f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Nothing to do with any ties to Muslims or any other creed. I just don't think we should meddle in other countries' business without just cause and regime change is not just cause.

For instance if we were so concerned about the regime in Iraq what about that in North Korea, Burma or Zimbabwe - all equally 'evil' in their own way.

For me we caused the deaths of a lot of civialians and have destabilised the country to the point where it is certainly no better than it was before, but hey, at least we have the oil :thumb And that is what this was always about.

I now see we are condoning invading Iran. Yes, great idea, another country we can blitz into turmoil and give the extrmeists even more reason to hate us.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

For crying out loud. You blame us for deleting all your posts when it was actually you who had the thread cut off age set wrong, and kick off about it.

And now you think KOT's signature is real; its not. Look closer its taking the mick. Lisa has never touched any of his posts.

Seriously wind your neck in a bit before you go kicking off.

SJ_Skyline

Welcome back GC8WRX, this village has been missing its idiot.

JTaylor

I get that position. If you're happy to keep it civilised I'll respond when I have a moment.

hodgy0_2

you make the point we did some "damage" - as DCI points out we did far more than simple damage, we reduced Iraq to rubble, and ten years after we are nowhere near repairing it.

you speak like the impact on Iraq was a slightly bigger version of the Potters Bar rail crash - which misses the point entirely

JTaylor

I said "where it's been damaged, we're rebuilding". However, if you feel this doesn't afford suitable gravitas, I'll rephrase. To extirpate a 25 year old dictatorship, the agressors have to render unusable the facilities that support said regime. It's deeply regrettable that the civilian population suffer to such an extent during the transition, but one hopes that the sacrifice will reward the greater good.

Are you familiar with Saddam's 'project' in the southern marshlands and how they have now been restored? It may be worth googling.

I see you've not responded to the main body of my response, I trust you accept the points I there.

hodgy0_2

In other words as the American general said "to save this villiage we have to destroy it"

thanks -- that is pretty much where I came in

JTaylor

*made*

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Something I wonder about to this day: Project Babylon. What was its real purpose?

Seeing that some of the parts were made litterally down the road from where I work. Its part of local folk lore in these areas; we actually made part of the Iraqi supergun (The very same manufacturer also made part of the anchors for the Titanic ).

JTaylor

No. This was a brutal, murderous, psychopath who had at his personal disposal the second largest oil reserves on the planet, was funding global Jihad, and had, on his glowing CV, acts of such sickening genocide you'd vomit should you care to view the pictures and videos. While you may draw comparisons with Vietnam, you're wrong to do so.

As stated, if you'd care to start a thread regarding Vietnam I'll happily discuss the vast differences between the two conflicts.

hodgy0_2

indeed

Martin2005

Whilst I totally respect your views on Iraq, it doesn't help the debate when you choose to massively exaggerate; we did not under any reasonable measure 'reduce Iraq to rubble' that is just simply untrue.

JTaylor

Well, Hodgy, I answered this charge comprehensively on page 1, although I note that you didn't respond. I think it's not unfair to point out your criticism of the percieved use of a circular argument.

https://www.scoobynet.com/showpost.p...9&postcount=13

hodgy0_2

again you so totally miss the point -- we did not merely supply arms and chemicals to Iraq, like a licensed gun dealer (I love the use of Licensed -- as if that magically excuses someone of any morality, nice)

By doing so we actively supported the prolonging of a conflict that cost over a million lives.

Martin2005

Did 'we' really supply chemical weapons to Iraq, I've never seen any evidence of this? Also most of Saddams hardware was Soviet and Chinese with a few French jets thrown in for good measure. I don't recall our boys coming up against any of our own kit in Iraq in either Gulf War. I do understand that we supplied intel and other assistance, but chemical weapons??

Also I don't like the way you throw around the 'we' word, 'we' did not support Saddam, I know you and I didn't for starters, neither did Blair or his government. Thatcher might of, but that should not suddenly render us helpless to do anything ever again.

JTaylor

I was referring to this post, which deals with fact.

Eta. I wrote this on my iPhone on a train so apolgies for the typos and continuity. Where I've said 'North Korea, China and North Korea' it should of course read '....and Libya'. The iPhone doesn't allow for editing of long posts.


https://www.scoobynet.com/showpost.p...6&postcount=29

andythejock01wrx

Hi James.

Your description of Sadam isn't at all unwarranted apart from perhaps the reference to "funding global jihad". Which organisations are you referring to and based on what source?

cheers,

Andy

JTaylor

Evening, Andy.

The organistaions to which I am referring are Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine, where a bounty was officially and openly paid to the family of any Palestinian suicide murderer. This began around the same time that he added 'Allahuh Akbar' to the national flag (and had an entire Koran written in his own blood for good measure.)

I'll give you the good old BBC for starters:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2846365.stm

The Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) report by the Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) is worth googling and is titled 'Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents'. The findings are based on a review, conducted by the IDA's Joint Advanced Warfighting Program (JAWP). There were more than 600,000 original documents and several thousand hours of audio and video recordings.

There are numerous claims found within this report, some of which, in
my view, are difficult to substantiate owing to the cell structure of the organisations in question.

It's interesting to note that Saddam's piety (his mullah robed self muraled upon the walls of his capital) materialised as the West turned against him. Secular socialist to Islamist sympathiser. Opportunist. Gangster.

Leslie

I would not want to see it, especially since he has made known how he feels about Israel.

However, in all honesty, I don't think a war on the country can be justified on that particular account. He should certainly be in no doubt that any move he might make with those weapons would be a very stupid thing to do.

I have been told by those who have had dealings with them that the Iranian people are particular pleasant and friendly, and that as ever it is the politicians who cause the problems for their own purposes.

Liike the Iraq affair, I feel it would be bad to kill so many innocent civilians for the sake of neutralising their leader.

Les

Leslie

There was an awful lot of rubble, and the infrastructure as well of course, as well as all the thousands of innocent civilians!

Les

andythejock01wrx

Might do some research on this myself James as it puts a different perspective on matters. Clearly it's a good thing that the man is no more, but I'll confess I'd always taken the "funding islamic terrorism" accusation to be a NeoCon excuse. I certainly saw him as secular rather than muslim (albeit feigning interest for political advantage).

JTaylor

So on balance, best to let Iran acquire nukes rather than risk killing civilians who are "particularly pleasant and friendly".

JTaylor

Saddam and Al Qeada had ideological differences and Powell's bungled attempt to link Saddam with 9/11 as a pretext did the pro-liberation movement no favours. Much of Powell's 'evidence' was speculative; the logic being that as Saddam openly financed Islamic Jihad in the West Bank and Gaza, and he and Bin Laden shared a common enemy, there must have been cooperation. The Septics had good intelligence linking the ISS with al-Zawarhi but the reality is Saddam viewed Al Qeada as a threat to his regime. Blair, to his credit, urged the US not to push the claim. There's more concrete evidence in the report of Saddam's 'projects' in Somalia where his goons were direct rivals with Al Qeada operatives.

Global Jihad isn't restricted to bombing London or the States and doesn't have to be facilitated by Al Qeada.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Aye, to the bulging basket of advantages of the Iran invasion we can add the death of many darkies thereby helping with the war on Islamism

DCI Gene Hunt

Let's extend that ethos and just kill everyone, just in case..

hodgy0_2

yes to save - we have to destroy

"Hallelujah"

hodgy0_2

And Saddam no more funded and supported “Global” jihad – than America did by supporting (financially and morally) the carnage in Northern Ireland

You are just cynically suing the Arabs natural sympathy for the Palestinian cause

JTaylor

Taken from this report:

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~dgupta/do...nceDec2005.pdf

“The Islamic Brotherhood (Islamic Jihad) like many other fundamentalist Islamic movements, sees jihad as a general duty of all Muslims and proposed that first ‘proper Islam’ should be established throughout the Muslim world. Only after the primary goal is achieved, violent jihad should be directed against Israel. In contrast, the Hamas movement has these two priorities switched. It maintained that first jihad should be directed at liberating all of Palestine, and then Muslims should direct their attention to the goal of restoring the ‘true faith’ to the rest of the Islamic world.”

Saddam openly financed Islamic Jihad and Hamas enabling these organisations not only to continue setting off car bombs as the rescue services attended the aftermath of suicide murders in Tel Aviv, but also to attack those states who dare consider a non-Islamist system of governance. This is global Jihad.

I feel you're comparing apples to pears, again, Hodgy. It would be really interesting if you started a thread on America's Republican sympathies and how you think that they are comparable to Saddam's payments of $25k to use the sons of impoverished, illiterate families as murder weapons.

I am not discussing Arabs, I'm discussing Saddam Hussein; Saddam Hussein was not representative of the whole of the Arab world. That aside, I too have sympathy with the Palestinian cause, do you wish to discuss it?

JTaylor

So are you supporting Iran's nuclear armament?

JTaylor

This is not about the colour of person's skin, f1_fan. This is about a modern Islamic theocracy whose leader has stated, when referring to Khomeini, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map." He's also on record as saying ""Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury" and that Iran will not retreat "one iota" on it's right to a military program.

Now, I propose two options, here: You could either demonstrate your convictions and become an activist; I recommend that you call your group "Pacifists for Nuclear Armament", or you could explore the subject further. If you choose the latter, I've attached a link below for you perusal.

http://countmein-iran.com/coalition.html

Do you count yourself in?