I just wanted to know what your opinions are on this subject and also should our lads come home and get the heck out of that toilet of a country with all it's evilness and hostility.

I'm sure gb&tb had their hidden agenda in this war, if only the latter had spent more time trying to keep these terrorists out of our own country we wouldn't be seeing a rise in hostility towards westernisation on our doorstep.

I just wanted to know what your opinions are on this subject and also should our lads come home and get the heck out of that toilet of a country with all it's evilness and hostility.

I'm sure gb&tb had their hidden agenda in this war, if only the latter had spent more time trying to keep these terrorists out of our own country we wouldn't be seeing a rise in hostility towards westernisation on our doorstep.
Thanks to Blair, Bush and a few others, there's 50,000 terrorists who won't trouble our country or anyone else for one simple reason - they're dead. And if we didn't fight them in Iraq, then where else in the world could we fight and kill them in those sort of numbers? And in any case, hostility to the West has been rising amongst Muslims for decades.

"Thanks to Blair, Bush and a few others, there's 50,000 terrorists "

It is amazing that you thank some one for killing people! What does terrorism mean in your definition?

Does it mean invading other people’s country?
Does it mean killing their children and elderly?
Does it mean putting them in chaos so that hundreds are been killed EVERY DAY?

You claim that Muslims hate the west and this has been for decades! Let’s say that your claim is right, have you asked your self why?

Do Chinese hate the west?
Do Japanese hate the west?
Do Africans hate the west?

If they do then there is a problem at your home needs to be fixed. BUT if say Chinese do not hate the west then you have a problem in understanding how the world is split. Do you know that there are Muslims in China more than Muslims in Saudi Arabia!

Did we invade Iraq "for the oil"? That is an incredibly simplistic view of a very complex issue, what do you mean exactly? As for 'toilet of a country', Iraq has actually been miles ahead of us in terms of civilisation, right back to 5000 BC and the high order civilisations of Mesopotamia. Your ill-educated question is clearly intended to do nothing but provoke the posting of wild theories and accusations.

Thanks to Blair, Bush and a few others, there's 50,000 terrorists who won't trouble our country or anyone else for one simple reason - they're dead. And if we didn't fight them in Iraq, then where else in the world could we fight and kill them in those sort of numbers? And in any case, hostility to the West has been rising amongst Muslims for decades.

Well all that says is you are willing to demonstrate in public that you are a complete idiot with little more knowledge than a psychotic shrew.

I am just glad that the Iraqi people don't have to suffer that tyrant Hussain any more.

Well done to the coalition forces

Mmmmmmmmmmm

Methinks venger finds it hard to deal with anybody having a different opinion to his/her own! :loopy:

Venger you forgot the h in phsychotic and who were you refering to as an idiot? the only idiot is tb for allowing this farce for going on as long as it has.
Civilised iraq i don't think so, not now at least, i can't remember a democracy in the west where as many people of their own country have been brutally killed and decapitated, waken up, i don't believe in the american philosophy that we keep our enermy where we can see them in our back yard.
They just want the oil prices to go up so that they can benefit when their oil exploration and drilling starts in the antarctic to feed their country's insatiable appetite for their gas guzlers
Good luck to vengers boys tonight.
I bet gb said to tb i'll make sure your oil company ie shell,bp carry on making gross profits out of this dispute.

there's only one H in psychotic...

Good luck to vengers boys tonight.
.

?

Venger you forgot the h in phsychotic and who were you refering to as an idiot? the only idiot is tb for allowing this farce for going on as long as it has.


?

psychosis
noun [C or U] plural psychoses
any of a number of the more severe mental diseases that make you believe things that are not real:


psychotic
adjective
suffering from psychosis:
a psychotic disorder

Mmmmmmmmmmm

Methinks venger finds it hard to deal with anybody having a different opinion to his/her own! :loopy:

Methinks that venger likes people to use facts to back an argument, something the poster clearly has no knowledge of !

Oh, Firecracker was the to refered idiot for the record, thought that was obvious as I QUOTED them ?

psychotic

phsychotic

pshyttopic?

hoho, anyways, to respond to this thread:

yes i believe oil is a huge motivating factor for the west with regards the middle east; it is why we are so concerned with the area (think of all the wars and conflicts happening elsewhere...and then the news coverage relating to them...then think of the same in the middle east...do you think its in proportion?)

there are also some sound reasons for taking dictatorships away, and replacing them with democratic systems, but is this REALLY happening? im not so sure...why dont we have a go at syria, or the saudis? im sure america has plans for them, but all in due course. lets get these afghani and iraqi oil pipelines under control first -

at the risk of sounding like a crackpot consiracy theorist i belive that america plan to completely dominate the oil supplies in the middle east. they will do this by claiming other forms of justification for their actions.

Venger i have a huge vast knowledge with regard to this illegal war sorry i stand corrected with the spelling issue.
We hear about how iran will be targeted next because of their intransigence towards un inspectors, oh i forgot aren't they a filthy rich country when it comes to their oil reserves, was our country's security under threat by sadam hussein? why hasn't the west taken out zimbabwe's leader mugabwe? answer his country is so poor it couldn't pay off the interest on the continent's debt of africa.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing venger, do you need a little pair of tweezers to put that thing away?:o

Venger i have a huge vast knowledge with regard to this illegal war sorry i stand corrected with the spelling issue.
We hear about how iran will be targeted next because of their intransigence towards un inspectors, oh i forgot aren't they a filthy rich country when it comes to their oil reserves, was our country's security under threat by sadam hussein? why hasn't the west taken out zimbabwe's leader mugabwe? answer his country is so poor it couldn't pay off the interest on the continent's debt of africa.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing venger, do you need a little pair of tweezers to put that thing away?:o

When you're done attempting to insult Venger, you might like to read his posts a little more carefully you'll discover that he has a view on this that exceeds your simplistic analysis (your huge vast knowledge may be smaller than you think). You'll also discover that he's broadly very critical of the invasion of Iraq and neoconservative policy in the whole region.

If you read really carefully you may even work out who he was replying to when he used the word "idiot". (hint: read his last post)

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing venger, do you need a little pair of tweezers to put that thing away?:o

The actual quote, from Alexander Pope, is A little learning is a dangerous thing.

PS, with my mod hat on, please do not resort to personal insults. Thank you.

So venger gets away with calling firecracker an idiot does he? i can't see anything in this thread from venger which articulates his argument for or agains the war in iraq? am i missing something here? all i see is his deliberations and prognosis and the breakdown of a couple of irrelevant words.

Yes, you are missing something. He called Firecracker a "complete idiot" and he did not venture a prognosis. Now max has asked us all nicely not to resort to personal insults. You can look at a selection of Vengers posts re:iraq here - http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/search.php?searchid=201426

You might find yourself quite sympathetic to his views.

Gee thanks mr.p that's mighty kind of you:)

canugetagrip - you'll get used to the fact that left-wing anti-establishment rants are acceptable on the Forum, while anything remotely right-wing or supporting government policy or law-abiding activity is seen as provocative (and slapped down by the mods) because the lefty do-gooder, anti-war, pro-drug abuse, pro-benefit fraud contributors to the forum seem to be a very loud minority.

I can see this thread going the same way as the guantanamo one.. :loopy:

I opened the thread expecting a poll yes or no - did the US invade Iraq for oil! My answer to that would be yes, partly for oil.. partly for other reasons.

As for should we pull out of Iraq.. I don't think we can now.. we've destablilised the country to the brink of civil war. We have to get some semblance of order back. And that could take forever. (and we'll probably invade Iran before too long...)

I can see this thread going the same way as the guantanamo one.. :loopy:

I opened the thread expecting a poll yes or no - did the US invade Iraq for oil! My answer to that would be yes, partly for oil.. partly for other reasons.

As for should we pull out of Iraq.. I don't think we can now.. we've destablilised the country to the brink of civil war. We have to get some semblance of order back. And that could take forever. (and we'll probably invade Iran before too long...)

Anne, sorry - I just voted too. As a member of the Armed Forces I want us to pull out, but it would be folly; we've worked so hard to sort the country out and can't leave it to collapse now. (I do, by the way, think Saddam's regime needed to be brought down, but the insurgency problem is far worse than could have been predicted).

Gee thanks mr.p that's mighty kind of you:)
Well, I don't know about that, but you and Venger have a lot in common. I'd hate to see you two fall out early on due to a misunderstanding.

canugetagrip - you'll get used to the fact that left-wing anti-establishment rants are acceptable on the Forum, while anything remotely right-wing or supporting government policy or law-abiding activity is seen as provocative (and slapped down by the mods) because the lefty do-gooder, anti-war, pro-drug abuse, pro-benefit fraud contributors to the forum seem to be a very loud minority.

This ^^ is not unusual.

But plenty of forummers I speak to are equally exercised by the 'fact' that the forum is dominated by demented law, order and retribution diatribes. Whilst anything remotely conciliatory or empathetic is seized upon by hard of thinking neofascist wingnut minority as evidence of appeasement mentality, and drowned in a chorus of howls demanding blood, capital punishment, and the wholesale destruction of entire countries.

So, I think the forum has the balance about right.

Of course, those who think otherwise - wherever they are coming from or going to - are warmly invited to find another forum by me.

Did the USA invade Iraq for the oil?

Partly. If Iraq's main export was carrots, I doubt very much if the respective governments of the USA and UK would have lifted a finger to "liberate" the Iraqi people. Likewise if Kuwait was a small agrarian economy, it would be part of Greater Iraq by now.

But nothing is that simple.

Can't answer the poll, because it does not give an option for never pulling out of Iraq.

But plenty of forummers I speak to are equally exercised by the 'fact' that the forum is dominated by demented law, order and retribution diatribes. Whilst anything remotely conciliatory or empathetic is seized upon by hard of thinking neofascist wingnut minority as evidence of appeasement mentality, and drowned in a chorus of howls demanding blood, capital punishment, and the wholesale destruction of entire countries.

Of course, those who think otherwise - wherever they are coming from or going to - are warmly invited to find another forum by me.



Mmm - sounds like law-abiding people who think criminals deserve justice are not welcome on the Forum in Planerothyme's eyes - so much for free speech.
Obviously, supporting UK law is seen as "demented law, order and retribution diatribes" while supporting drug abuse is just fine and dandy.

However, back to the thread, OF COURSE the fact that Iraq and its neighbours are big oil producers was important, but not because the USA wanted to steal the oil of its revenue. The key for Gulf 1 was Middle East stability - Iraq would have run amok, buggered up the oil market and devastated the world economy as a result. Gulf 2 was debateable, but the regime did have to go and long-term military balance in the Middle East was still a factor. The various Arab and Muslim states out there may jointly decry the West, but given the chance they stuff each other at every opportunity as well.

I only got the option of two questions don't know why but i would be interested to hear your comments on whether we should stay in iraq for the long haul.
I am concerned about the bombing of prestigious iraqi synagogues or places of worship, could the interim government have protected these places of worship as this was a siting time bomb waiting to go off, thanks for your comments too anne bizarre though they were.:loopy:

Mmm - sounds like law-abiding people who think criminals deserve justice are not welcome on the Forum in Planerothyme's eyes - so much for free speech.

ahem, I think you missed the

"So, I think the forum has the balance about right."

bit out.... (on purpose perhaps??? :hihi: )

No I didn't miss that, and that was balanced, but I didn't miss his "Of course, those who think otherwise - wherever they are coming from or going to - are warmly invited to find another forum by me" either - that was fairly unambiguous.

thanks for your comments too anne bizarre though they were.:loopy:

Nothing bizarre there.. merely pointing out this thread will probably devolve into the usual slanging match between the "do-gooder" lefties and the "hard of thinking neofascist wingnut minority" and probably get closed at some point. :rolleyes:

Then my views on Iraq which I'd hardly class as bizarre. Quite normal really.

(the bit about Iran was a bit of an afterthought I'll grant you)

Well all that says is you are willing to demonstrate in public that you are a complete idiot with little more knowledge than a psychotic shrew.
And we're waiting for proof that you have any functioning brain cells.

So bartfarst you want to either keep my opinions to myself and zip it or clear off to another forum? :(, i already contribute on the www.tripadvisorforum.com and switch alot from this to that, i have been on there alot longer than here and they are a great bunch of people at the moment, it hasn't always been good on there like alot of places.

The real issue here is that if you are new to a forum people don't usually fall over backwards to make you feel welcome, this is not unique to sf it happens everywhere, a natural suspicion of someone from the outside quite prevalent in york where i used to live.

:loopy: welcome to the school of airheads anne ,life sure is a box of chocolates, you never know what your'e gonna get.

"Thanks to Blair, Bush and a few others, there's 50,000 terrorists "

It is amazing that you thank some one for killing people! What does terrorism mean in your definition?

Does it mean invading other people’s country?
Does it mean killing their children and elderly?
Does it mean putting them in chaos so that hundreds are been killed EVERY DAY?

You claim that Muslims hate the west and this has been for decades! Let’s say that your claim is right, have you asked your self why?

Do Chinese hate the west?
Do Japanese hate the west?
Do Africans hate the west?

If they do then there is a problem at your home needs to be fixed. BUT if say Chinese do not hate the west then you have a problem in understanding how the world is split. Do you know that there are Muslims in China more than Muslims in Saudi Arabia!
I'll tell you why Muslims hate the West. It is because we don't want to live under Sharia law, meaning that we don't want our women to cover up with burkas, make them walk 10 yards behind us, nor do we want our pubs and bars closing down, or have our women stoned to death for adultery. And we know what Ayatollah Khomeini said:

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

:loopy: welcome to the school of airheads anne ,life sure is a box of chocolates, you never know what your'e gonna get.

If you would please just elaborate, exactly what do you think is bizarre about my post....

:loopy: It's bizarre in the way that you are already talking about the impending invasion of iran before this one has been solved, it will take a huge effort and massive budget to do this, i don't think it is going to happen just yet and also there is a real worry that it could cause a huge uprising of militance towards the west as we know the us are hated by most iranians even though i am told there are alot living in california over 250,000 at the last count.

It's also bizarre that you expect this thread to be closed as we all know the mods will side with far left social ideals as has already been stated.:rolleyes:

Nothing bizarre there.. merely pointing out this thread will probably devolve into the usual slanging match between the "do-gooder" lefties and the "hard of thinking neofascist wingnut minority" and probably get closed at some point. :rolleyes:

Then my views on Iraq which I'd hardly class as bizarre. Quite normal really.

(the bit about Iran was a bit of an afterthought I'll grant you)

Anne, sorry if I helped take it that way - I'll not rise any further to P's taunts - and I don't think your comments were bizarre.

Iraq may be the biggest peace and stability issue at the moment, but it's far from unique. If you look across the globe at the various UN peace operations that have been started over the last 30 years, it's hard to find cases that have been successful enough for the stabilisation forces to pull out.

Why? We have a democratic system in the West which works a treat for us, but that's because it's based on a set of morals and values which are, in turn, developed from Christian beliefs and have been honed into our form of governance over a couple of thousand years, and have only even approached democracy in the last few hundred.

We then go into messed-up, war-torn nations that have usually been based on tribal and feudal systems, and expect to be able to throw a democratic template onto the chaos and see stability appear in a puff of smoke. It just won’t happen. At the very least, it takes 2 or 3 generations for new governance ideas to be accepted and applied sincerely, because the motivational value systems of the individuals in these third world countries are radically different to ours.

Most of the ‘success stories’ of stabilisation are woefully corrupt because the democratic front just hides the old system, and they tend to fall apart a decade or two after they’ve been left to their own devices. Regrettably Iraq, Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, Congo, East Timor, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Yugoslavia, Haiti, India and Pakistan, Iran, Palestine, Ivory coast, Kosovo, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, North Korea, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, Western Sahara, Cyprus, et al are going to suck in western peace keeping resources for decades. And there will be plenty more!

:loopy: It's bizarre in the way that you are already talking about the impending invasion of iran before this one has been solved, it will take a huge effort and massive budget to do this, i don't think it is going to happen just yet and also there is a real worry that it could cause a huge uprising of militance towards the west as we know the us are hated by most iranians even though i am told there are alot living in california over 250,000 at the last count.

It's also bizarre that you expect this thread to be closed as we all know the mods will side with far left social ideals as has already been stated.:rolleyes:

I don't think Iraq is going to be solved anytime soon. But I don't think this will stop the US from dabbling in Iran if it sees fit to do so. Money and resources will be found from somewhere. Maybe they'll offset the cost of invading Iran against the contracts that US firms will be offered for rebuilding the country after they've destroyed it?

So bartfarst you want to either keep my opinions to myself and zip it or clear off to another forum? :(, i already contribute on the www.tripadvisorforum.com and switch alot from this to that, i have been on there alot longer than here and they are a great bunch of people at the moment, it hasn't always been good on there like alot of places.

The real issue here is that if you are new to a forum people don't usually fall over backwards to make you feel welcome, this is not unique to sf it happens everywhere, a natural suspicion of someone from the outside quite prevalent in york where i used to live.

No, you misinterpret, that's exactly what I wasn't saying!! I wasn't directing that commenn at you, I was quoting Planerothyme, who seemed to invite me to leave the Forum because my views disagree with his. He has a problem that I agree with things like UK laws on drug abuse, and chose to go personal on the thread.

I'm not a lefty, you see (well, actually I’m way, way right there from Attila the Hun, but it's all relative!!):heyhey:

I don't think Iraq is going to be solved anytime soon. But I don't think this will stop the US from dabbling in Iran if it sees fit to do so. Money and resources will be found from somewhere. Maybe they'll offset the cost of invading Iran against the contracts that US firms will be offered for rebuilding the country after they've destroyed it?

We won't see a land campaign but don't be surprised if the odd Iranian nuclear facility becomes host to a few visiting Tomahawks before 2008. Might see what Ladbrokes will give me on that . . . .

Bartfarst - I totally agree with you.

There is no quick or easy solution to these situations. :(

"Thanks to Blair, Bush and a few others, there's 50,000 terrorists "

It is amazing that you thank some one for killing people! What does terrorism mean in your definition?

Does it mean invading other people’s country?
Does it mean killing their children and elderly?
Does it mean putting them in chaos so that hundreds are been killed EVERY DAY?

You claim that Muslims hate the west and this has been for decades! Let’s say that your claim is right, have you asked your self why?

Do Chinese hate the west?
Do Japanese hate the west?
Do Africans hate the west?

If they do then there is a problem at your home needs to be fixed. BUT if say Chinese do not hate the west then you have a problem in understanding how the world is split. Do you know that there are Muslims in China more than Muslims in Saudi Arabia!
I'll tell you what terrorist means:
Those who murder schoolchildren in Beslan
Those who murder office workers at their desks in New York
Those who murder commuters in London and Madrid
Those who murder tourists in Luxor and revellers in Bali
Those who murder Jews on board buses and in cafe bars in Israel
Those who would like to acquire weapons of mass destruction to top 911.
And why did the above happen, and why are there ambitions to carry out the last atrocity mentioned above?
Easy. They were murdered in the name of Allah Akbar - killed for enjoying themselves, killed for being successful, but above all, killed because they were infidels. Just as hostages have had their heads sliced off by bloodthirsty knife-wielding Allah Akbar-screaming savages.

Ok mate i understand no probs thanks for your interesting and factual comments, i am not a leftie but i am only wanting the human suffering of these people to end as it is deeply upsetting to hear of the body count going up day by day.
It's not just terrorists that die in these bombs innocent civilians too i'm sorry if i am stating the obvious.

We won't see a land campaign but don't be surprised if the odd Iranian nuclear facility becomes host to a few visiting Tomahawks before 2008. Might see what Ladbrokes will give me on that . . . .
My guess is - it'll be this year, and if the US doesn't do it, the Israelis will have a go. Ahmadinejad's promised Israel a nuclear holocaust, and Jews have long memories of a certain other person who promised to eradicate all Jews, and did his damndest to carry it out. And as a Holocaust survivor said "When somebody says they're going to kill you, believe them. Take them at their word", and Israel is certainly taking Ahmadinejad at his word. But at the end of the day, there will be an attempt to set back Irans nuclear ambitions and perhaps invoke a counter-revolution in Iran, but no invasion.

Thanks for all your contributions on this subject and i would like to hear from anyone who has family out there in iraq who are still worried about them and their role in this illegal war, also if you have lost loved ones i only hope your pain and suffering eases in time.

I'll tell you what terrorist means:
Those who murder schoolchildren in Beslan
Those who murder office workers at their desks in New York
Those who murder commuters in London and Madrid
Those who murder tourists in Luxor and revellers in Bali
Those who murder Jews on board buses and in cafe bars in Israel
Those who would like to acquire weapons of mass destruction to top 911.
And why did the above happen, and why are there ambitions to carry out the last atrocity mentioned above?
Easy. They were murdered in the name of Allah Akbar - killed for enjoying themselves, killed for being successful, but above all, killed because they were infidels. Just as hostages have had their heads sliced off by bloodthirsty knife-wielding Allah Akbar-screaming maniacs.

You forgot to mention:

Those who murder anyone whilst hiding behind the civilian populace.

It's not just terrorists that die in these bombs innocent civilians too I'm sorry if i am stating the obvious.

May be obvious but worth re-emphasising. The vast majority of Iraqis just want peace, but a tiny proportion (still thousands unfortunately) of insurgents will keep making it hard for a long time. Coalition forces were initially very well received, especially the Brit contingent around Basrah (helped by our troops experience in Northern Ireland and their intelligent interaction with the locals, which is still 99% the case desite the negative press)

The insurgents aren't stupid enough to think that the bombings will help the country, oust the US and bring bliss to Iraq. Many, if not most, of the insurgents are not Iraqi nationals but have their own Middle East agenda - unrest and civil war in Iraq are what they want.

My guess is - it'll be this year, and if the US doesn't do it, the Israelis will have a go. Ahmadinejad's promised Israel a nuclear holocaust, and Jews have long memories of a certain other person who promised to eradicate all Jews, and did his damndest to carry it out. And as a Holocaust survivor said "When somebody says they're going to kill you, believe them. Take them at their word", and Israel is certainly taking Ahmadinejad at his word. But at the end of the day, there will be an attempt to set back Irans nuclear ambitions and perhaps invoke a counter-revolution in Iran, but no invasion.

Israel has far more recent precedents of pre-emptive attacks on its 'friendly neighbours' (most of whom dream of crushing Israel), and the Arab states know this too well which is why they’ve avoided getting a bloody nose from Israel for some time. Iran could be in for a good kick in the nuts from the Israeli air force if, as you say, they jump to it before the US. They have a genuine reason to fear for their national security and protect Israeli citizens from promised Iranian aggression.

The terrorists you mention bartfarst are indeed the reason why we are still in this country try to maintain law and order.
It's a case of identifying these culprits rounding them up.

In the former yugoslavia tito kept all the factions together until his death then all hell let lose, some folk will never get on whatever the peace agenda they are hell bent on destruction and creating instability, i fear for israel with this new partner that they have to deal with, hamas are a far more millitant organisation who's sole goal is to rid israelites of their land.

You forgot to mention:

Those who murder anyone whilst hiding behind the civilian populace.
They certainly do. It is their way of not only holding us to emotional blackmail, but generating lurid headlines against our troops if we take out say, half a dozen of these murderous terrorists, but in doing so, another half a dozen women and children get killed. The unfortunate fact is - our media blames the troops rather than the terrorists who hide behind civilians, and over time, troop morale will be affected, and terrorists are counting on that happening. Also, terrorists often get described by the media as 'innocent civilians', and we can imagine that the headline will read "Seven civilians killed by missile strike" if Zarqawi, along with half a dozen of his henchmen get killed.

I have a friend who will be serving in Iraq in June with the British forces. I also have a sister that use to serve in the Canadian military and did some UN peace keeping in Haiti in the mid-1990's.

Even though Canada isn't in Iraq, they certainly are in Afganastan and we are getting pounded on big time now - lost 3 this past week alone.

These experiences change the soldiers and their families forever - I know that from personal experience and I have a difficult time with anyone being over there - no matter what nationality - for something that is built around oil and a huge personal agenda by the current US President.

Very true firecracker but wouldn't we do the same if an arab country had invaded the uk? not that it is likely,we don't know what it's like but i'm sure glad sheffield isn't suffering the same plite as baghdad can you imagine living there let alone reporting on the war.
Is it really 3 years ago that the dictatorship and war ended?, i remember seeing the statue of sadam being toppled from my hotel on tv in malta on my honeymoon.

Do you think american foreign policy would have been different had bush not been the president,the folk in the us must be sick to the stomach of hearing about all their casualties of war.

Did you see tony blair on parkinson saying that it was a hard decision but with god's help a good one, devine wisdom it was not, no god i believe in would have sanctioned this dreadful act of going to war without the mandate of the people, perhaps tony thought he might lose a referendum on it and then he must surely have had to step down, i call him tory blair.

Did you see tony blair on parkinson saying that it was a hard decision but with god's help a good one, devine wisdom it was not, no god i believe in would have sanctioned this dreadful act of going to war without the mandate of the people, perhaps tony thought he might lose a referendum on it and then he must surely have had to step down, i call him tory blair.

It really shocked me that he ignored the people he is supposed to be serving and just tagged along with Bush. He could have at least asked us what we wanted him to do :rolleyes:

God bless your friend can chick and thanks for sharing your views, i too am not happy about any country losing a love one in this dispute for oil/deleting a regime.
:(

I have a friend who will be serving in Iraq in June with the British forces. I also have a sister that use to serve in the Canadian military and did some UN peace keeping in Haiti in the mid-1990's.

Even though Canada isn't in Iraq, they certainly are in Afganastan and we are getting pounded on big time now - lost 3 this past week alone.

These experiences change the soldiers and their families forever - I know that from personal experience and I have a difficult time with anyone being over there - no matter what nationality - for something that is built around oil and a huge personal agenda by the current US President.
In the eyes of the Islamists, the fact that Canada has got troops in Afghanistan is reason enough for Canada to be a terrorist target. And I doubt oil was the first thing on Bush's mind when Iraq was invaded. Saddam used oil revenues to build over 900 palaces for himself, and sponsor terrorist outfits by offering Palestinian families $25,000 for every suicide bomber they produced (it is doubtful if any Palestinian families actually got paid though). Not one cent of it went to the Iraqi people - at least oil revenues are going to the Iraqi people now. He starved his own people and blamed it on the West. His sons took in girls off the streets and gained pleasure in raping them and having them killed. We maintained no-fly zones over Iraq, but at the same time relied on our planes not malfunctioning or being shot down (the spectacle of any of our pilots being held as a blackmailing chip haunted our leaders). This couldn't go on indefinately, and now Saddam will have to answer for his crimes against humanity - but isn't it peculiar that those lefties, who claimed to be opposed to Saddam's brutality, suddenly showed their true colours and sided with him when it came down to removing him.

I agree anne we have a party elected by 33% of the country who could be bothered to vote and we are told that is democracy.
These politicians become more arrogant with every term of office they win in my view.

Very true firecracker but wouldn't we do the same if an arab country had invaded the uk? not that it is likely,we don't know what it's like but i'm sure glad sheffield isn't suffering the same plite as baghdad can you imagine living there let alone reporting on the war.
Is it really 3 years ago that the dictatorship and war ended?, i remember seeing the statue of sadam being toppled from my hotel on tv in malta on my honeymoon.

Do you think american foreign policy would have been different had bush not been the president,the folk in the us must be sick to the stomach of hearing about all their casualties of war.

Did you see tony blair on parkinson saying that it was a hard decision but with god's help a good one, devine wisdom it was not, no god i believe in would have sanctioned this dreadful act of going to war without the mandate of the people, perhaps tony thought he might lose a referendum on it and then he must surely have had to step down, i call him tory blair.
You've got to realise that we cannot afford to be seen as weak - certainly not in the eyes of the Islamists. Had we and the US done nothing in response to 911, the Islamists would have been telling the whole Muslim world that the West is an emasculated paper tiger that is ripe for toppling. This would only have resulted in more terrorism against us, and the weakness the West had shown since 1979 - remember the US hostage crisis, and the weak responses to it and other events and atrocities over the following 22 years only served to encourage our enemies, resulting in 911. At least our enemies don't see us as weak anymore, and by our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've taken out thousands of terrorists who would otherwise have been operating in the West in a honeypot strategy - the sort who would love to pull off more 911s, and also put troops on two of Iran's borders, should they be needed.

It's the idealism of these people that needs erasing, just because you take out a few misserable arabs that's not to say another few will be replaced like a production line, these people are not frightened of death but are hell bent on their own destruction let alone our people in the west.
I agree with you that action needed to be taken against the islamic fundamentalists but remember "a terrorist only has to be lucky once when targeting it's victims"

It's the idealism of these people that needs erasing, just because you take out a few misserable arabs that's not to say another few will be replaced like a production line, these people are not frightened of death but are hell bent on their own destruction let alone our people in the west.
I agree with you that action needed to be taken against the islamic fundamentalists but remember "a terrorist only has to be lucky once when targeting it's victims"
We know they're not frightened of death, and that makes them much more dangerous. Killing terrorists is a holding operation, but more has to be done to actually win this battle for our civilization. And a golden opportunity has just been lost - those cartoons. We have caved in to threats through political correctness when we should have stood firm. Islam was coming under intense scrutiny and being revealed for what it is. Ground that was being gained through those cartoons should have been exploited and the truth told about that religion, its prophet, and those blood-curdling verses of the Koran and those texts from the sira and hadith that call for Jihad to be waged against the infidel, not to mention the fact that if you really do get virgins in paradise for blowing yourself up, then why haven't the mullahs and clerics strapped on the explosive belts and blown themselves to smithereens? Is it because the reality of blowing yourself and infidels up at the same time results in being prodded up the backside by trident-wielding demons in the firepit of Hell? We should have published those cartoons and be damned and stood up in the face of intimidation - instead we didn't publish, we curled up our toes, and we've still been damned. Over the next few years, Islam might have strarted to unravel, but thanks to PC cravenness, we'll never know.

What we all tend to forget is that it was the war in Afganastan that was about 911 - not Iraq.

Iraq, if you think about it objectively, is not about terrorism - it's about the mistreatment of the people of Iraq and a horrid dictator who killed and abused his power in many ways. The hidden agenda of George Bush helped to fuel his arguments in his own head and forced the rest of the world to go with him - if you didn't go, your country was seen as a traitor. Funny since it was the US government that funded Hussein in the 1980's (and Bin Laden as well, come to think of it).

There is absolutely no question that Hussein had to go....but who are we to instill our values on people. Sure, "democracy" works for us - but why do we force it on others who may not want it?

Its a little sad, but we need oil. So much is made from oil, it doesn't only power our cars. Even medicines are often made from crude oil. So, if you was on your way out to work now and your car wouldn't start. Would you still think "oh well, I can't drive to work, but atleast we didn't invade iraq" and what if your kid got sick, would you think "my kid can't get the medicine it needs, but oh well, atleast we didn't invade iraq".

It might seem shallow, but we need oil. Oil is everything, it even makes a lot of the economy run.

Even medicines are often made from crude oil.

Er, which ones?

The US did invade Iraq for oil and using terrorism as the reason for war.
Senior members of the US administration have had dealings with Saddam so they got no excuse.
I think the US have got alot more problems facing them now with Iran as they have referred them to the security council, Iran has said it will hurt the USA.
IMO either by stopping oil which will push global crude oil prices sky high or by using shia freedom fighters in neighbouring Iraq to intensify attacks on american soldiers.
Thus risking the lives of british soldiers.

So many topics now covered in this thread, it is almost impossible to find the time and energy to share an opinion on all.

Leftie do-gooder kinda stuck with me though lol.

This is not about a political persuasion but one of truth, morality, justice and integrity. (feel free to add more ...)

I hold fast to the Bush Administration conducting the attack on 9/11.

Also that the reasons used for attacking Afghanistan and Iraq were false.

If we cannot agree on those events then further discourse seems futile anyway, we are never going to agree.

For the record, I have a cousin who is a Captain and her husband is a Major serving in the British Army, I feel compassion for the boys and girls facing potentially avoidable risk.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/detail/offer-listing/-/1844370364/all/202-8185938-4667861

What do I know though, ask a Professor :confused:

I think it's worth reiterating (because people often seem to forget) that Iraq & Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Al Queda hated Sadam just as much as the West. He was a socialist dictator. He was a socialist. Socialist's do not believe in God. This was unnacceptable to the radical Muslim forces in the Middle East. After his invasion of Kuwait (GW1) Al Queda contacted the CIA and offered to remove Saddam for them. The CIA declined, which upset Al Queda. Al Queda had up to that point been sponsored by the USA, and were regarded as freedom fighters after they helped remove Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

I am not a supporter/sympathiser of Al Queda, radical religions, or terrorism in any form. I abhor them all, and hope that they all rot in hell. I have few religious convictions myself, and simply wish that people could be intelligent enough to live in harmony with each other. However we must make sure that the truth is remembered at all times, and not let our shock, horror, and sometimes even hatred blur our perception. The truth must be remembered.

The usual rant has started with little to do with the thread. Yes I do think that oil had something to do with it and we should pull out ASAP because we went in on a lie.

The US is not concerned with the freedom of the Iraqi people it is insular and wants a foothold in the Middle East. The enforcement of democracy based on the US's definition of what none stateside democracy should be will no doubt fail because Muslim countries and democracy rarely go hand in hand. Despotic regimes have been around for years and even the mighty US cannot spread itself that thin in order to depose all of their dictators.

What annoys me is the we are getting dragged along with the flow, we will not get one penny of financial benefit out of the situation and it is costing us a fortune. The US has its lowest ever world wide approval rate and ours can't be much better.

The US is not concerned with the freedom of the Iraqi people it is insular and wants a foothold in the Middle East.

Its got Israel.

Not many US airbases in Israel. Lots in Saudi and Iraq though.

I agree crookesey i can't understand for the life of me why we would want to make ourselves so unpopular in the world community just to back up our supposed allie, the yanks only came in to the second world war because of the bombing of pearl harbour this to protect their interests.

Are we to accept that we have now avoided a greater amount of lost lives through terrorism by these fundamentalists in the west than the huge loss of lives to our troops and their civillian populations, i don't think so, this war can never be justified and it is high time we pressure our government to remove the troops and forcing our own government to do a u-turn.

NOBODY SHOULD PROFIT FROM WAR
.

Its got Israel.

Don't get your drift, do you mean that the US have a right to stay in Iraq? I am not aware of there being a large US military presence in Israel and when it has been attacked in the past it has been able to defend itself by using it's own forces.

Whatever your feelings are regarding Israel it was formed on the back of the acts of a despot. Had Hitler not been around it is very likely that the European Jews would have stayed put. Perhaps if Saddam had stayed in power he would have forced the oppressed factions to rebel and Iraq could have ended up as three separate states, who knows?

Don't get your drift, do you mean that the US have a right to stay in Iraq? I am not aware of there being a large US military presence in Israel and when it has been attacked in the past it has been able to defend itself by using it's own forces.

Whatever your feelings are regarding Israel it was formed on the back of the acts of a despot. Had Hitler not been around it is very likely that the European Jews would have stayed put. Perhaps if Saddam had stayed in power he would have forced the oppressed factions to rebel and Iraq could have ended up as three separate states, who knows?

Just a remark nothing to do with your comments.
imo israel is the 51st state of america.
thats why it cant do anything wrong (:huh:)

The best way to bring about change in our policy of remaining in iraq is to pressurise our local mp's to bring it to the attention of our government that we want the troops to come home.

I am sure they will be told to take the party stance against terrorism and support the pm but if just a handful of rebels stood up against their own party leader and this government we might at least get the debate moving.

The cartoon incidents and subsequent publishings only went to prove that these arabs haven't got a sense of humour.

The cartoon incidents and subsequent publishings only went to prove that these arabs haven't got a sense of humour.

its actually muslims not arabs.:hihi:

:P They are all arabs in my eyes the whole stinking lot of them.

:P They are all arabs in my eyes the whole stinking lot of them.

bit harsh...
considering the same freedom of speech is denounced when denial of the holocaust is aired?

Thanks to Blair, Bush and a few others, there's 50,000 terrorists who won't trouble our country or anyone else for one simple reason - they're dead.

Where did you get these figures from please?

There are certainly estimates of tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, which will no doubt include civilian women and children, but where did the figure of 50,000 dead terrorists come from?

Do you include Iraqi civilian woman and child as terrorists?

DIDN'T BIN LADEN COME FROM SAUDI ARABIA MAKING HIM THE MOST HATED ARAB IN THE WEST?

He and his family went to stay in a hotel in london recently and the following morning he asked "what's the dammage guv" ?to the receptionist at this the chamber maid appeared and said "no need to charge them cos "no bed bin :D laid in"

I'll tell you why Muslims hate the West. It is because we don't want to live under Sharia law, meaning that we don't want our women to cover up with burkas, make them walk 10 yards behind us, nor do we want our pubs and bars closing down, or have our women stoned to death for adultery. [/I]

And there's me thinking the reason Muslims didn't like Western governments (not 'the West') was because those same governments had been propping up hated dictators for decades - the Shah of Iran, Saddam in Iraq...

Funny how these things lip your mind ;)

...we know the us are hated by most iranians even though i am told there are alot living in california over 250,000 at the last count.

Let me guess... you counted them one by one, and interviewed them too :wow:

Many, if not most, of the insurgents are not Iraqi nationals but have their own Middle East agenda - unrest and civil war in Iraq are what they want.

An end to Western interference would be nice, too

Please answer this question someone, "why did so called muslim british citizens indescriminately murder over 70 people in this country including a few of their own? because these people are completely obsessed with striking terror into our nation and in my mind they should all be deported.

They are not a minority their clerics breed hatred towards our people and the safe haven from which their families have fled so called regimes, i wish someone had listened to enoch powell in the 1950's.

This couldn't go on indefinately, and now Saddam will have to answer for his crimes against humanity - but isn't it peculiar that those lefties, who claimed to be opposed to Saddam's brutality, suddenly showed their true colours and sided with him when it came down to removing him.

So why, why, why, were Western powers so keen to install and support Saddam in the first place?

Simple - because with the CIA's help, Saddam ousted the-then ruler of Iraq, who wanted to renationalise Iraqi oil fields.

Isn't it peculiar that these bloodthirsty Western warmongers (http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/rumsfeld_&_hussein1.jpg), who claimed to be Saddam's friends, suddenly showed their true colours and fought against him when their little puppy had a wee on the carpet?

An end to Western interference would be nice, too

That would be nice.

And if the coalition forces pull out tomorrow, who's going to prevent the bloodbath that will follow?

The bombings we have now may be unpalatable, but there would be carnage and true civil war if we just leave them to it and 'stop interfering'.

Please answer this question someone, "why did so called muslim british citizens indescriminately murder over 70 people in this country including a few of their own? because these people are completely obsessed with striking terror into our nation and in my mind they should all be deported.

Because they were a bunch of misguided fools.

At least we agree on one thing - that killing civilians is WRONG, regardless of whether they're in London or Iraq :thumbsup:

That would be nice.

And if the coalition forces pull out tomorrow, who's going to prevent the bloodbath that will follow?


but the blood bath that would follow is surely because of the interferance the coalition forces started when Iraq was invaded. :huh:

And if the coalition forces pull out tomorrow, who's going to prevent the bloodbath that will follow?

The bombings we have now may be unpalatable, but there would be carnage and true civil war if we just leave them to it and 'stop interfering'.

Thank you.

You've just explained one of the many reasons so many were against the war in the first place.

To answer your question, why not just leave the Iraqis to it? Western forces did it after Gulf War I. Mind you, this is unlikely to happen as it would dent Tony Blair's ego.

What's the alternative? Keep troops there until peace come to Iraq? Many fear that a peaceful solution is not in sight while foreign troops are still there.

but the blood bath that would follow is surely because of the interferance the coalition forces started when Iraq was invaded. :huh:

And how many would have died, and would be continuing to die, under Saddam's regime if they hadn't?

And how many would have died, and would be continuing to die, under Saddam's regime if they hadn't?

we'll neer know but we will know how many have died, are dying and will die when the "liberation" of iraqi's is done by the coalition forces.

And how many would have died, and would be continuing to die, under Saddam's regime if they hadn't?

We'll never know? but we will know how many have died, are dying and will die when the "liberation" of iraqi's is done by the coalition forces.
IMO lot less than saddam and his croonies.

I agree abdul the invasion of iraq only made this country even more unstable and now the west has stirred up a hornets nest of attrition against the west.

Why didn't the government just arrange for the sas to take out saddam and his killing crew then we wouldn't have needed this rediculous war situation, does anyone remember that dr.kelly who committed suicide very suspicious.

This war had nothing to do with un inspectors(smoke screen) or indeed the preservation of human life in iraq from the regime of saddam more to do with the u.s lining their filthy rich pockets at the expense of this proud arab nation.

I seem to remembe a skirmish between iran and iraq some years a go i wonder if these two bitter states will unite against western invasion

And how many would have died, and would be continuing to die, under Saddam's regime if they hadn't?

Quite right, please have a look at http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001068.html it's a description (with pictures) of a museum in the Kurdish area of North Iraq. The pathetic, childish attitudes of the anti-war crowd that call Bush and Blair "Killers" or scream blue murder about the isolated minor abuses such as Abu Graib while ignoring documented events like these sicken me.

Also: http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008231.php an interesting piece on progress/problems in Iraq.

I agree abdul the invasion of iraq only made this country even more unstable and now the west has stirred up a hornets nest of attrition against the west.

Why didn't the government just arrange for the sas to take out saddam and his killing crew then we wouldn't have needed this rediculous war situation, does anyone remember that dr.kelly who committed suicide very suspicious.

This war had nothing to do with un inspectors(smoke screen) or indeed the preservation of human life in iraq from the regime of saddam more to do with the u.s lining their filthy rich pockets at the expense of this proud arab nation.

Apologies for being glib but I didn't know it was the school holidays? How else do you explain such childish arguments?

Can you tell me what would have happened to iraq after we had "taken out Saddam and his killing crew"? Which by the way was an entire structure of Republican Guards, Secret Police, fedayeen militia and other assorted baa'thst thugs and so to discuss taking them out is an academic discussion.

So the 12 years of broken UN sanctions was a smoke screen? If you actually read some of the reports from the UN teams (Which were not very effective due to being led everywhere by saddams helpers) you would know they were not happy at all with what they were finding evidence of.

Finally - the US are lining their pockets? Check out the congressional spending bills on Iraq - I'll give you a hint you'll need a big calculator to tot it up ;) oh and the fact that revenue from Iraqi oil goes into a fund to be used by the Iraq government to pay for state employee wages, rebuilding projects etc...

Please find documents that contradict the above - I'd be very interested to see them.

And how many would have died, and would be continuing to die, under Saddam's regime if they hadn't?

I thought the reason for the war was "weapons of mass destruction" and when they didnt find any tactics switched to him being a murdering tyrant.
quite interesting the way people have different idea's about the reasoning behind the war.

By bombing the provincial palaces with all the guard and him in place easy really even you should have figured that one out.

...it's a description (with pictures) of a museum in the Kurdish area of North Iraq. The pathetic, childish attitudes of the anti-war crowd that call Bush and Blair "Killers" or scream blue muredr about the isolated minor abuses such as Abu Graib while ignoring documented events like these sicken me.

We agree that Saddam was a brutal dictator; even the anti-war movement are aware of that. What has not been answered is why Western powers installed him to power and supplied him with chemical weapons in the first place?

The recent history of the Kurds is an interesting one. Turkey has also been indulging in a little Kurdish genocide of its own. Why is little said about this? Could it be that Turkey uses American equipment including Sikorsky Blackhawk helicopters and McDonnell Douglas F16 fighter jets to oppress the Kurds?

Turkey also supplies air bases to the u.s abdul i'm sure they and the yanks will turn a blind eye to a spot of their own genocide wink wink nudge nudge,i agree the change of tac was a little suspicious could this have been to "we must get our greasey hands on that oil come what may" me thinks

I thought the reason for the war was "weapons of mass destruction" and when they didnt find any tactics switched to him being a murdering tyrant.
quite interesting the way people have different idea's about the reasoning behind the war.

I think you should read barny_100's posts.

I think you should read barny_100's posts.

I've read his and not suggesting saddam didnt kill his people im just saying that reasoning behind the war now isn't the one used to invade iraq.
what happened to that 45 minute claim?:hihi:

So the 12 years of broken UN sanctions was a smoke screen? If you actually read some of the reports from the UN teams (Which were not very effective due to being led everywhere by saddams helpers) you would know they were not happy at all with what they were finding evidence of.

Finding evidence of what? Those 'hidden' WMD stockpiles :huh:

Finally - the US are lining their pockets?

Halliburton, the US energy company formerly headed by US vice-president Dick Cheney is a company directly benefitting from the war, as you can read here. Mind you, they're not doing a very good job of it:

Pentagon 'hid' damning Halliburton audit (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1438564,00.html)

US army docks Halliburton $55m (http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1453197,00.html)

And seeing as you prefer to posts link to third-party websites rather than debate topics, I'll add this one too:

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org

I think you should read barny_100's posts.

We have.

Just because you agree with them doesn't make them right.

Halliburton, the US energy company formerly headed by US vice-president Dick Cheney is a company directly benefitting from the war, as you can read here. Mind you, they're not doing a very good job of it:

Pentagon 'hid' damning Halliburton audit (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1438564,00.html)

US army docks Halliburton $55m (http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1453197,00.html)

And seeing as you prefer to posts link to third-party websites rather than debate topics, I'll add this one too:

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org

Liked the 2nd link Abdul - the horror! Halliburton overcharged the US Army for dining contracts!!! Shouldn't we have a candlelit vigil for this?

Anyway the post I replied too specifically stated the US was stealing Oil money - an obvious lie that you obfuscate bu changing the subject to Halliburton - a straw man argument if ever there was one.

As for your little "dig" as I assume it was about my links - I have thought that sometimes I put too many on (Never more than 2 in 1 post though..) but I read interesting things that I just don't see being said in the UK press/TV - surely that is the very beauty of the internet?

To be honest I think I'll only reply to extremely wrong/silly things said as lets be honest - it's all getting a bit tedious isn't it? It's been 3 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom (Or Operation Telic to us subtle Brits) and most peoples views are pretty much set in stone - although that's quite sad it's quite accurate I'd say.

Anyway the post I replied too specifically stated the US was stealing Oil money - an obvious lie that you obfuscate bu changing the subject to Halliburton - a straw man argument if ever there was one.

You asked whether the US lining their pockets, not whether they were stealing oil money.

And despite your admittedly humourous comments, they are.

You asked whether the US lining their pockets, not whether they were stealing oil money.

And despite your admittedly humourous comments, they are.

I took a shortcut with my language there but it was a reply to the accusation that the US was stealing "oil money" specifically. They are not.

As I wrote it though it still stands up. Halliburton overcharged the US Army - this could be considered a form of stealing. Who from? The US tax payer of course. So the US is stealing from itself - an issue between the US tax payer and the US government I'd say. Regardless of whether someone was for/against the war surely they can see this line of "attack" is going no where?

Dick cheney was CEO of haliburton during the clinton administration and had dealings with saddam through subsiduary companies authorised by him as being the top man. he tried to deny it but the washington post caught him ought.
nuff said:banana:

And there's me thinking the reason Muslims didn't like Western governments (not 'the West') was because those same governments had been propping up hated dictators for decades - the Shah of Iran, Saddam in Iraq...

Funny how these things lip your mind ;)
it seems as if Muslims didn't like Western Governments or the United States very much 200 years ago if this piece is anything to go by - quite a bit before Saddams and the Shah's time:

John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15201)

So it is hardly new. And I guess the whole Islamic world would be working themselves up in a frenzy that would make the Danish cartoons look pretty tame if the 6th President of the US, John Quincy Adams were immortal.

it seems as if Muslims didn't like Western Governments or the United States very much 200 years ago if this piece is anything to go by - quite a bit before Saddams and the Shah's time:



I'm sorry, do you expect me to take that URL at face value? It's far too long to read, and I fail to see what it contributes to the debate.

And I guess the whole Islamic world would be working themselves up in a frenzy that would make the Danish cartoons look pretty tame if the 6th President of the US, John Quincy Adams were immortal.

I guess he'd be working for the Bush Administration

it seems as if Muslims didn't like Western Governments or the United States very much 200 years ago if this piece is anything to go by - quite a bit before Saddams and the Shah's time:

John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15201)

So it is hardly new. And I guess the whole Islamic world would be working themselves up in a frenzy that would make the Danish cartoons look pretty tame if the 6th President of the US, John Quincy Adams were immortal.

Firecracker,an awful lot of these links you post seem to be from the same,rabidly right-wing Republican websites..

Do you think its fair to say that your choice of reading matter lacks a certain perspective?:huh:

Firecracker,an awful lot of these links you post seem to be from the same,rabidly right-wing Republican websites..

Do you think its fair to say that your choice of reading matter lack a certain perspective?:huh:
I don't recall John Quincy Adams being a Republican - indeed he was President 35 years before the Republicans came into existence. Did that site say something you didn't like? Still, we'll educate you one day.

I don't recall John Quincy Adams being a Republican - indeed he was President 35 years before the Republicans came into existence. Did that site say something you didn't like? Still, we'll educate you one day.

Whether John Quincy Adams was a Republican or not is irrelevant-I was asking about the website,not Mr Quincy Adams.

Indeed.

The website is the creation of David Horowitz.