

It was when George Bush decided to press ahead BEFORE the UN had completed its inspections. Against the wishes of the UN and under strong condemnation from the UN wepns inspection team, which included some Americans, the United States forced the removal of the weapons inspectors before they had finished their job, and then used that as a pretext for war saying the weapons inspectors were unable to finish their inspections and so claimed Iraq breached the UN resolutions. Its a well worn tactic, YOu did it here with your molsem torture thread.

Where are they - gone after the end of Gulf War One

The war was about oil, you say it is "a prize"

Calling it a prize is both shameful and disingenuos as OIL was the goal.

We now know that the war was started on lies.

What was the first thing US troops did when entering Iraq ?

Assist civilians ?
Fix and protect the water supply [important as it is a desert country]
Get the electricity back on ?
get hospitals up and running ?

No

None of the above

Specially prepared squads of US Marines secured oilfields, pumping stations and oil embarcation facilities

Who gets to control, Iraq's oil. Under a bill sponsored by the United States Government - two US companies now control the supply and distribution and Iraqs oil.

Iraq did not have any WMD, the US and UK Governments were told that prior to the war, and it has now been proven right

Iraq did not start the war - it is simple to discover the true cause of the start of it

Iraq threatened to invade no-one. We were warned Iraq could strike at us, but we have since been informed by our "great leaders" that they were wrong. Them being wrong was no secret before the war started, in fact we now know the lied about it

You say that Iraq said they had WMD, and so its their fault. Of course they did, and here is why.

North Korea has a genocidal maniac as a leader, human rights abuses are horrific, it has nuclear weapons, and that is verified. Yet we do not invade - Why ?

We do not invade BECAUSE they have nuclear weapons.

Iraq had a genocidal maniac as a leader, supported and sponsored for many years by the United States, human rights abuses were, and still are horrific, it claimed it had WMD and was about to have a nuclear weapon. and yet we invaded - Why ?

We invaded because our governments knew there were no WMD and they thought they could win.

that is why Iraq claimed to have WMD - to try and fend off invasion.

Kim Il Jon in North Korea is arguably as bad as Saddam - we know that, but we don't invade, we don't invade because no US and UK administration would survive the slaughter of hnudreds of thousands of its troops massing to invade North Korea when Kim Il Jon nukes them, and then we nuke his people - he'll be safe miles underground in a bunker.

We have shown the world that bullies prosper, we have shown the world that evil thugs will be dispensed with, unless they have a nuclear weapon - then we will negotiate with them. bearing that in mind, it is no suprise Iran is desperate to get hold of a nuclear weapon, it guarantees border security from an oil grab.


You really should try to keep up

Ah.. now this is beautiful to watch. This is what the serious debates section should be like..*nods*..

Anyone for popcorn? (sorry, carry on..)

Check out last few posts of http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d=65182&page=2

Made me laugh soo much, now THATS what debate section is all about.

The question remains... who does have the largest fanny?

I know who is the largest fanny, but that's beside the point.

Now that's a serious debating matter .

Aye, tiz indeed Daniel.. *nods*

i know all this political stuff is well boring now, i liked the thread about the Glasses and Kary Katona

Right up there with-Does God exist, what's the meaning of life and should we have gone to war with Iraq, don't you agree?

yeah "Lindsay Lohan's naked fury", i like the serious tone under the self concious anxius posts

I actually like the Serious Debates section. It was me who asked for it in the first place. And I really enjoy reading a well debated thread (before it gets locked .. ) However, I can't really contribute anything particularly worthwhile to this one, cuz I'm slightly uninformed when it comes to Iraq.

do you have any other serious debates?

I've had many. If you look through this section you will see.

Jaffa cake; cake or biscuit?

I could get passionate about that ****.

Have we had that one? *must look back through..

We may have in general chat but never have I been able to voice my opinion on this matter so seriously. Linda, I feel stifled where cake/biscuit debates are concerned.

I shall fight to the death!

(I've lost the will to live )