That's terrible, I can't believe people can actually go through with something at this level. :(

Using your logic then Winston Churchill & the British War Cabinet were guilty of war crimes for the deaths of 40,000 German civilians during the bombing of Dresden because they just so happened to be housed in the 13 square miles where the Germans had their major rail, transportation, communications and centre for over 100 factories employeeing 50,000 workers supplying output for the German war effort and the government of the USA were guilty of war crimes for the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing over 200,000.

 

:lol:.... brilliant!

Using your logic then Winston Churchill & the British War Cabinet were guilty of war crimes for the deaths of 40,000 German civilians during the bombing of Dresden because they just so happened to be housed in the 13 square miles where the Germans had their major rail, transportation, communications and centre for over 100 factories employeeing 50,000 workers supplying output for the German war effort and the government of the USA were guilty of war crimes for the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing over 200,000.

 

Well, I have serious issues with the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - they were deliberately targeted at purely civilian population centres, NOT the capital or where the Japanese Emperor had his seat of power... Inexcusable as far as I'm concerned... The Yanks just wanted to test their weapon, Japan was in retreat all over South East Asia, it was hardly even necessary, they were defeated, Iwo Jima was the crucial turning point, NOT the bombing of Hiroshima....

 

And, well, we kinda properly declared war on Hitler, His army WAS sitting 24 miles away on the northern fukkin' French coast you idiot, so he was a credible threat to the country, not that firebombing innocents in Dresden was any more excusable than what Hitler did to populations in London, Coventry and other towns and cities...

 

And STILL you can't comprehend the facts - Saddam was NOT A THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, NOR COULD HE EVER BE. IT WAS ALL A LIE, WAKE THE FUKK UP..... There was no justification for bombing the sh!t out of Iraq. At all.....

 

You cannot even compare WW2 to Iraq, and those that do are fools and moral cowards who are incapable of seeing the facts... Yeh, you just go on sitting on your moral high-horse, going on about these bloody "uncivilised arabs" and then continue to support a party full of liars, crooks, mass murderers and war criminals... You HYPOCRITE..... It really does astonish me that you and Rob can be so "right on" about the war crimes of the Tories (ie, the Belgrano affair), but continue to make excuses for the considerably more serious war crimes of Nu Labor and the American Republican Party....

That's terrible, I can't believe people can actually go through with something at this level. :(

 

I totally agree Tyler, but I just wish that some people on this forum would show an equal amount of moral outrage when it's us that cross the line, which is kinda my whole point.... Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, "shock and awe", illegal torture and detention of suspects which flies in the face of every bloody UN treaty BOTH our nations signed...... <_<

 

 

 

...

 

And STILL you can't comprehend the facts - Saddam was NOT A THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, NOR COULD HE EVER BE. IT WAS ALL A LIE, WAKE THE FUKK UP..... There was no justification for bombing the sh!t out of Iraq. At all.....

 

but we will never know that, we didnt give him the chance, however im not at all convinced that he wasnt or wasnt planning to be a threat. you forget that he was building a 'big gun', cast here in the uk, it was only when someone asked questions about what it was that the truth became clear. if he had have successfully manufactured this 'gun' or cannon, most of europe would have been in range according to experts, including us.

 

again im not saying the war was just, we hould have waited for a un mandate, but he was committing mass murder and was refusing to comply with the un weapons inspectors....

but we will never know that, we didnt give him the chance, however im not at all convinced that he wasnt or wasnt planning to be a threat. you forget that he was building a 'big gun', cast here in the uk, it was only when someone asked questions about what it was that the truth became clear. if he had have successfully manufactured this 'gun' or cannon, most of europe would have been in range according to experts, including us.

 

Again, that's just paranoia... And, again, the "Supergun" affair was yet another example of Western hypocrisy - a UN weapons embargo, which WE (and the French) circumvented.... Christ, we just dont learn do we...? And I reckon Saddam would be far more likely to use his "supergun" more in self-defence against Israel or Iran rather than bother to threaten Europe (whom he was getting most of his armaments from)... Sorry, it just doesn't add up, he never threatened this country or Europe. Not once. Nor did he commit any acts of terrorism on this country or sponsor any such acts.. Unlike Libya, our new "best mates"..... <_<

 

Ghadaffi's gonna be the next one having tea and crumpets with Queenie innit...? After all, we've invited scummy, murdering, human rights violating b/astards like the Saudi Royal family, Dubya Bush, Vladimir Putin and the Chinese Govt on "state visits" haven't we...? Why not Ghadaffi...? His body count isn't actually as high as Dubya's or Jiang Zemin's is it....?

was refusing to comply with the un weapons inspectors....

 

Actually, that's just not true... Hans Blix didn't think so either, because he was vehemently opposed to military action against Iraq, and this was the guy on the ground in charge of the Inspections Team. And the Yanks just ignored his objections AND his findings which concluded that Iraq had no viable WMDs..... <_< Blix comes out of this sorry mess a whole lot more respectable than Bush and Blair does, as does Dr David Kelly, the man who in all liklihood the security forces "suicided" (would you put it past them? There are so many ways to assassinate someone and make it look like a suicide or an accident it would make your head spin).... And Saddam was made a martyr when he was hung, which probably makes his whole ideology more dangerous now than it was when he was actually just some sad old sod rotting away in a prison cell....

Well, I have serious issues with the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - they were deliberately targeted at purely civilian population centres, NOT the capital or where the Japanese Emperor had his seat of power... Inexcusable as far as I'm concerned... The Yanks just wanted to test their weapon, Japan was in retreat all over South East Asia, it was hardly even necessary, they were defeated, Iwo Jima was the crucial turning point, NOT the bombing of Hiroshima....

 

And, well, we kinda properly declared war on Hitler, His army WAS sitting 24 miles away on the northern fukkin' French coast you idiot, so he was a credible threat to the country, not that firebombing innocents in Dresden was any more excusable than what Hitler did to populations in London, Coventry and other towns and cities...

 

And STILL you can't comprehend the facts - Saddam was NOT A THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, NOR COULD HE EVER BE. IT WAS ALL A LIE, WAKE THE FUKK UP..... There was no justification for bombing the sh!t out of Iraq. At all.....

 

You cannot even compare WW2 to Iraq, and those that do are fools and moral cowards who are incapable of seeing the facts... Yeh, you just go on sitting on your moral high-horse, going on about these bloody "uncivilised arabs" and then continue to support a party full of liars, crooks, mass murderers and war criminals... You HYPOCRITE..... It really does astonish me that you and Rob can be so "right on" about the war crimes of the Tories (ie, the Belgrano affair), but continue to make excuses for the considerably more serious war crimes of Nu Labor and the American Republican Party....

 

Don't you dare call me an idiot. :angry:

 

How dare you ignore the fact, that time and again I have condemned the idiot Dubya Bush and his vile Republican party for his policies to do with the War on Terror for its war effort along a number of lines: 1. Not devoting enough troops to the mission; 2. The inept planning for post-invasion Iraq (Afghanistan all over again, are the Yanks incapable of forgetting the lessons learned post War War 1 and the establishment of the Weimar Republic FFS, let alone what happened in Vietnam); 3. For permitting and perpetrating widespread human rights abuses; 4. Showing nowhere near the respect deserved to local Iraqi's, their customs and their different factions; 5. Not spending nowhere near enough to get the Iraqi infrastructure back in place to rejuvenate it's economy......

 

Whilst I have been highly critical of Dubya Bush's eight year legacy with the reprehensible Guantanamo Bay; their utterly selfish policy towards Oil and Global Warming and refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement; and don't get me started on their utterly selfish and stupid policy on US Government expenditure and tax cuts for the rich when America was having record levels of deficits of over $400 billion which has caused the credit crunch and the start of the World recession.

 

 

As for Hiroshima & Nagasaki - The allied forces gave Japan the Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland". Yet two days later it was rejected by the Japanese government. With their Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash of the previous Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it. The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration. Whilst, Emperor Hirohito made no move to change the government position. A few days later, he made clear that the Imperial Regalia of Japan had to be defended at all costs.

 

In that light Trueman & the US Government concluded to bring about the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, that was sufficient to cause Japan to surrender. The fact that the threat of a Nuclear attack has been sufficient to stop a World War III during the Cold War (although we came to the brink on more than one occasion), I would argue that the Nuclear Bomb and the quick ending of War World II saved lives, or do you seriously think Japan would have less than 240,000 fatalities, when you consider Japan had already lost 2.4 million troops & civilians prior to that during it's less than 3 years in the war if the US/allied forces went to invade Japan?

 

As for comparing WW2 with Iraq..... excuse me but I thought (from my A Level studies "Grade A" result and "love" of the topics of WW1 & WW2) that the United Kingdom declared war on Germany two days after they invaded faraway Poland in the beginning of September 1939. Germany (and more to the point Hitler) at the time certainly did not have an interest in invading the UK, no more than Iraq had any intention of harming the UK. Whilst German bomber airplanes did not have the capacity of being capable of major bombing of the UK until September 1940, when the bomber Heinkel He 111 was ready. So at the time we declared war on Germany in 1939 the threat to British life was about as likely as that of the now seemingly mythical Iraq "Supergun" and WMD's.

 

As for Saddam Hussein - you seem to be conveniently ignoring his deliberate genocidal campaign against Kurds which saw the deaths of a minimum 180,000 males. Which according to Amnesty International included: the massacre of 50,000 to 100,000 non-combatant civilians including women and children; the destruction of about 4,000 villages (out of 4,655) in Iraqi Kurdistan. In a 15 month period 250 towns and villages were exposed to chemical weapons; the destruction of 1,754 schools, 270 hospitals, 2,450 mosques, 27 churches; the wipe out around 90% of Kurdish villages in targeted areas.

 

By means of the following gross human rights violations:

 

a) mass summary executions and mass disappearance of many tens of thousands of non-combatants, including large numbers of women and children, and sometimes the entire population of villages;

B) the widespread use of chemical weapons, including mustard gas and the nerve agent GB, or Sarin, against the town of Halabja as well as dozens of Kurdish villages, killing many thousands of people, mainly women and children;

c) the wholesale destruction of some 2,000 villages, which are described in government documents as having been "burned", "destroyed", "demolished" and "purified", as well as at least a dozen larger towns and administrative centers (nahyas and qadhas); Since 1975, some 4,000 Kurdish villages have been destroyed by the former Iraqi regime.

d) Human Rights Watch/Middle East estimates that between 50,000 and 100,000 people were killed. Some Kurdish sources put the number higher, estimating 182,000 Kurds were killed.

e) Army engineers destroyed the large Kurdish town of Qala Dizeh (population 70,000) and declared its environs a "prohibited area," removing the last significant population center close to the Iranian border.

 

(So nothing like Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany then :rolleyes:)

 

According to Amnesty International an estimated total of 1.73 million Iraqi's were killed by Saddam & his henchmen during his rule. Furthermore an estimated 3 to 5 million Iraqi's died of starvation as a result of Saddam's policies (admittedly not helped by the Western World's crippling trade embargo).

 

Still I guess you'd prefer it if the Allied Troops had not invaded Iraq for it's plentiful Oil supplies and for Dubya's ego to finish of something his daddy never achieved in a John Wayne style, when the level of fatalities is lower now despite all the insurgents, than it was in Saddam's rule. Whilst today you are more likely to die per head of a non natural death in South Africa (where the Football World Cup is going to be in 2010) than in Iraq.

I totally agree Tyler, but I just wish that some people on this forum would show an equal amount of moral outrage when it's us that cross the line, which is kinda my whole point.... Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, "shock and awe", illegal torture and detention of suspects which flies in the face of every bloody UN treaty BOTH our nations signed...... <_<

 

Well, our problem is that we like to pretend that we our superheros and we think we can go and fix everyone's problems...when our leaders need to focus on things such as the problems in our own f***ing nation. With that said, we usually do more harm then good, because people like George Bush really only have selfish propagandas that they are trying to carry out.

Edited February 7, 200817 yr by Tyler

for it's plentiful Oil supplies and for Dubya's ego to finish of something his daddy never achieved in a John Wayne style[/s], when the level of fatalities is lower now despite all the insurgents, than it was in Saddam's rule. Whilst today you are more likely to die per head of a non natural death in South Africa (where the Football World Cup is going to be in 2010) than in Iraq.

 

Nice list TiP, pity you seem to forget that he did most of this with the blessing of the West when he was fighting our mutual enemy - The Ayatollah Khomeni - for much of the 1980s... The facts are, the West are perfectly happy to let b/astards like Saddam (and a whole raft of others, including the likes of Pinochet and Galtieri) be b/astards so long as they "do what the West tells them to".... The reason why we made Saddam such a cause celebre had absolutely fukk all to do with his human rights violations, and everything to do with the fact that in August 1990 he stopped taking his orders from Washington and decided to get what he felt he was owed from Kuwait (for which there was actually a fair bit of evidence in his favour, the Kuwaitis and others certainly prospered under the protection Saddam gave them from the Iranian Islamic revolution and afterwards they refuse to help out Iraq when that war took its incredible toll on the Iraqi economy).... He committed the cardinal sin of interfering with the oil supply of the US, clearly MUCH worse than killing 1.73 million people -_- . And the facts are, our punitive (and spiteful) trade embargoes probably killed more Iraqis anyway... Saddam didn't suddenly become a mad, murdering b'astard in August 1990, he was a mad, murdering b/astard in the decades before he set foot in Kuwait, but back then he was our mad, murdering b/astard....

 

You just cannot get round the hypocrisy of the West mate, no matter how hard you may try to deflect it, we give state visits to people like the Saudis and the Chinese, who are probably every bit as guilty of human rights violations as Saddam (the Chinese invaded Tibet bear in mind, and have threatened the borders of Taiwan on more than one occasion), but we just let them get away with it because we're "doing deals" with them.... Seems to me that Saddam, Castro and Hugo Chavez are the only the "bad guys" because they didn't do what they were told, the Saudis and the Chinese are the "good guys", because 1) the Saudis do do what they are told, and 2) the West is too sh!t scared of China's vast land army and its vast array of nukes to do a damn thing about their multitudinous human rights violations....

As for comparing WW2 with Iraq..... excuse me but I thought (from my A Level studies "Grade A" result and "love" of the topics of WW1 & WW2) that the United Kingdom declared war on Germany two days after they invaded faraway Poland in the beginning of September 1939.

 

Well, seeing as how you know so much about WW2 then, you should know about the treaty we had with Poland promising them support should anyone attack them... -_- How dishonourable would it have been to leave Poland to its fate in that light...? Politicians actually honoured the treaties they signed back in the day mate, not like nowadays when we just seem to rip up UN declarations whenever they happen to be 'inconvienient' to our interests.... -_-

 

Of course Hitler had an interest in invading Britain, what arrant nonsense from someone who is supposedly an "expert".. You honestly believe that he was just gonna stop with France, and not push the extra 24 miles from the North French coast over the English channel....? You seem to forget that Hitler mocked Chamberlain and his attempts at doing a deal, so if you honestly believe that Hitler had no intentions of invading Britain and grabbing its empire, then you are very naive and foolish indeed....