UK aid worker may have been killed by US forces

[Ketsbaia 0]

 

FUCK YEAH!

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The Afghan people had suffered the most at the hands of terrorism and oppression from the Taliban/Al Quaeda, and before foreign forces deployed in 2001 there was a widespread terrorist campaigm comprised of training camps (most of the 9/11 bombers passed through camps in Afghanistan) and a failed state in which Bin Laden and his 101 brigade were relatively safe - that could not be said for the thousands that died at their hands.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[LeazesMag 0]

You've just said that HF has no idea about the Muslim/Taliban mindset. What exactly is it makes you more qualified than him?

 

As I said in the other thread, what experience do you have in the real world?

 

He's been in a war zone and had a gun pointed at him on a regular basis, for a start.

 

I'm sure he'll contradict me if that's not the case.

 

Are you German or a Brit living in Germany ?

 

Either way, you should be quite aware of the consequences of allowing madmen some rope ....

 

Aye, the consequences can be dire.....when the madman has a modicum of power.

 

But then if you'd been a German in 1938 you'd have been fully supportive of the Fuhrer and his program of killing whichever fellow citizens he perceived to be a threat. You'd have shouted down anyone opposed to that as unpatriotic as you have nothing but unquestioning obedience to your leaders and what they tell you. Right?

 

Or are you saying a few uneducated, cave dwellers are being given so much rope they could mount a challenge to world democracy on a scale equal to the might of the German military?

 

eerrr.....no. It's you who is supporting those who are gassing, killing and murdering their own people. I suppose you would have allowed Hitler Youth or Gestapo to march on the streets to demonstrate their "rights" of free speech ? Haven'I asked you this before ?

 

Yeah, you didn't grasp the difference between holding accountable the most powerful government in the world with a military arsenal to dwarf most others nations combined....and less than 100 people living in caves when we discussed it previously either.

 

you don't grasp the fundamental difference either. The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal [shame] but these so called "100 people living in caves" most certainly would [on Israel first] if we - or people like you - allow them to build the capability.

[Guest alex]

 

FUCK YEAH!

[LeazesMag 0]

The Afghan people had suffered the most at the hands of terrorism and oppression from the Taliban/Al Quaeda, and before foreign forces deployed in 2001 there was a widespread terrorist campaigm comprised of training camps (most of the 9/11 bombers passed through camps in Afghanistan) and a failed state in which Bin Laden and his 101 brigade were relatively safe - that could not be said for the thousands that died at their hands.

 

the likes of Happy Face would be happy to see them continue their terrorist campaigns and blowing aircraft out of the sky though as it's "nothing to do with us". At what stage does he think they would stop and say "we have enough weapons now let's stop being so beastly to those who don't follow Allah like we do"

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

 

Hey Hanns I tol you beforr no wepons of mash deshruction!!

[Ketsbaia 0]

 

Hey Hanns I tol you beforr no wepons of mash deshruction!!

 

Fuck off you stupid twat, it was funny when I did it.

[Happy Face 29]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

[LeazesMag 0]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

Edit. You can answer the rest of the post if you like, instead of clipping it

Edited October 12, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Happy Face 29]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone.

 

Keep up.

[LeazesMag 0]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone.

 

Keep up.

 

ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear.

 

[Happy Face 29]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone.

 

Keep up.

 

ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear.

 

 

So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk).

 

Your ideas are illogical.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone.

 

Keep up.

 

ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear.

 

 

So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk).

 

Your ideas are illogical.

 

A Super Power ? Who said a super power ? Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them on his own people. Who is to say he didn't have them again, and who is to say he wouldn't have used them again ? He was mad, yet people like you say we should not have gone in, or didn't have a mandate to go in. If we had not gone in, because we had accepted that the hopeless UN didn't sanction it, he would arguably now have chemical weapons again [if he didn't have them already], then what next ? Who next ? See, people who argue against the 2nd invasion of Iraq make me laugh, it has almost certainly [however it has gone wrong now] avoided a build up of arms by Saddam and the use of chemical weapons again by him. Your ideas are namby pamby, naive, and do nothing other than encourage the leaders of such countries to build up their arsenal to attack Israel first, then what ? The leaders aren't backward, they know precisely what they are doing.

 

I suspect deep down you know that this is right, because it is basic common sense, but can't bring yourself to admit it, having been brainwashed by the hippy generation in your earlier life.....

[tooner 243]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone.

 

Keep up.

 

ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear.

 

 

So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk).

 

Your ideas are illogical.

 

A Super Power ? Who said a super power ? Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them on his own people. Who is to say he didn't have them again, and who is to say he wouldn't have used them again ? He was mad, yet people like you say we should not have gone in, or didn't have a mandate to go in. If we had not gone in, because we had accepted that the hopeless UN didn't sanction it, he would arguably now have chemical weapons again [if he didn't have them already], then what next ? Who next ? See, people who argue against the 2nd invasion of Iraq make me laugh, it has almost certainly [however it has gone wrong now] avoided a build up of arms by Saddam and the use of chemical weapons again by him. Your ideas are namby pamby, naive, and do nothing other than encourage the leaders of such countries to build up their arsenal to attack Israel first, then what ? The leaders aren't backward, they know precisely what they are doing.

 

I suspect deep down you know that this is right, because it is basic common sense, but can't bring yourself to admit it, having been brainwashed by the hippy generation in your earlier life.....

 

 

<sigh>......against my better judgement.

 

 

LM where did Saddam get the gas from....here is a pic for a bit of a hint.....

...they didn't have the technology to do it before so they bought them, from .........wait for it, the West.

 

your ideas are, convoluted at best

[Happy Face 29]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone.

 

Keep up.

 

ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear.

 

 

So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk).

 

Your ideas are illogical.

 

A Super Power ? Who said a super power ? Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them on his own people. Who is to say he didn't have them again, and who is to say he wouldn't have used them again ? He was mad, yet people like you say we should not have gone in, or didn't have a mandate to go in. If we had not gone in, because we had accepted that the hopeless UN didn't sanction it, he would arguably now have chemical weapons again [if he didn't have them already], then what next ? Who next ? See, people who argue against the 2nd invasion of Iraq make me laugh, it has almost certainly [however it has gone wrong now] avoided a build up of arms by Saddam and the use of chemical weapons again by him. Your ideas are namby pamby, naive, and do nothing other than encourage the leaders of such countries to build up their arsenal to attack Israel first, then what ? The leaders aren't backward, they know precisely what they are doing.

 

I suspect deep down you know that this is right, because it is basic common sense, but can't bring yourself to admit it, having been brainwashed by the hippy generation in your earlier life.....

 

Can't believe you've moved from the shaky ground you were on to the even shakier ground of Iraq, where the consensus is universal....

 

classified documents from 2001 set out points under the heading ‘how start?’, which clearly detail various schemes to start a war under false pretenses, including baiting Saddam into an attack on the Kurds in the north, or breathlessly announcing from the White House that a firm connection had been found between Saddam and Usama Bin Laden. That several such possibilities were listed showed that Rumsfeld did not really care how the war was started, he just wanted that war. And it shows he was entirely willing to manufacture the pretense once it was decided on.

 

 

The memo was developed in close consultation with deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz and his subordinate Douglas Feith, both of them part of the Israel Lobby in the Bush administration, whose obsession with Iraq derived from their right-Zionist commitments.

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/index.htm

 

They really worked a number on you if you STILL believe it was justified when the record clearly shows otherwise.

[LeazesMag 0]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone.

 

Keep up.

 

ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear.

 

 

So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk).

 

Your ideas are illogical.

 

A Super Power ? Who said a super power ? Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them on his own people. Who is to say he didn't have them again, and who is to say he wouldn't have used them again ? He was mad, yet people like you say we should not have gone in, or didn't have a mandate to go in. If we had not gone in, because we had accepted that the hopeless UN didn't sanction it, he would arguably now have chemical weapons again [if he didn't have them already], then what next ? Who next ? See, people who argue against the 2nd invasion of Iraq make me laugh, it has almost certainly [however it has gone wrong now] avoided a build up of arms by Saddam and the use of chemical weapons again by him. Your ideas are namby pamby, naive, and do nothing other than encourage the leaders of such countries to build up their arsenal to attack Israel first, then what ? The leaders aren't backward, they know precisely what they are doing.

 

I suspect deep down you know that this is right, because it is basic common sense, but can't bring yourself to admit it, having been brainwashed by the hippy generation in your earlier life.....

 

 

<sigh>......against my better judgement.

 

 

LM where did Saddam get the gas from....here is a pic for a bit of a hint.....

...they didn't have the technology to do it before so they bought them, from .........wait for it, the West.

 

your ideas are, convoluted at best

 

I wasn't going to bother with your posts any more, but have to say, does it matter ? The arms industry don't care where they sell their product just like anybody else.

 

More fantastic naivety.

[TheMoog 0]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone.

 

Keep up.

 

ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear.

 

 

So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk).

 

Your ideas are illogical.

 

A Super Power ? Who said a super power ? Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them on his own people. Who is to say he didn't have them again, and who is to say he wouldn't have used them again ? He was mad, yet people like you say we should not have gone in, or didn't have a mandate to go in. If we had not gone in, because we had accepted that the hopeless UN didn't sanction it, he would arguably now have chemical weapons again [if he didn't have them already], then what next ? Who next ? See, people who argue against the 2nd invasion of Iraq make me laugh, it has almost certainly [however it has gone wrong now] avoided a build up of arms by Saddam and the use of chemical weapons again by him. Your ideas are namby pamby, naive, and do nothing other than encourage the leaders of such countries to build up their arsenal to attack Israel first, then what ? The leaders aren't backward, they know precisely what they are doing.

 

I suspect deep down you know that this is right, because it is basic common sense, but can't bring yourself to admit it, having been brainwashed by the hippy generation in your earlier life.....

 

Can't believe you've moved from the shaky ground you were on to the even shakier ground of Iraq, where the consensus is universal....

 

classified documents from 2001 set out points under the heading ‘how start?’, which clearly detail various schemes to start a war under false pretenses, including baiting Saddam into an attack on the Kurds in the north, or breathlessly announcing from the White House that a firm connection had been found between Saddam and Usama Bin Laden. That several such possibilities were listed showed that Rumsfeld did not really care how the war was started, he just wanted that war. And it shows he was entirely willing to manufacture the pretense once it was decided on.

 

 

The memo was developed in close consultation with deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz and his subordinate Douglas Feith, both of them part of the Israel Lobby in the Bush administration, whose obsession with Iraq derived from their right-Zionist commitments.

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/index.htm

 

They really worked a number on you if you STILL believe it was justified when the record clearly shows otherwise.

 

To be fair these 'backward folk' wouldn't have half the technology they have if it hadn't been traded to them for oil or some other commodity needed by the more developed nations.

[LeazesMag 0]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone.

 

Keep up.

 

ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear.

 

 

So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk).

 

Your ideas are illogical.

 

A Super Power ? Who said a super power ? Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them on his own people. Who is to say he didn't have them again, and who is to say he wouldn't have used them again ? He was mad, yet people like you say we should not have gone in, or didn't have a mandate to go in. If we had not gone in, because we had accepted that the hopeless UN didn't sanction it, he would arguably now have chemical weapons again [if he didn't have them already], then what next ? Who next ? See, people who argue against the 2nd invasion of Iraq make me laugh, it has almost certainly [however it has gone wrong now] avoided a build up of arms by Saddam and the use of chemical weapons again by him. Your ideas are namby pamby, naive, and do nothing other than encourage the leaders of such countries to build up their arsenal to attack Israel first, then what ? The leaders aren't backward, they know precisely what they are doing.

 

I suspect deep down you know that this is right, because it is basic common sense, but can't bring yourself to admit it, having been brainwashed by the hippy generation in your earlier life.....

 

Can't believe you've moved from the shaky ground you were on to the even shakier ground of Iraq, where the consensus is universal....

 

classified documents from 2001 set out points under the heading ‘how start?’, which clearly detail various schemes to start a war under false pretenses, including baiting Saddam into an attack on the Kurds in the north, or breathlessly announcing from the White House that a firm connection had been found between Saddam and Usama Bin Laden. That several such possibilities were listed showed that Rumsfeld did not really care how the war was started, he just wanted that war. And it shows he was entirely willing to manufacture the pretense once it was decided on.

 

 

The memo was developed in close consultation with deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz and his subordinate Douglas Feith, both of them part of the Israel Lobby in the Bush administration, whose obsession with Iraq derived from their right-Zionist commitments.

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/index.htm

 

They really worked a number on you if you STILL believe it was justified when the record clearly shows otherwise.

 

Your anti-west stance still continues to mystify me. Perhaps you are a Mohammed ? Saddam would have gassed and murdered his own people again. End of. This isn't speculative, it's common sense. You would wait until he did, people like me prefer to stop him before he does it.

 

You must have one hell of an anti-west agenda to spend your time scouting around for stuff like this [above]

[Happy Face 29]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone.

 

Keep up.

 

ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear.

 

 

So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk).

 

Your ideas are illogical.

 

A Super Power ? Who said a super power ? Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them on his own people. Who is to say he didn't have them again, and who is to say he wouldn't have used them again ? He was mad, yet people like you say we should not have gone in, or didn't have a mandate to go in. If we had not gone in, because we had accepted that the hopeless UN didn't sanction it, he would arguably now have chemical weapons again [if he didn't have them already], then what next ? Who next ? See, people who argue against the 2nd invasion of Iraq make me laugh, it has almost certainly [however it has gone wrong now] avoided a build up of arms by Saddam and the use of chemical weapons again by him. Your ideas are namby pamby, naive, and do nothing other than encourage the leaders of such countries to build up their arsenal to attack Israel first, then what ? The leaders aren't backward, they know precisely what they are doing.

 

I suspect deep down you know that this is right, because it is basic common sense, but can't bring yourself to admit it, having been brainwashed by the hippy generation in your earlier life.....

 

Can't believe you've moved from the shaky ground you were on to the even shakier ground of Iraq, where the consensus is universal....

 

classified documents from 2001 set out points under the heading ‘how start?’, which clearly detail various schemes to start a war under false pretenses, including baiting Saddam into an attack on the Kurds in the north, or breathlessly announcing from the White House that a firm connection had been found between Saddam and Usama Bin Laden. That several such possibilities were listed showed that Rumsfeld did not really care how the war was started, he just wanted that war. And it shows he was entirely willing to manufacture the pretense once it was decided on.

 

 

The memo was developed in close consultation with deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz and his subordinate Douglas Feith, both of them part of the Israel Lobby in the Bush administration, whose obsession with Iraq derived from their right-Zionist commitments.

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/index.htm

 

They really worked a number on you if you STILL believe it was justified when the record clearly shows otherwise.

 

Your anti-west stance still continues to mystify me. Perhaps you are a Mohammed ? Saddam would have gassed and murdered his own people again. End of. This isn't speculative, it's common sense. You would wait until he did, people like me prefer to stop him before he does it.

 

You must have one hell of an anti-west agenda to spend your time scouting around for stuff like this [above]

 

 

I'll take that as a complete capitulation.

 

Scouting about? It's common knowledge.

[tooner 243]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone.

 

Keep up.

 

ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear.

 

 

So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk).

 

Your ideas are illogical.

 

A Super Power ? Who said a super power ? Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them on his own people. Who is to say he didn't have them again, and who is to say he wouldn't have used them again ? He was mad, yet people like you say we should not have gone in, or didn't have a mandate to go in. If we had not gone in, because we had accepted that the hopeless UN didn't sanction it, he would arguably now have chemical weapons again [if he didn't have them already], then what next ? Who next ? See, people who argue against the 2nd invasion of Iraq make me laugh, it has almost certainly [however it has gone wrong now] avoided a build up of arms by Saddam and the use of chemical weapons again by him. Your ideas are namby pamby, naive, and do nothing other than encourage the leaders of such countries to build up their arsenal to attack Israel first, then what ? The leaders aren't backward, they know precisely what they are doing.

 

I suspect deep down you know that this is right, because it is basic common sense, but can't bring yourself to admit it, having been brainwashed by the hippy generation in your earlier life.....

 

 

<sigh>......against my better judgement.

 

 

LM where did Saddam get the gas from....here is a pic for a bit of a hint.....

...they didn't have the technology to do it before so they bought them, from .........wait for it, the West.

 

your ideas are, convoluted at best

 

I wasn't going to bother with your posts any more, but have to say, does it matter ? The arms industry don't care where they sell their product just like anybody else.

 

More fantastic naivety.

avoided a buid up of chemical weapons? where would he have got them? how would he have got them into the country?which arms manufacturer would have sold to him?

not only did the west sell weapons to him when he was their sword against Iran, they also gave him the satelitte imagery he used to attack the Kurds in the north.

 

 

talk about naive , the Iraq invasion was never about WMDs, it was about oil.

[LeazesMag 0]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone.

 

Keep up.

 

ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear.

 

 

So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk).

 

Your ideas are illogical.

 

A Super Power ? Who said a super power ? Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them on his own people. Who is to say he didn't have them again, and who is to say he wouldn't have used them again ? He was mad, yet people like you say we should not have gone in, or didn't have a mandate to go in. If we had not gone in, because we had accepted that the hopeless UN didn't sanction it, he would arguably now have chemical weapons again [if he didn't have them already], then what next ? Who next ? See, people who argue against the 2nd invasion of Iraq make me laugh, it has almost certainly [however it has gone wrong now] avoided a build up of arms by Saddam and the use of chemical weapons again by him. Your ideas are namby pamby, naive, and do nothing other than encourage the leaders of such countries to build up their arsenal to attack Israel first, then what ? The leaders aren't backward, they know precisely what they are doing.

 

I suspect deep down you know that this is right, because it is basic common sense, but can't bring yourself to admit it, having been brainwashed by the hippy generation in your earlier life.....

 

 

<sigh>......against my better judgement.

 

 

LM where did Saddam get the gas from....here is a pic for a bit of a hint.....

...they didn't have the technology to do it before so they bought them, from .........wait for it, the West.

 

your ideas are, convoluted at best

 

I wasn't going to bother with your posts any more, but have to say, does it matter ? The arms industry don't care where they sell their product just like anybody else.

 

More fantastic naivety.

avoided a buid up of chemical weapons? where would he have got them? how would he have got them into the country?which arms manufacturer would have sold to him?

not only did the west sell weapons to him when he was their sword against Iran, they also gave him the satelitte imagery he used to attack the Kurds in the north.

 

 

talk about naive , the Iraq invasion was never about WMDs, it was about oil.

 

the first one was about an invasion into a foreign country ie Kuwait.

 

In case you missed the subsequent events, he flouted the terms of the surrender for years, including the obstruction of the weapons inspectors. Unless of course you think this is acceptable [which you probably do]

[LeazesMag 0]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone.

 

Keep up.

 

ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear.

 

 

So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk).

 

Your ideas are illogical.

 

A Super Power ? Who said a super power ? Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them on his own people. Who is to say he didn't have them again, and who is to say he wouldn't have used them again ? He was mad, yet people like you say we should not have gone in, or didn't have a mandate to go in. If we had not gone in, because we had accepted that the hopeless UN didn't sanction it, he would arguably now have chemical weapons again [if he didn't have them already], then what next ? Who next ? See, people who argue against the 2nd invasion of Iraq make me laugh, it has almost certainly [however it has gone wrong now] avoided a build up of arms by Saddam and the use of chemical weapons again by him. Your ideas are namby pamby, naive, and do nothing other than encourage the leaders of such countries to build up their arsenal to attack Israel first, then what ? The leaders aren't backward, they know precisely what they are doing.

 

I suspect deep down you know that this is right, because it is basic common sense, but can't bring yourself to admit it, having been brainwashed by the hippy generation in your earlier life.....

 

Can't believe you've moved from the shaky ground you were on to the even shakier ground of Iraq, where the consensus is universal....

 

classified documents from 2001 set out points under the heading ‘how start?’, which clearly detail various schemes to start a war under false pretenses, including baiting Saddam into an attack on the Kurds in the north, or breathlessly announcing from the White House that a firm connection had been found between Saddam and Usama Bin Laden. That several such possibilities were listed showed that Rumsfeld did not really care how the war was started, he just wanted that war. And it shows he was entirely willing to manufacture the pretense once it was decided on.

 

 

The memo was developed in close consultation with deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz and his subordinate Douglas Feith, both of them part of the Israel Lobby in the Bush administration, whose obsession with Iraq derived from their right-Zionist commitments.

 

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/index.htm

 

They really worked a number on you if you STILL believe it was justified when the record clearly shows otherwise.

 

Your anti-west stance still continues to mystify me. Perhaps you are a Mohammed ? Saddam would have gassed and murdered his own people again. End of. This isn't speculative, it's common sense. You would wait until he did, people like me prefer to stop him before he does it.

 

You must have one hell of an anti-west agenda to spend your time scouting around for stuff like this [above]

 

 

I'll take that as a complete capitulation.

 

Scouting about? It's common knowledge.

 

I think its pretty sad to be honest, especially when England on are on TV, and you could also be going out [which I am doing in a few minutes]

[NJS 4386]

the first one was about an invasion into a foreign country ie Kuwait.

 

The borders of that region were drawn by western governments/oil companies. Kuwait was historically part of Iraq.

[tooner 243]

The "most powerful government in the world" don't use their military arsenal

 

 

do they ? Please show us where they have nuked the middle east ?

 

No-one mentioned nukes....but the US are the only nation to have launched a nuke in anger at anyone.

 

Keep up.

 

ah. You said "military arsenal". Which includes nukes. As I said, if you answered the rest of the post without clipping it, it all becomes clear.

 

 

So you didn't misread the post, you just wilfully ignored the point being made based on facts. Even worse you ignored it to wonder what the enemy might do hypothetically if they somehow outsmarted the might and intellect of the western military and became a nuclear super power (these are the same people you've said are uneducated backward folk).

 

Your ideas are illogical.

 

A Super Power ? Who said a super power ? Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. He used them on his own people. Who is to say he didn't have them again, and who is to say he wouldn't have used them again ? He was mad, yet people like you say we should not have gone in, or didn't have a mandate to go in. If we had not gone in, because we had accepted that the hopeless UN didn't sanction it, he would arguably now have chemical weapons again [if he didn't have them already], then what next ? Who next ? See, people who argue against the 2nd invasion of Iraq make me laugh, it has almost certainly [however it has gone wrong now] avoided a build up of arms by Saddam and the use of chemical weapons again by him. Your ideas are namby pamby, naive, and do nothing other than encourage the leaders of such countries to build up their arsenal to attack Israel first, then what ? The leaders aren't backward, they know precisely what they are doing.

 

I suspect deep down you know that this is right, because it is basic common sense, but can't bring yourself to admit it, having been brainwashed by the hippy generation in your earlier life.....

 

 

<sigh>......against my better judgement.

 

 

LM where did Saddam get the gas from....here is a pic for a bit of a hint.....

...they didn't have the technology to do it before so they bought them, from .........wait for it, the West.

 

your ideas are, convoluted at best

 

I wasn't going to bother with your posts any more, but have to say, does it matter ? The arms industry don't care where they sell their product just like anybody else.

 

More fantastic naivety.

avoided a buid up of chemical weapons? where would he have got them? how would he have got them into the country?which arms manufacturer would have sold to him?

not only did the west sell weapons to him when he was their sword against Iran, they also gave him the satelitte imagery he used to attack the Kurds in the north.

 

 

talk about naive , the Iraq invasion was never about WMDs, it was about oil.

 

the first one was about an invasion into a foreign country ie Kuwait.

 

In case you missed the subsequent events, he flouted the terms of the surrender for years, including the obstruction of the weapons inspectors. Unless of course you think this is acceptable [which you probably do]

 

[adios 717]

British aid worker Linda Norgrove may have been accidentally killed by US forces during a rescue mission in Afghanistan, David Cameron has said.

 

International forces there originally said the 36-year-old died on Friday when one of her captors detonated a suicide vest.

 

But the prime minister said new details had come to light suggesting her death may have resulted from a US grenade.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11514210

 

Even as I watched the news yesterday morning, telling me it was her captors that set off an exploding vest I said aloud, it was a blitz, more important to kill the 'insurgents' than rescue the victim.

wonder how many times you've muttered things like that to yourself and nothing's come of it, citizen smith

 

monkey, htf are you getting away with that avatar btw?