Massacre by US Troops in Iraq

[Guest alex]

Are the US Marines who carried out the clean-up operation who were shocked and traumatised 'fantastically naive' Leazes? Or are they less experienced in combat situations than yourself?

143789[/snapback]

 

I have no idea. Probably fantastically naive, obeying orders, and panicking.

 

Think its daft to suggest Iraq didn't have chemical weapons, when they had gassed their own people. Do you still believe in fairies as well ?

143798[/snapback]

Also, how were the people who cleaned up afterwards naive and panicking? Do you even read what people write? FFS

143801[/snapback]

 

Is your avatar

a symbol of the fact that you support law and order, or the thought police ?

143865[/snapback]

Close, Operation Good Guys

[Renton 21643]

GF isn't as verbose as Renton, sadly

143983[/snapback]

 

Christ, if I'm as long-winded and irrelevant as GF, I'm going to have to seriously restrict my posting length, and stick to one liners like you!

[Guest alex]

GF isn't as verbose as Renton, sadly

143983[/snapback]

 

Christ, if I'm as long-winded and irrelevant as GF, I'm going to have to seriously restrict my posting length, and stick to one liners like you!

143991[/snapback]

Sorry, I was taking the piss. Verbose meaning long-winded, right? Look at the posts he's made in this thread. He then says, I may not be as verbose as you Renton. Another similarity with HTT is the use of long words he doesn't seem to understand. He's our very own Mrs. Malaprop. / Del Boy.

Now, I'm going to try and illterate this thread from my memory as I've nothing further to say.

[Renton 21643]

GF isn't as verbose as Renton, sadly

143983[/snapback]

 

Christ, if I'm as long-winded and irrelevant as GF, I'm going to have to seriously restrict my posting length, and stick to one liners like you!

143991[/snapback]

Sorry, I was taking the piss. Verbose meaning long-winded, right? Look at the posts he's made in this thread. He then says, I may not be as verbose as you Renton. Another similarity with HTT is the use of long words he doesn't seem to understand. He's our very own Mrs. Malaprop. / Del Boy.

Now, I'm going to try and illterate this thread from my memory as I've nothing further to say.

144005[/snapback]

 

Righto, I think I shall attire from this thread too. Like the sig by the way!

[DanTheMan 0]

GF at his pretentious best.

[Guest alex]

GF isn't as verbose as Renton, sadly

143983[/snapback]

 

Christ, if I'm as long-winded and irrelevant as GF, I'm going to have to seriously restrict my posting length, and stick to one liners like you!

143991[/snapback]

Sorry, I was taking the piss. Verbose meaning long-winded, right? Look at the posts he's made in this thread. He then says, I may not be as verbose as you Renton. Another similarity with HTT is the use of long words he doesn't seem to understand. He's our very own Mrs. Malaprop. / Del Boy.

Now, I'm going to try and illterate this thread from my memory as I've nothing further to say.

144005[/snapback]

 

Righto, I think I shall attire from this thread too. Like the sig by the way!

144009[/snapback]

A fitting tribute to my favourite poster

[adios 717]

Although the Fish may have a penchant for pretentiousness, I would just like to say that comparing him to that buffoon is lower than calling him a fetid cunt (sorry catmag).

[Guest alex]

Although the Fish may have a penchant for pretentiousness, I would just like to say that comparing him to that buffoon is lower than calling him a fetid cunt (sorry catmag).

144019[/snapback]

Yes, I went too far. Sorry GF.

[ChocChip 0]

I am somewhat amazed that in some people's eyes being a 'do gooder,' some one who does good things and wishes well on others is to be ridiculed in favour of an attitude of an ignorant, racist bigot.

 

These kind of people are the true cowards, those who treat empathy and compassion as a weakness, those people who play soldier but whose arsehole is far too loose to actually risk any real confrontation, who try to associate themselves with those unfortunate enough to have been in battle purely to inflate their own sense of masculinity.

[Guest alex]

Says a lot about society when 'do-gooder' is an offensive term really.

[Renton 21643]

Says a lot about society when 'do-gooder' is an offensive term really.

144039[/snapback]

 

Liberals in the US are the new communists too.

[LeazesMag 0]

1. Nowt like making assumptions.

 

2. If he had chemical weapons once, can you think of any other reason why he wouldn't have them or use them again, unless you think he had turned over a new leaf  And whether he can "attack us or not" - is not the point. Ironic that you say I am surprising you by commenting on humanitarian issues, yet you are coming out with the classic "I'm all right Jack" line.

 

3. I think you will find that one or two very important people also think he had WMD's. Or develop the technology. By flouting the terms of the surrender, he was taking the piss, breaking an agreement and re-inforcing any suspicion that he had something to hide.

 

4. Lastly I told you one good reason why the 2nd invasion was necessary, but you won't accept it because you are naive and refuse to accept other countries that are run by despots are not a danger, the attitude which led to 2 world wars in the last century.

 

5. You knew exactly what myself, and one or two others, would say about this anyway, the same as I knew what the do gooders would say, that they think everything in war is clean, calculated and there are no innocent casualties except the ones on our side.

143862[/snapback]

 

1. What assumptions? That you care little for the welfare of the citizens of Iraq? A pretty fare assumption given your previous posts on this board and even this thread, I would have thought. Or have you changed your stance on asylum seekers recently?

 

2. I would have thought that whether Iraq posed a threat to us or his neighbours was exactly the point. After all, if he was no threat, why invade? I assume you are not naive enough to think the invasion was for humanitarian reasons, and if it was, as I have said, why not invade several other equally "bad" nations. Personally, I would have been against the war even if it was solely for humanitarian reasons as I was convinced it would lead to more suffering and death, in the long and short term. I think I am being proved right, and we have the added bonus of Iraq becoming a prime breeding ground for terrorists and fundamentalist muslims - how ironic is that? Like I said, utterly predictable though, except to the neocons, it seems.

 

3. No-one in a position that mattered thought he was a threat. His lack of so-called WMD had been confirmed by UN weapons inspectors, and Iraq was open to inspection at the time of the invasion. Do you seriously think Western intelligence could get it so wrong? No Leazes, WMD were an excuse for the invasion, not the reason, and once again you demonstrate your naivety (the real reasons would be an entirely new debate). Yes, of course Hussein took the piss on occasion until the US called his bluff, but if you think it is reasonable to go to war with the terrible resultant consequences we are now seeing (I suspect with worse to come), because someone took the piss, then you really are barking.

 

4. Classic Leazes. Make a pointless and completely flawed comparison with a bygone age.

 

5. Not sure what you are getting at. Alex started this thread, and you jumped in with both feet on one of my replies, in the process making it obvious you had not read the original article. Proves you prefer an argument to a debate really, doesn't it? Also I'd like you to point out anywhere where I have said that war is anything but a horrific affair with many civilian casualties - you're not up to your usual tricks of putting words into other peoples' mouths are you?

 

Now, I've tried to answer your points as best I can, now can you answer two of mine (yes or no will do)?

 

A. Do you think we should withdraw from Iraq now, leaving behind a bloody civil war (I think you suggested this a couple of weeks ago)?

 

B. Do you think we should invade Iran?

143930[/snapback]

 

And you say I don't read.

 

1. You obviously continue to care for citizens of Iraq and other countries to the extent that you think we have a duty of care and should allow them all into our country, rather than try to help them get rid of their own oppressor, a person who gassed, tortured and terrorised them. Don't bother trying to go back on your own "humanitarian" comment by talking now about "his neighbours", when you said earlier he was "no danger to us".

 

2. If Iran invades another country, or Kuwait, what do you think we should do ?

As I pointed out, which you continue to ignore instead of trying to make a case for WMD's, we invaded originally because he invaded Kuwait. Is this a reason or not for the first war ? Therefore, not finishing the job off led to him flouting his cease-fire agreement, which made the 2nd invasion inevitable.

 

3. Clearly someone important thought he was a threat. Did you make that statement of your own up ? He was obstructing the inspectors, the notion that WMD's were there [whether true or not] was increased by that action, as he was breaking the terms of the ceasefire you can only go on so long doing this, you cannot allow this situation to continue. You have no proof they weren't there any more than I have that they were. But if you have half an ounce of common sense, you will condede it is highly unlikely he did not have chemical weapons, or the will to develop more, having used them already.

 

4. It is not really our fault that attempting to get rid of Saddam met with such opposition to the extent that soldiers attempting to restore order are being killed themselves. What is YOUR solution ? Do you think we should pull out. Yes I said a few weeks ago we should pull out, because of the opposition to them being there, most people are exasperated with this situation now. [You don't find me using hindsight to change my mind like some on here]. If this proves to be wrong I would hold my hand up and say I called it wrong. Odd you say my opinion is flawed, because I think your idea of leaving Iraq alone was a complete no brainer.

If you can't see my point about comparing you with chemical Ali, its your problem.

 

5. Your point number 5 is childish. What is the difference between an argument and a debate. I respond to the posts as I catch up with the thread. Strange too, because I thought you were the one who attempts to put words into peoples mouths.

 

Your questions about A and B are no brainers, and have already been answered.

My view is that the invastion of Iraq wasn't finished the first time, and his flouting of the ceasefire agreement and obstruction of inspectors made the 2nd one inevitable. A lot of people expressed the comment during this time that we should have finished the job the first time, and would have to go and finish it, so to say otherwise as you are doing is nothing other than re-writing history. Again. If Iran invaded Kuwait, would you stand back and do nothing. In fact, do you think we should allow them to develop their weapons, or are you going to do a chemical Ali and not believe its happening when they are attacking Israel or someone else, right behind you ?

[LeazesMag 0]

I am somewhat amazed that in some people's eyes being a 'do gooder,' some one who does good things and wishes well on others is to be ridiculed in favour of an attitude of an ignorant, racist bigot.

 

These kind of people are the true cowards, those who treat empathy and compassion as a weakness, those people who play soldier but whose arsehole is far too loose to actually risk any real confrontation, who try to associate themselves with those unfortunate enough to have been in battle purely to inflate their own sense of masculinity.

144036[/snapback]

 

and how many people in the armed services, and their views, do you know ?

[ChocChip 0]

Eunuch tbh

[LeazesMag 0]

Eunuch tbh

144058[/snapback]

 

?

 

good reply

[manc-mag 1]

Eunuch tbh

144058[/snapback]

 

?

 

good reply

144060[/snapback]

 

Im say you a wutless bwoy???!!! raaaaaaaaaaas mon!!!! *kiss teet*

[Renton 21643]

Am I the only person confused by Leazes repeated accusations that I am like Chemical Ali?

 

Leazes, are you accusing me of having genocidal tendencies?

[manc-mag 1]

Am I the only person confused by Leazes repeated accusations that I am like Chemical Ali?

 

Leazes, are you accusing me of having genocidal tendencies?

144063[/snapback]

 

More homocidal than genocidal tbh.

[Renton 21643]

Am I the only person confused by Leazes repeated accusations that I am like Chemical Ali?

 

Leazes, are you accusing me of having genocidal tendencies?

144063[/snapback]

 

More homocidal than genocidal tbh.

144065[/snapback]

 

Are you calling me a puff like?

[manc-mag 1]

Am I the only person confused by Leazes repeated accusations that I am like Chemical Ali?

 

Leazes, are you accusing me of having genocidal tendencies?

144063[/snapback]

 

More homocidal than genocidal tbh.

144065[/snapback]

 

Are you calling me a puff like?

144067[/snapback]

 

I'm positively insisting.

[Renton 21643]

I would imagine actually that Leazes is suggesting I am like "comical Ali", but is getting confused again.

 

Mind, I don't see that comparison holds much water either, and yep, is pretty childish.

[Renton 21643]

Am I the only person confused by Leazes repeated accusations that I am like Chemical Ali?

 

Leazes, are you accusing me of having genocidal tendencies?

144063[/snapback]

 

More homocidal than genocidal tbh.

144065[/snapback]

 

Are you calling me a puff like?

144067[/snapback]

 

I'm positively insisting.

144069[/snapback]

 

 

Well

 

 

 

 

 

Will you go out with me then?

[Guest alex]

Did he actually flout the 'Ceasefire Agreement' though? I thought it was a subsequent UN Security Council Resolution. Now, this may seem like a pedantic point but I think it's hypocritical to invade one country for this reason and not others. Israel are more guilty of ignoring these than anyone (I'm not advocate invading them by the way). A few problems I have with the war are this:

They tried to link Saddam Hussein with 9/11 but they couldn't. They then tried to say they knew he had 'WMDs' including claims (which turned out to be made up) that they could be deployed with 45 mins or so. When the earlier claims turned out to be false the war became purely about regime change, for the good of the Iraqi people. Now I think the situation over there is worse than it ever was before and I think sooner or later we and the US will have to leave and it will be in a bigger mess than ever. Now this is bad news for the people of Iraq but (let's be honest here) what's more important is that it will probably make things less safe for us. I can envisage a power vacuum far worse than the one in which led to a 'terrorist state' in Afghanistan. If that does happen, guess who'll be top of the list of targets along with the US. And I feel we will only have ourselves to blame.

Before you ask, I hate Saddam and everything he stood for and I hate the acts of terrorism carried out against our own people and anybody else.

[Guest alex]

I am somewhat amazed that in some people's eyes being a 'do gooder,' some one who does good things and wishes well on others is to be ridiculed in favour of an attitude of an ignorant, racist bigot.

 

These kind of people are the true cowards, those who treat empathy and compassion as a weakness, those people who play soldier but whose arsehole is far too loose to actually risk any real confrontation, who try to associate themselves with those unfortunate enough to have been in battle purely to inflate their own sense of masculinity.

144036[/snapback]

 

and how many people in the armed services, and their views, do you know ?

144057[/snapback]

There was a phone-in on Radio 5 last night and all those who phoned in claiming to be in the British Armed Forces were pretty digusted at what is supposed to have taken place during this massacre Leazes. By the way, have you ever served in the armed forces?

[Renton 21643]

Did he actually flout the 'Ceasefire Agreement' though? I thought it was a subsequent UN Security Council Resolution. Now, this may seem like a pedantic point but I think it's hypocritical to invade one country for this reason and not others. Israel are more guilty of ignoring these than anyone (I'm not advocate invading them by the way). A few problems I have with the war are this:

They tried to link Saddam Hussein with 9/11 but they couldn't. They then tried to say they knew he had 'WMDs' including claims (which turned out to be made up) that they could be deployed with 45 mins or so. When the earlier claims turned out to be false the war became purely about regime change, for the good of the Iraqi people. Now I think the situation over there is worse than it ever was before and I think sooner or later we and the US will have to leave and it will be in a bigger mess than ever. Now this is bad news for the people of Iraq but (let's be honest here) what's more important is that it will probably make things less safe for us. I can envisage a power vacuum far worse than the one in which led to a 'terrorist state' in Afghanistan. If that does happen, guess who'll be top of the list of targets along with the US. And I feel we will only have ourselves to blame.

Before you ask, I hate Saddam and everything he stood for and I hate the acts of terrorism carried out against our own people and anybody else.

144072[/snapback]

 

Exactly how I see things.

 

Glad you clarified the last bit that you are not and never have been a terrorist, nor condone terrorism or Hussein; it may shorten Leazes standard response.