Notices
Non Scooby Related Anything Non-Scooby related

Extremeist on the news.....

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 20 July 2005, 12:08 PM
  #31  
suprabeast
Scooby Regular
 
suprabeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fairy Tokens = 9
Posts: 1,951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CoobyS
The common denominator is that innocent lives are lost and people get p1ssed off. In the same way we are p1ssed off at our fellow Londoners getting blown to bits, so are the Iraqi's (and their supporters) who have seen their people die.

I take it that you support the war in Iraq?
For a start SH was dangerous and needed to be removed, whether he had WMD's or not is irrelevant, he wouldnt allow the UN top check otherwise therefore the natural assumption is that he did.

Plus everyone complains the war was about oil... Well what would have happened if SH had decided that there would be no more oil sold to the west. OR it would be tripled in price?

It could have crippled the whole of western civilisation.

And finally, in his reign of control, he still killed more people than the war and allot of them were his own
Old 20 July 2005, 12:12 PM
  #32  
RedFive
Scooby Regular
 
RedFive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CoobyS
Right. So would you say that the UK's involvement in Iraq, albeit as a pillion passenger, has made us the target of terrorists? In other words, we are responsible, ultimately, for the terror attacks on 7/7?
Wouldn't logic then imply that the attacks would be carried out by Iraqis or Afghans ? (devils advocate).
Old 20 July 2005, 12:20 PM
  #33  
CoobyS
Scooby Regular
 
CoobyS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by suprabeast
For a start SH was dangerous and needed to be removed, whether he had WMD's or not is irrelevant, he wouldnt allow the UN top check otherwise therefore the natural assumption is that he did.

Plus everyone complains the war was about oil... Well what would have happened if SH had decided that there would be no more oil sold to the west. OR it would be tripled in price?

It could have crippled the whole of western civilisation.

And finally, in his reign of control, he still killed more people than the war and allot of them were his own
So sounds like you do support the war but unwilling to accept the consequences - i.e. us suffering reprisal attacks. This was known to be the case before we went to war.
Old 20 July 2005, 12:20 PM
  #34  
OllyK
Scooby Regular
 
OllyK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by suprabeast
For a start SH was dangerous and needed to be removed, whether he had WMD's or not is irrelevant, he wouldnt allow the UN top check otherwise therefore the natural assumption is that he did.
Dangerous as in an actual threat, or dngerous becuase the spin doctors wanted you to think that to legitimise the invasion?

Plus everyone complains the war was about oil... Well what would have happened if SH had decided that there would be no more oil sold to the west. OR it would be tripled in price?

It could have crippled the whole of western civilisation.
So we'd have been shafted by our own greed. The need for more resources was the reasoning behind Germany invading poland and such, are you saying that invasion is justified becuase a country has something you want?

And finally, in his reign of control, he still killed more people than the war and allot of them were his own
And that is relevant how? Pol Pot killed millions, didn't see us invading Cambodia, or Russia when Stalin was getting busy. We aren't doing too much about Zimbabwe either, but then, they don't have massive oil reserves either.

The whole Iraq war is based on lies, deception and spin to try and justify invading another country because we want to plunder their resources. If that's how you want to behave, you have to expect people will retaliate.
Old 20 July 2005, 12:23 PM
  #35  
CoobyS
Scooby Regular
 
CoobyS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by RedFive
Wouldn't logic then imply that the attacks would be carried out by Iraqis or Afghans ? (devils advocate).
Not really a devil's advocate statement as I'm sure if the Iraqis and Afghans had the chance they would love to blow the UK to bits. Instead their brethren who have the means, opportunities and motives are taking the honours.
Old 20 July 2005, 12:23 PM
  #36  
suprabeast
Scooby Regular
 
suprabeast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fairy Tokens = 9
Posts: 1,951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by OllyK
Dangerous as in an actual threat, or dngerous becuase the spin doctors wanted you to think that to legitimise the invasion?
HE WAS DEEMED AN ACTUAL THREAT
Old 20 July 2005, 12:28 PM
  #37  
CoobyS
Scooby Regular
 
CoobyS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by suprabeast
HE WAS DEEMED AN ACTUAL THREAT
Yes he was an actual threat to the Western economy because being a leader of a country with the highest untapped oil per barrel produced ratio, should he have refused to play ball we would have been in grave danger of economic collapse. A fact openly admitted to by the UK/US Governments.
Old 20 July 2005, 12:28 PM
  #38  
OllyK
Scooby Regular
 
OllyK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by suprabeast
HE WAS DEEMED AN ACTUAL THREAT
Based on what has turned out to be incorrect information.

One then has to ask at what point GW and TB actually knew that info was false and wether it was spin to get the public on board. I doubt we will ever know, but the way things all came to a head rather quickly and without a second resolution does make me wonder why there was suddenly (after several years) such a big rush.
Old 20 July 2005, 12:51 PM
  #39  
Flatcapdriver
Scooby Regular
 
Flatcapdriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CoobyS
Yes he was an actual threat to the Western economy because being a leader of a country with the highest untapped oil per barrel produced ratio, should he have refused to play ball we would have been in grave danger of economic collapse. A fact openly admitted to by the UK/US Governments.
Rubbish. There was very little oil coming out of Iraq during that time anyway given the embargos forced through by the West so other than the oil for food programme it didn't have that much impact. What everyone forgets is that there are plenty of oil reserves about at present and what is forcing prices up is high demand coupled with a lack of refining capacity. Oil prices have doubled over the last couple of years and there has been no economic collapse.
Old 20 July 2005, 12:56 PM
  #40  
CoobyS
Scooby Regular
 
CoobyS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Flatcapdriver
Rubbish. There was very little oil coming out of Iraq during that time anyway given the embargos forced through by the West so other than the oil for food programme it didn't have that much impact. What everyone forgets is that there are plenty of oil reserves about at present and what is forcing prices up is high demand coupled with a lack of refining capacity. Oil prices have doubled over the last couple of years and there has been no economic collapse.
You're missing the point that Iraq has the largest untapped supplies. Therefore, to get control over these for the problems in the next 20 or so years that will arise from shortages in the West, it was justified we invade Iraq.

Think long term, we're not talking about a couple of years.

Read the US Governments own papers which warn of the coming shortages and were made public a year before the invasion.
Old 20 July 2005, 01:00 PM
  #41  
Jap2Scrap
Scooby Regular
 
Jap2Scrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CoobyS
You're missing the point that Iraq has the largest untapped supplies. Therefore, to get control over these for the problems in the next 20 or so years that will arise from shortages in the West, it was justified we invade Iraq.

Think long term, we're not talking about a couple of years.

Read the US Governments own papers which warn of the coming shortages and were made public a year before the invasion.
I think that a possible flaw in your assumption that it's wholly a conquering invasion is that it's anything but conquering. Let's be honest, if the US and UK wanted outright control of Iraq nothing could stop them taking it. It's the softly, softly, let's not tread on any toes approach that has landed our troops in the mess they're in. Exposed and vulnerable to resistance by trying to present a peaceful force rather than an invasion.
Old 20 July 2005, 01:11 PM
  #42  
MJW
Scooby Senior
 
MJW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jap2Scrap
I think that a possible flaw in your assumption that it's wholly a conquering invasion is that it's anything but conquering. Let's be honest, if the US and UK wanted outright control of Iraq nothing could stop them taking it. It's the softly, softly, let's not tread on any toes approach that has landed our troops in the mess they're in. Exposed and vulnerable to resistance by trying to present a peaceful force rather than an invasion.
But the US and UK do have total control over Iraq with the puppet government they installed ! The only reason Saddam was removed because he wasn't playing ball with the oil supplies - the US and UK governments couldn't give a flying f**k about the Iraqi people, as demonstrated during the years Saddam was our best buddy. Human rights ? Nah, here Saddam wanna buy some more weapons from us ? And 'peaceful forces' is a bit of an oxymoron isn't it ? Cluster bombs and depleted uranium rounds aren't PR tools !
Old 20 July 2005, 01:13 PM
  #43  
CoobyS
Scooby Regular
 
CoobyS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Jap2Scrap
I think that a possible flaw in your assumption that it's wholly a conquering invasion is that it's anything but conquering. Let's be honest, if the US and UK wanted outright control of Iraq nothing could stop them taking it. It's the softly, softly, let's not tread on any toes approach that has landed our troops in the mess they're in. Exposed and vulnerable to resistance by trying to present a peaceful force rather than an invasion.
I made no assumption of the sort, although the control of Iraq and whether it is conquered is open for debate.
Old 20 July 2005, 01:13 PM
  #44  
Jap2Scrap
Scooby Regular
 
Jap2Scrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by MJW
But the US and UK do have total control over Iraq with the puppet government they installed ! The only reason Saddam was removed because he wasn't playing ball with the oil supplies - the US and UK governments couldn't give a flying f**k about the Iraqi people, as demonstrated during the years Saddam was our best buddy. Human rights ? Nah, here Saddam wanna buy some more weapons from us ? And 'peaceful forces' is a bit of an oxymoron isn't it ? Cluster bombs and depleted uranium rounds aren't PR tools !
Mmm good point. It's all about image I suppose.
Old 20 July 2005, 01:15 PM
  #45  
Jap2Scrap
Scooby Regular
 
Jap2Scrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CoobyS
I made no assumption of the sort. Any kid would tell you that Iraq is far from conquered.
Of course, but I read from your posts that the Invasion was just that, an invasion to seize Iraq, rather than to free its people. I just feel that they could have done that by now if they'd really wanted to.
Old 20 July 2005, 02:54 PM
  #46  
moses
BANNED
Support Scoobynet!
 
moses's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

when did i miss something who was on and what channel
Old 20 July 2005, 02:57 PM
  #47  
moses
BANNED
Support Scoobynet!
 
moses's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by CoobyS
I think that is being used as an excuse by the terrorists. They know full well that if we didn't invade Iraq then we'd face the economic repercussions of an oil crisis, almost like in 1973 when the US nearly invaded Saudi Arabia. Also, in invading Iraq, we are helping them rid their way of life and adopt the Western demoncracy approach - the only way to live. Mark my words, 5 years from now we will see Iraqis enjoying Big Macs rather than strapping exposives to themselves and needlessly blowing themselves up.

All we're doing is helping them.


cooby would u enjoy bigmacs while a foreign government an invader is stealing your wealth while giving u bigmacs

i bet u would
Old 20 July 2005, 03:03 PM
  #48  
moses
BANNED
Support Scoobynet!
 
moses's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by astraboy
you dont seriously believe that do you?
Iraq was invaded because of its oil reserves were ripe for the taking.
Everything else, the repression of the kurds, the human rights atrocities and a despot running the place were all incidental to the fact the country is rich in oil and the americans wanted it. A fact reflected by the way american forces surrounded the oil ministry to defend its infastructure once it had been captured, yet didnt bat an eyelid while the hospitals were looted.
If the americans were so upset about the treatment of the natives, it does beg the question of why they hung the kurds out to dry and stood to one side while saddam hussein gassed them en masse for daring to stage an uprising in the north after Gulf War Part 1.
astraboy.


well said astra and also usa gave him evil weapons to use it on the iranians too
Old 20 July 2005, 03:04 PM
  #49  
moses
BANNED
Support Scoobynet!
 
moses's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by OllyK
The problem is we assume the western way is best and right, that isn't necessarily the case for everybody and while we impose our will on others, people will resist and make their displeasure known however they can. Iraq is just another example of the west (America) meddling in the Middle East for largely its own ends and we just happen to be along for the ride this time.

America is THE super power, no other army can really match them in terms of destructive capability, so those who want to resist have to resort to non-conventional methods, much as the French resistance did during the German invasion in WW2. We have to realise that to many people in Iraq and the Middle East in general, what we are doing is seen as comparable to Germany.

thanks mate well said i quote

"like one guy said our apache helicopters and f-16's are our suicide bombers".

they dont have an army
Old 20 July 2005, 03:24 PM
  #50  
MJW
Scooby Senior
 
MJW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Yes, it's great now the Iraqis are free : they're free to choose from literally several American contractors to re-build the infrastructure that was destroyed by American bombs. But they'll have to pay for it themselves of course ...

In fact, the contract for re-building Iraq was awarded to Bush's long time buddies Bechtel (who's former list of upper management reads like a who's who of US government). Strange that isn't it ?
Old 20 July 2005, 04:28 PM
  #51  
CoobyS
Scooby Regular
 
CoobyS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by moses
cooby would u enjoy bigmacs while a foreign government an invader is stealing your wealth while giving u bigmacs

i bet u would
It's the least the Amercians can do. I mean after invading their country, reducing it to rubbles, controlling their oil, killing 25k+ people, some Big Macs wouldn't go amiss. And the people of America/UK will ensure Bush and Blair remain in power for their hospitality.
Old 20 July 2005, 09:34 PM
  #52  
AsifScoob
Scooby Regular
 
AsifScoob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by moses
when did i miss something who was on and what channel
Anjem someone was on Ch4 news, one of the former bigwigs from Al-Muhajuroun.

He actually avoided the question about whether UK citizens are a legitimate targets for suicide bombers, I took the answer as being yes.

He was on there having a debate with a chap from the Muslim Interfaith Organisation and accused him of not being a 'proper Muslim' - very poor show in my opinion.

You either kill EVERYBODY, like some on here think, or you agree that EVERYONE has a right to life. Until Muslim people feel some sort of justice and equality then people like this mad man will find people to listen to him - and agree within him.

Whether actually banning him from speaking and deporting him to somewhere will actually change anything I dont know.

Also 'engaging' with the Muslim community, in order to wash their hands of any responsibility for recent events is one of the dirtiest tricks played by New Labour.

If more bombs go off, it really will be the responsibility of the Muslim community as these people have now agreed to 'resolve' these issues in the UK, so they are on the hook for it, in my opinion. NL is free to carry on Crusading through the Middle East as Bush's bum chum and can now blame someone else even more conveniently than before.

Why dont we just stop creating these situations? Seems simple to me.

Asif
Old 20 July 2005, 09:44 PM
  #53  
moses
BANNED
Support Scoobynet!
 
moses's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

thanks alot bros i missed it, u know anyone who taped it bros

i was watching newsnight and then watched a few star plus asian soaps

kahin to hoga, kyunki saas be khabi bahu thee and before that kausati my wife records it for me when im at work i luv it
and 11.05 836 channel islamic one i watch agenda my fave programme
Old 20 July 2005, 09:46 PM
  #54  
moses
BANNED
Support Scoobynet!
 
moses's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

here is my fave mother and mother n law in the soaps

tulsi virani

Old 20 July 2005, 09:47 PM
  #55  
AsifScoob
Scooby Regular
 
AsifScoob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by moses
thanks alot bros i missed it, u know anyone who taped it bros

i was watching newsnight and then watched a few star plus asian soaps

kahin to hoga, kyunki saas be khabi bahu thee and before that kausati my wife records it for me when im at work i luv it
and 11.05 836 channel islamic one i watch agenda my fave programme
LOL, my Mum loves that stuff.

Dont know anyone who has it, try the CH4 Website

Asif
Old 20 July 2005, 09:54 PM
  #56  
moses
BANNED
Support Scoobynet!
 
moses's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Talking

Originally Posted by AsifScoob
LOL, my Mum loves that stuff.

Dont know anyone who has it, try the CH4 Website

Asif

inshallah will do bros i never ever did like asian soaps but i got hooked u know the time we come back from work at night and the food is ready the maw and wife r watchin the soaps and u get hooked

Old 20 July 2005, 09:58 PM
  #57  
AsifScoob
Scooby Regular
 
AsifScoob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by moses
inshallah will do bros i never ever did like asian soaps but i got hooked u know the time we come back from work at night and the food is ready the maw and wife r watchin the soaps and u get hooked

LOL, Ive been there. Mum is banned from watching that stuff now, she was literally glued to it, not eating, going to sleep, she went mad!!

Oh, time to go and watch Big Brother!

Asif
Old 20 July 2005, 10:05 PM
  #58  
moses
BANNED
Support Scoobynet!
 
moses's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by AsifScoob
LOL, Ive been there. Mum is banned from watching that stuff now, she was literally glued to it, not eating, going to sleep, she went mad!!

Oh, time to go and watch Big Brother!

Asif

bros same prob here my mums always glued on it only time she moves is to read salat and eat or sleep at night


lol big brother that kamal is a backstabbing c;unt
Old 21 July 2005, 12:14 PM
  #59  
Leslie
Scooby Regular
 
Leslie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

CoobyS,

In answer to your previous question about the cause of the London attacks, yes that is exactly what I would say.

Les
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
oilman
Trader Announcements
2
10 October 2014 02:51 PM
Dr Hu
Computer & Technology Related
10
31 January 2013 10:13 PM
55WRX
ScoobyNet General
29
16 January 2011 05:15 PM
darms
ScoobyNet General
9
06 November 2009 03:36 PM
sarasquares
ScoobyNet General
38
18 May 2007 04:48 PM



Quick Reply: Extremeist on the news.....



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 PM.