Seems like someone hacked into Al Jazeeras web page and put an American flag up in place of its homepage..
A letter to Bush
- Thread starter Burb
- Start date
The War in Iraq
Alright so EVERYBODY knows now that the war is in full swing, but want I want to know is wot u guys think of it?
I seen on the news today and yesterday loads of protesters out protesting against the war, saying that it's wrong and should be stopped.
Well personally i support the war!
I think alot of people fail to realise just how dangerous a man like Saddam could be with weapons of mass destruction at his command. And they just want to focus on the point that war is a terrible thing and should not take place at all, due to reasons such as civillian deaths, and the death of troops, and the sheer amount of £ that goes into a war.
When really in some situations war is the only option, no-one likes to see innocent people being caught up in conflicts, but as history has told us these things happen.
I support the coalition effort in Iraq to remove the Sadamm regieme afterall he should have been removed years ago!!!
He started a war with Iran, Kuwait and has broke many of the human rights laws, against his OWN people
I'm intrested to see wot u guys think on this subject, am I the only person that supports the war?? Or do other people realise that this conflict is essential to world peace?
Mak D
Alright so EVERYBODY knows now that the war is in full swing, but want I want to know is wot u guys think of it?
I seen on the news today and yesterday loads of protesters out protesting against the war, saying that it's wrong and should be stopped.
Well personally i support the war!
I think alot of people fail to realise just how dangerous a man like Saddam could be with weapons of mass destruction at his command. And they just want to focus on the point that war is a terrible thing and should not take place at all, due to reasons such as civillian deaths, and the death of troops, and the sheer amount of £ that goes into a war.
When really in some situations war is the only option, no-one likes to see innocent people being caught up in conflicts, but as history has told us these things happen.
I support the coalition effort in Iraq to remove the Sadamm regieme afterall he should have been removed years ago!!!
He started a war with Iran, Kuwait and has broke many of the human rights laws, against his OWN people
I'm intrested to see wot u guys think on this subject, am I the only person that supports the war?? Or do other people realise that this conflict is essential to world peace?
Mak D
>Well personally i support the war!
As with all of us, you're entitled to your own opinion. Mine is detailed below
>I think alot of people fail to realise just how dangerous a man >like Saddam could be with weapons of mass destruction at his >command.
What proof do any of us have of this other than what the politicians are stating? Have you seen these weapons, or pictures of them, or videos of them, or spoken to a trusted person who has? I'm not saying they don't exist, but there's a lot of propoganda out there that others want the masses to believe. Remember when they moved the army into Heathrow last month because of an 'Al Quaeda rocket threat'. Did anybody see evidence of that?
> And they just want to focus on the point that war is a terrible >thing and should not take place at all, due to reasons such as >civillian deaths, and the death of troops, and the sheer amount >of £ that goes into a war.
So thousands of deaths and pointless waste of money is not a good enough reason, whereas a 'what-if' scenario is? (especially coming close to US & UK re-election times...)
>I support the coalition effort in Iraq to remove the Sadamm >regieme afterall he should have been removed years ago!!!
>He started a war with Iran, Kuwait and has broke many of the >human rights laws, against his OWN people
And George W hasn't? Tony Blair hasn't? Get real. They (or their governments) have also started wars (this one included), they break many human rights laws against their OWN people (check out amnesty international's website for starters). I have first-hand knowledge of examples on both US&UK, whereas have you factual evidence that Iraq has acted as you say? (I'm not saying they haven't just asking where you base your theory on)
Are you an avid Sun reader perchance? Looks like you haven't watched Braveheart either
As with all of us, you're entitled to your own opinion. Mine is detailed below
>I think alot of people fail to realise just how dangerous a man >like Saddam could be with weapons of mass destruction at his >command.
What proof do any of us have of this other than what the politicians are stating? Have you seen these weapons, or pictures of them, or videos of them, or spoken to a trusted person who has? I'm not saying they don't exist, but there's a lot of propoganda out there that others want the masses to believe. Remember when they moved the army into Heathrow last month because of an 'Al Quaeda rocket threat'. Did anybody see evidence of that?
> And they just want to focus on the point that war is a terrible >thing and should not take place at all, due to reasons such as >civillian deaths, and the death of troops, and the sheer amount >of £ that goes into a war.
So thousands of deaths and pointless waste of money is not a good enough reason, whereas a 'what-if' scenario is? (especially coming close to US & UK re-election times...)
>I support the coalition effort in Iraq to remove the Sadamm >regieme afterall he should have been removed years ago!!!
>He started a war with Iran, Kuwait and has broke many of the >human rights laws, against his OWN people
And George W hasn't? Tony Blair hasn't? Get real. They (or their governments) have also started wars (this one included), they break many human rights laws against their OWN people (check out amnesty international's website for starters). I have first-hand knowledge of examples on both US&UK, whereas have you factual evidence that Iraq has acted as you say? (I'm not saying they haven't just asking where you base your theory on)
Are you an avid Sun reader perchance? Looks like you haven't watched Braveheart either
lol i like ur sense of humour mate esp the Braveheart thing (must have took u all night to think of that), but lets get real here.
You mentioned that there is a possibilty that Saddam does not infact have these sort of weapons or that it was hyped up about the weapons he has, well mate i think ur wrong.
Have u just forgoten the fact that the poison gas attack on Halabja, 15 years ago was carried out under the orders of Saddam??? And that estimates of the number of civilians killed range from 3,200 to 5,000, with many survivors suffering long-term health problems. (Didn't see u mention that) Or have u also forgotten the fact that the UNMOVIC team in Iraq has already discovered chemical weapons (mustard gas).
And ur point of the Government's of the coalition starting war's and breaking human rights laws, personally i can NEVER remember a time when a Brittish or American government has gassed there own people. I don't think you can compare the actions of our government or the US, to any of the actions carried out by the government of Iraq under Saddam, there just on a different scale.
As u said we are all entitled to our own opinion, that s why I made this post to find out wot people actually think, not to get a 'Conspiracy Theory'
And if u think that Saddam has not actually got these weapons and that he posses no threat to the security of world peace, then..........I'll respect that and leave it there, but I don't agree in the slightest.
The evidence is there, the facts are there.
And no sweetcheeks I'm not an 'avid' sun reader, u might try and do a bit of ..........cough cough..... avid reading urself.
Peace
Mak D
You mentioned that there is a possibilty that Saddam does not infact have these sort of weapons or that it was hyped up about the weapons he has, well mate i think ur wrong.
Have u just forgoten the fact that the poison gas attack on Halabja, 15 years ago was carried out under the orders of Saddam??? And that estimates of the number of civilians killed range from 3,200 to 5,000, with many survivors suffering long-term health problems. (Didn't see u mention that) Or have u also forgotten the fact that the UNMOVIC team in Iraq has already discovered chemical weapons (mustard gas).
And ur point of the Government's of the coalition starting war's and breaking human rights laws, personally i can NEVER remember a time when a Brittish or American government has gassed there own people. I don't think you can compare the actions of our government or the US, to any of the actions carried out by the government of Iraq under Saddam, there just on a different scale.
As u said we are all entitled to our own opinion, that s why I made this post to find out wot people actually think, not to get a 'Conspiracy Theory'
And if u think that Saddam has not actually got these weapons and that he posses no threat to the security of world peace, then..........I'll respect that and leave it there, but I don't agree in the slightest.
The evidence is there, the facts are there.
And no sweetcheeks I'm not an 'avid' sun reader, u might try and do a bit of ..........cough cough..... avid reading urself.
Peace
Mak D
History is full of examples of nations mistreating their own population and suffering internal problems. The question is, are we going to beat up on every developing country that doesn't match our ideals of a global community? Do we invade every country that shows hostility towards us? Where does it stop? What will be the result?
Next stop North Korea is it then? Or does the fact they possess more serious 'weapons of mass destruction' have a bearing on this?
My 2p...
My 2p...
Watched a documentary on North Korea a few weeks back. They were interviewing there leader 'Deer hunter' or whatever you call him. He was basically saying that he knows there next in line after Iraq, which would tie in with the US announcing this week they want North Korea put in front of the UN for inhumane action against there population or something along those lines...
The scary thing is though that they have lots of Nukes!! and from the interview I was watching the don't seem afraid to use em, there leader said something along the lines of 'The world will see devestation unlike it has ever seen before if we are invaded' which does not bode well for the UK, US, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.
All it takes is for one person to have command of nuclear weapons who has the 'we have nothing left to lose' mentality' before the world rips itslef apart.
I also wonder what right we, or the US have to dictate what weapons other world members have if we have them also??!! are we not asking other people to remove the 'threat' of using these weapons making them an easy target for the rest of the world community? I don't see the US reliquishing there WMD!!?? and to be frank I'm a little worried that Bush has his 'finger on the button' of such weapons to be honest.
Just a matter of time to me before something happens which the whole world will regret....
Dave
The scary thing is though that they have lots of Nukes!! and from the interview I was watching the don't seem afraid to use em, there leader said something along the lines of 'The world will see devestation unlike it has ever seen before if we are invaded' which does not bode well for the UK, US, or anywhere else in the world for that matter.
All it takes is for one person to have command of nuclear weapons who has the 'we have nothing left to lose' mentality' before the world rips itslef apart.
I also wonder what right we, or the US have to dictate what weapons other world members have if we have them also??!! are we not asking other people to remove the 'threat' of using these weapons making them an easy target for the rest of the world community? I don't see the US reliquishing there WMD!!?? and to be frank I'm a little worried that Bush has his 'finger on the button' of such weapons to be honest.
Just a matter of time to me before something happens which the whole world will regret....
Dave
D
duffistuta
Guest
Word Burb...my fave:
WASHINGTON, DC—Frustrated with the United Nations' "consistent, blatant regard for the will of its 188 member nations," the U.S. announced Monday the formation of its own international governing body, the U.S.U.N.
"The U.N. has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to act decisively in carrying out actions the U.S. government deems necessary," U.S.U.N. Secretary General Colin Powell said. "Every time we tried to get something accomplished, it inevitably got bogged down in procedural policies, bureaucratic formalities, and Security Council votes."
"I predict the U.S.U.N. will be extremely influential in world politics in the coming decades," Powell continued. "In fact, you can count on it."
The new organization will be based in Houston, where a $400 million U.S.U.N. Building is currently under construction. The U.S.U.N. Charter, ratified unanimously by delegates in a four-minute vote Monday, sets forth the mission of the organization as "the proliferation of peace and international economic, social, and humanitarian progress through deference to the U.S."
"The U.S.U.N. resembles the original in almost every way, right down to all the flags outside our headquarters," said Condoleezza Rice, a U.S. delegate to the U.S.U.N. "This organization will carry out peacekeeping missions all over the world, but, unlike the U.N., these missions will not be compromised by the threat of opposition by lesser nations."
In its first act, the U.S.U.N. Security Council unanimously backed a resolution to liberate Iraq's people and natural resources from the rule of Saddam Hussein.
"We gave the old U.N. a go for I don't know how many years, but it just wasn't working," said Dick Cheney, a U.S. delegate to the U.S.U.N. "Really, I have no idea what we were doing sacrificing all that power and autonomy in exchange for a couple of lousy troops from New Zealand."
Added Cheney: "I can't tell you how much easier it is to achieve consensus when you don't have to worry about dissent."
Cheney, along with Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge, and George W. Bush, make up the five permanent members of the 15-person U.S.U.N. Security Council.
"The five Security Council members have veto power to block U.S.U.N. resolutions for military action," Rumsfeld said. "Not that anyone would, but it's nice to have, nonetheless."
According to Powell, in spite of the fact that delegates hail from every corner of the U.S., General Assembly meetings have been refreshingly free of rancor.
"We've got Bill Frist from Tennessee, Tom DeLay from Texas, and Dennis Hastert from way up in Illinois," U.S.U.N. delegate Rick Santorum said. "Despite the diverse backgrounds of the delegates, cooperation has not been a problem—unlike at some outmoded, gridlocked international peacekeeping bodies I could name."
The official U.S.U.N. language is English. The official religion is Christianity.
WASHINGTON, DC—Frustrated with the United Nations' "consistent, blatant regard for the will of its 188 member nations," the U.S. announced Monday the formation of its own international governing body, the U.S.U.N.
"The U.N. has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to act decisively in carrying out actions the U.S. government deems necessary," U.S.U.N. Secretary General Colin Powell said. "Every time we tried to get something accomplished, it inevitably got bogged down in procedural policies, bureaucratic formalities, and Security Council votes."
"I predict the U.S.U.N. will be extremely influential in world politics in the coming decades," Powell continued. "In fact, you can count on it."
The new organization will be based in Houston, where a $400 million U.S.U.N. Building is currently under construction. The U.S.U.N. Charter, ratified unanimously by delegates in a four-minute vote Monday, sets forth the mission of the organization as "the proliferation of peace and international economic, social, and humanitarian progress through deference to the U.S."
"The U.S.U.N. resembles the original in almost every way, right down to all the flags outside our headquarters," said Condoleezza Rice, a U.S. delegate to the U.S.U.N. "This organization will carry out peacekeeping missions all over the world, but, unlike the U.N., these missions will not be compromised by the threat of opposition by lesser nations."
In its first act, the U.S.U.N. Security Council unanimously backed a resolution to liberate Iraq's people and natural resources from the rule of Saddam Hussein.
"We gave the old U.N. a go for I don't know how many years, but it just wasn't working," said Dick Cheney, a U.S. delegate to the U.S.U.N. "Really, I have no idea what we were doing sacrificing all that power and autonomy in exchange for a couple of lousy troops from New Zealand."
Added Cheney: "I can't tell you how much easier it is to achieve consensus when you don't have to worry about dissent."
Cheney, along with Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge, and George W. Bush, make up the five permanent members of the 15-person U.S.U.N. Security Council.
"The five Security Council members have veto power to block U.S.U.N. resolutions for military action," Rumsfeld said. "Not that anyone would, but it's nice to have, nonetheless."
According to Powell, in spite of the fact that delegates hail from every corner of the U.S., General Assembly meetings have been refreshingly free of rancor.
"We've got Bill Frist from Tennessee, Tom DeLay from Texas, and Dennis Hastert from way up in Illinois," U.S.U.N. delegate Rick Santorum said. "Despite the diverse backgrounds of the delegates, cooperation has not been a problem—unlike at some outmoded, gridlocked international peacekeeping bodies I could name."
The official U.S.U.N. language is English. The official religion is Christianity.
Heh, the networks are reporting that the Iraqi's actually used a bus to ram a Bradley fighting vehicle. Don't let anyone say that Saddams finest haven't a sense of humor.