₦airaland Forum

@Afam
So u see  these polls on TV.it is kind of strange that only u see them.

your claim that the no-fly zones were not imposed as a result of post Gulf War massacres was blatantly false.Perhaps u saw that on TV all by yourself.

Whether the Iraq war is legal or not is a matter of opinion not fact.I can't say the same about your polls and and no-fly zones which only u know about

@Easyy
The Brooking instituition Iraq index that I cited to support the claim that most Iraqis say that despite their suffering they think the toppling of Saddam was worth it came from an instituition that came out against the Iraq war b4 it started and said that the war is illegal.

What u did in citing ifamericaknew.org will be like me citing the American Enterprise Institute or AIPAC for facts on the Middle East.These are all known biased advocacy groups who though I agree with most of their opinion,I can't cite for facts.

I also cited the BBC.You live in the U.K and u know that the BBC is no cheerleader for the Bush-Blair position on Iraq

@Easyy
U talked about Bush's massacres of Iraqis.But u now say he merely prepared the grounds for it.Does that mean that Nelson Mandela is responsible for the massacres that happened in the early 90s South Africa because by helping toppling the aparthied regime,he prepared the grounds for it.

There is a difference btw claiming that someone did something reprehensible on one hand and claiming on the other that someone did something whcih led to something reprehensible happening.In a court of law the former will be guilty of the act while in the later he will only be guilty if it can be established that he intended that consequence

So the question is whether President Bush intended for Iraq to enter into sectarian conflict.The simple anwer is no. Nobody except those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome(the suspension of logic in pursuance of Bush hatred) will beleive that.

If people were responsible for the bad consequences that they merely prepared the grounds for, that will turn the world upside down.A mother who takes her son to a medical treatment will be responsible if the son dies as a result of the treatment going wrong irrespective of whether she intended it.

The people who are responsible for the violence in Iraq are the militia groups and jihadists who are actually perprating the violence

@

Easyy:
It is amazing the lengths Bush apologists go to defend him.

This thread is about Bush's illegal action and masacre of Iraqis.

U talked about Bush's massacre of Iraqis as if he ordered their mass killings like Saddam.But see how u justify ur claim of Bush's massacres

Easyy:
You want to know how many car bombings Bush sanctioned?

You will first tell me who prepared the grounds for the car bombs.

Let's face it this is illogical.U can't make a sensational claim that Bush massacred Iraqis by saying that he prepared the ground for it.Even your friend Afam was prepared to admit that most Iraqis up until this year thought the war was worth it.Does that make most Iraqis guilty of the masacres?

You have not in this thread for once condemned the people who conduct he car bombs or other suicide bombs.U seem satisfied simply indulging in anti-americanism

@Easyy
At least u don't contest that the site u cited is an advocacy group and so should not be cited as a source of facts.It is like refering to refering to the MASSOB website for facts on the Nigerian-Biafra war.

The websites I tried to link to were a newspaper and a think-tank that came out against the Iraq war.

@EASYY
Your response to a demand for facts is to quote a biased partisan advocacy website.Like quoting the Democratic Party's website for issues concerning American politics.

This a pro-palestinian advocacy group run Alison Weir

@Tayo D
It is amazing how many of these Bush critics don't seem to care about issues affecting Africa.I have never come across a topic dealing with the conflicts in Africa like in Sudan or the D.R.C Congo.All they seem to care about is how to attack the US and Bush,hence they become more Arab than the Arabs.

Because America is not in Sudan,they are not interested even though they are Africans.Am sure Arabs are not sitting down discussing conflicts in Africa.One insurgent leader said that part of the reason they hate American troops is the prescence of Black people in the American military

@mochafella
I have no knowledge of Iraqi oil been siphoned by America.Where this is done,it is by corrupt Iraqi Govt officials especially at the oil Ministry -much like what happens in Nigeria-and criminal elements including Iraqi insurgents.America has not made a dime out of Iraqi oil revenues.

The no-bid contracts have an element of "job for the boys" but I don't think that featured in US thinking as motivation.You can't say that they waged war simply to reward former colleagues of the vice-president or any other acquaintances.

Political control is certainly a more plausible factor.In this sense,a friendlier Govt in Iraq will open up the oil sector for for US energy coys and will be more amenable to US pressure in influencing OPEC meetings to supply more oill to reduce any oil price increases as Saudi Arabia presently does.Again this to me was not the primary reason for invasion

I feel it was down to the following factors;the desire to remove what was seen as a rogue regime who in the light 9-11 might collaborate with Islamists,the bebelf that Saddam had WMDs or at least intent to acquire them in the future,a desire to show American military prowess,a perception than a friendly democratic regime in the Middle East will help combat Islamic extremism,a desire to use National Security to help REpublicans defeat the Democrats as it was Bush's key strenghte.t.c

@Afam
www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

4 Play:
.

The present Coalition prescence in Iraq was unanimously approved by the Security Council and was unanimously extended this week at the request of Iraq

This is my quote from earlier on to which u responded

Easyy:
Unanimously approved? oh my God

now u say

"The only mandate they got was to stay in Iraq after they started the war;naturally to stay there and finish what they started"

Which is what I meant abinitio

@Seun
What are "serious consequences"?

@Afam
So there are countless polls that show that Iraqis think the toppling of Sadddam is not worth it.?Please link me to one.The last time I asked ,u told me to ask CNN.For something that is inumerable,u seem to have a hard time linking me to one.Let me tell why u can't,because it does not exist.THERE IS NO SUCH POLL IN 2006.

As for the no-fly zones which u said were imposed after the Coalition onslaught in Gulf War 1 prompted Iraqi forces to start killing Shias-a killing u say is normal-it is strange that the Northern no-fly zone was imposed in April 1991,2 months after the end of the Gulf War and Coaltition bombings and the Southern no-fly zones imposed on the 27th of August 1992-more than a year after the end of the Gulf war.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/737483.stm
A simple check on Google would have put u in possesion of the facts,but like I noted earlier u don't like the facts getting in the way of your argument.

@Mochafella
Are u saying that the reason Bush invaded Iraq was to enrich Dick Cheneys former colleagues at Haliburton?That to me seems implausible, that he staked his political capital to enrich former colleagues of his vice-president.A lot has been made of the fact that Haliburton got a lot of exclusive contracts after the Iraq war but we coveniently forget that Haliburton has been given such exlusive contracts since the Korean War in the 50s long before Bush became President and Cheney CEO of Haliburton.Do u know who got exclusive contracts from the Clinton adminstration during the conflicts over Kosovo and Bosnia?-HALIBURTON.

@Easyy
Yes the present Coalition prescence was unanimously approved by the Security Council and was recently unanimously renewed at the request of Iraq-seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107_AP_UN_IraqPS-If anyone can find the source of Afam's  claim that there are inumerable polls of Iraqis which show that they say that the invasion was not worth it,please let me know

the invasion was done carried out under the mandate of UN Security Council Resolution 1441,which required Iraq to comply with all previous Security Council resolutions or face "serious consequences".

The present Coalition prescence in Iraq was unanimously approved by the Security Council and was unanimously extended this week at the request of Iraq

I posed a question to those who sat that the US invaded Iraq for oil to explain to me precisely how US oil interests is furthered by such an invasion.Till now I have not got a feedback

@Easyy
So the US has an obligation to send money to Palestinians ?This money will be used to support a Govt that is not committed to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.A Govt whose stated aim is the annihilation of infidels living in Moslem land.

Given that Palestinians receive per capita 10 times more aid perperson than Africans,I wonder why u insist that they must be given more.Why not use that aid money in Africa?

@Afam
It is amazing that u don't let the facts get in the way of ur argument.The no-fly zones were imposed post Gulf War for the massacres that occured after the Gulf War.The fact that u don't know about the history behind the no-fly zones illustrates my point that people did not care about Iraqi suffering when there was no way of blaming America.How can the death of tensof thousands of people in the early 90s escape ur knowledge.

The link I gave addresses the key issue we have been arguing about-do Iraqis say that the topling of Saddam is worth their suffering.Am sure that if the answer was no u wouldhave no difficulty in finding it. Click on the site I hyperlinked,click opinion polls on Iraq and then the Brookings Iraq Index and go to page 51

@eASYY
Do u mean that Isreal wants to wipe out Palestinians.If they wanted that they could have done it.It is amazing the great lenghts people go trying to make sense of what should be condemned.

Isreal recognised Palestine right of existence before their independence in the 40s .It was only after the Oslo accords that Palestinians recognised Isreal's right existence.

The basis of the agreement in the 40s was that both sides would share the land but the Arabs rejected it saying that ,given that at the time the State of Isreal had a population of just 600,000,They could acheive an easy military victory.The thinking was why settle for a share of the land when they can get everything by military might.At the time the boot was on the other foot,contries like Britain decided not to support Isreal because Isreal was thought to be bound to lose and so they needed to stay friendly with the Arabs.Eventually Isreal defeated an army 10 times its size

Eventually most Palestinians settled for co-existence but Hamas stilll preaches the opposite.Remember the basis of Hamas claims to wipe out Isreal is not because they think Isreal wants to do it,but that they preach that according to Islam infidels are not supposed to live in Muslim Holy Land and it is the duty of true moslems to remove them or convert them.This applies to Palestinian Christians ,many of whom have fled since Hamas won the election

Your response to the point I made about how people were largely silent when Saddam was massacring the Shias is erroneous.When this was happening the US and BRITAIN helped sponsor the no-fly zones in parts of the South and North of Iraq to stop it .THAT was better than most people who did nothing but only suddenly discovered an interest in Iraqi suffering when it was time to use it to criticise the US

@Afam
Type into Google "opinion polls of Iraqis in 2006"  then Click on www.iraqanalysis.org .Under opinion on Iraq click on Brookings Iraq Index then go to page 50 of the index

The page shows.QUESTIONS TO IRAQIS:THINKING OF ANY HARDSHIPS YOU MIGHT HAVE SUFFERED SINCE THE US-BRITAIN INVASION,DO YOU PERSONALLY THINK THAT OUSTING SADDAM WAS WORTH IT OR NOT

Iyabo Abade,the tranny footballer

Let us not forget what Hamas sonstituition says.That all infidels must be wiped out of Moslem Holy Land.Hamas uses deliberate violence against innocent civilians.

They are not talking of co-existence with Isreal but wiping out Isreal.All that the international community has done is to withold aid money from Hamas which entitled to do.There are other places in the world like AFRICA that rrequire such aid money and every nation is entitled to use their money how they wish

@jaybaby
Ok child

@watever
U said so urself.

@watever
The ugliness refers to the person who posted b4 me

@jaybaby
The ugliness has arrived

I can see the Arsenal fans are losing their minds. am willing to sponsor u guys for free psychiatric treatment

What Arsenal needs is ball winner in midfield to replace Viera.Someone like Hargreaves or Gattuso.A striker like Trezeguet or even Darren Bent who can put the ball in the net.They need to be more physical in their play because the Premiership is a very physical league

Arsenal use to have it when they had Viera and Petit in midfield and Adams ,Keown and Sol as centre backs.

Beyond that there is nothing u can do but sit back and watch Man Utd and Chelsea waltz their way to trophies while u keep making 20 passes outside the opponent's 18 yard box.
Alternatively u can start another sport in which the object is to retain possesion of the ball without scoring.In the new sport,the team who score will be severly punish with pizza in their face or poisoined lasagne.The sport can be called "soccer without purpose"

@Easyy
I raised it because Afam virtually accussed me of being dishonest when i said that opinion polls show that most Iraqis in Iraq say that despite the suffering that they are going through,they feel the invasion is worth it .When asked to substantiate his assertion, he asked me to go and ask CNN

You asked whether the suffering that Iraqis go through is equal to the toppling of Saddam-well aparently most Iraqis feel that the toppling of Saddam is what the sufffering.77 percent said it is worth the suffering in a poll done in Sept 2006

Lets face it,most people don't care about what the ordinary Iraqis are going through,this is all about how we see America in the world.Why don't u notice their is no one discussing the carnage in Darfur or even  the DRC Congo on nairaland,where 3.7 million people have died.These are our fellow Africans.People are more interested in cricising America in general and George Bush in particular than what Iraqis feel.

Honestly speaking,I don't know how old u are,but can u recall when Saddam's forces killled 150,000 Shias in the 90s .It barely made the news.If nairaland existed then,we wont be discussing Iraq then because there was no America to blame.What about the Anfal campaign when about 100,000-180,000 Kurds where killed?Do u recall that making news?

Should George Bush face trial because he initiated what most Iraqis think was worth it?The present killings in Iraq are mainly due to an inevitable power struggle between different sects most of whom were brutally slaughtered in the Saddam years.The Americans were incompetent in handling the opost invasion Iraq,but that is not grounds for putting them on trial.

Most Iraqis are against the continued prescence of US troops,who they feel have outlived their usefulness but the Iraqi Govt feels that they cannot cope on their own yet and the UN unanimously gave the Coalition the mandate to remain their so long as the Iraqi Govt requet it.Let us analyse these issues without being sucked into the anti-american bandwagon

I f most Iraqis who have lived in Iraq and continue to live there think it is worth toppling Saddam, so be it.The issue we need to discuss is how Iraqis can move on post- Saddam.While we are discussing the welfare of Arabs,I am sure on Arab forums they are not spending most of their time wondering about conflicts in Africa,whether or not President Al Bashir needs to face trial because of the genocide in Darfur.

Sometimes I wish that President Bush will invade Sudan so that people will suddenly develop an interest in the welfare of Sudanese people.For the moment all he is doing is leading the fight to punish Sudan at the Security Council and sending food aid to the starving-80 percent of food aid to Sudan comes from America

@Afam
Can u plz look at the Brooking instituition's Iraq index published in Sept 2006 .I tried to attach it here on the post but it is  up to 500KB and I could not hyperlink it despite trying.Check on www.iraqanalysis.org and then click on the opinion polls and then the Brookings instituition's report and read for yourself. www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

77 percent of Iraqis thought the invasion was worth it despite the troubles they have been through.You say that Shia people are enemies of Saddam,funny enough most Iraqis are Shias.But Saddam was also more hated by the Kurds who form 20 percent of the country.I f Shias who form 60 percent of the population and Kurds 20 percent ,together 80 percent,are enemies of Sadddam,I wonder on what basis u claim that Iraqis prefer Sadddam .That defys logic

@gaby
No,the deranged people are those who waste their time supporting Arsenal-a club that can't win anything meaningful i future.

Stop wasting ur time and start suppporting MANCHESTER UNITED-The best club in the world

@Seun
Maybe he does not exist

Hopeless Arsenal.

u Arsenal fans if u had any brains should start supporting United,

Smart ass like Gamine has nothing to offer either btw her legs or ears