₦airaland Forum

The only reason they went to Iraq is OIL. None of the 9/11 bombers was Iraqi and Saddam or his goverment had nothing to do with it.

Saudi oil. Not Iraqi oil.
Most of the bombers were Saudis.

i got many 911 conspiracy videos with strong facts.

Yeah. Anything to show that the Muslims didn't do it.

Your case is that the war shouldn't have happened.

But you offer no explanation as to what the alternative was.
The fact is, there was no alternative. The US had it's hands tied.

Stay to safeguard the rest of the Arab world and it fuelled extremism and risked more attacks.
Go into Iraq and it had the chance to remove the threat, put in a stable government and get out again.

The only thing it didn't bank on was how much Muslims hate each other.
That's why Iraq is such a shithole. No other reason.

Even Bush would be stupid to use such an arguement or excuse to invade Iraq. What a foolish link!!

*sigh*. That's why they used the WMD excuse. Because if they pointed out the truth - that they were going in to protect the Arabs from themselves, the American people would have hung them up by the balls. You guys always go on about oil yet you always think the war was about Iraqi oil. No. It was about safeguarding Saudi oil. The Yanks simply couldn't take the risk that Saddam could take over control of Saudi oil.

The US invaded Iraq so they could leave Saudi and not give osama an excuse. What a foolish arguement !!!

Foolish my ass. Every extremist in the Islamic world was foaming at the mouth because US soldiers were sitting in the birthplace of Islam. Even you should know that.

The 1st gulf war was waged to dislodge an Iraqi army bent on annexing Kuwait . . . like Bastage asks - where were you whining muslims?  Shocked

Saddam's army was a VERY REAL THREAT to a weak Saudi security apparatus hence the presence of US millitary on Saudi soil - the primary excuse Osama gave for attacking the WTC.

The invasion of Iraq was simply to dislodge Saddam and weaken his ability to threaten other middle eastern countries including Iran. The war was over in less than 6 weeks . . . the collapse of Iraq was PRIMARILY due to muslim-on-muslim terrorism.

Exactly!!!

And the thing is, Lagosboy has virtually admitted to this scenario in his argument.

Without any help from me, he's pointed out that the Saudis and the rest of the Arabs were powerless against Saddam and at risk from invasion by him if they so much as farted in his direction.

Are you saying the US invaded Saddam so the US soldiers can leave the mid east and not need to protect the arab govt since saddam has been removed? Hence Osama would not have an excuse for another 9/11?

Now you're seeing the light.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LIY/is_3_91/ai_110734279

The only remaining U.S. Air Force unit departed Saudi Arabia Aug. 26, 2003, ending more than a decade of military operations there. The 363rd Air Expeditionary Wing was deactivated at Prince Sultan Air Base, but dozens of U.S. military advisers will remain in the kingdom, according to the Pentagon. "The end of the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein's government mean the American military mission here is over," said Air Force Maj. Gen. Robert J. Elder, Jr., at the deactivation ceremony.

Keep on with your smokescreen.

You: The Arabs couldn't take out Iraq because they were too weak.
Fact: They had the chance and didn't take it.

You: 911 was nothing to do with Iraq.
Fact: Bin Laden stated that 9/11 was because the US had army bases on Saudi soil.
They were there to protect the Saudis from an Iraqi invasion. You've said yourself that the Saudis were too weak to resist Saddam and he'd already proven he liked invading his neighbours.

Read back through your words. You've admitted it yourself with your argument.
According to you, 9/11 had everything to do with Iraq.

do you always repeat yourself like this?

I only repeat myself when addressing morons who can't answer a simple question.

@Lagosboy.

You keep burbling on about this million strong army of Saddam's as if it were some invincible force. You also totally overlook the fact that Saudi Arabia is one of the richest nations in the world and has some of the highest tech weaponry available. To say that it had no army prior to Saddam's removal is absolute bullshit. You then ignore the fact that a US army of 250,000 men was able to totally rout the Iraqi army in a couple of weeks. You go on to take no notice of the fact that the US had to fight a battle halfway around the world from their own country.

Yet with all that, the Arab armies were powerless and unable to do anything?

And as already pointed out, the US wanted to remove Saddam in the first Gulf War but the Arabs stopped them. So you're doubly screwed. If they were friends of the US then why stop the US from getting him out?

1) At least one Arab nation was powerful enough to put any sort of pressure on Saddam. They didn't.
2) They quite simply let him get away with murder when they had the chance to let the US remove him a decade earlier.

in that case, i guess you have the blood and hands and forearms of your fellow africans on your hands -
you certainly havent done anything about the thousands of african dying right now from war , and famine

There you go again. Yet another smokescreen.

This thread has nothing to do with Africa. It is about Iraq.

But then it's what one can only expect of you. Show you the truth and you try to hide it by casting accusations at others. Like I said, anyone is to blame but you guys. One day, maybe, you will accept your responsibilities but until then, you're like the immature child who denies stealing the chocolate even when anyone can see that it is smeared all around their mouth.

the US did not go into Iraq becuase of Saddams Crimes- it has been pointed out that the world is full of despots the US has not seen fit to topple - of course, most of those despots don't have huge oil reserves

Again, more smokescreen. It doesn't matter what the US went in for (even though your oil claim has been proven to be bullshit). The fact is that the Yanks went in and removed Saddam whilst the Arabs sat on their asses. The fact is that the US wanted to remove Saddam a decade before but were stopped by the Arabs. Was that for oil too?

So what are you going to do now? Accuse me of being guilty of carrying out the Crusades?
Anything to divert attention away from the truth.

But I'll ask you again. You guys admit that the Arabs sat on their asses and you disagree with the US invasion. You also agree that Saddam was committing genocide. So what would you have done?

Neither of you likes giving a straight answer do you? Even when the question is plain and simple, all you can do is attack the West or attack the questioner.

The fact is that the Arabs and the Muslims sat on their fat asses whilst Saddam committed genocide.

You can blame the West all you want. You can say Saddam was a creation of the West all you want. You can bring up all the smokescreens you want to divert the real question. You can point the finger anywhere but where the blame actually lies because you just can't stand to look the truth in the face.

That truth is that an Arab killed a million other Arabs whilst their brothers just sat on their asses and watched.
The truth is that a Muslim killed a million other Muslims whilst their brothers just sat on their asses and watched.

Then, when someone tried to do something about it, you moan like whiny little bitches.
When Saddam could have been easily removed during the first Gulf War it was the Arabs who stopped that from happening. They actually blocked his removal when the UN had full support from the whole world!!! Operation Desert Storm could have removed him in a couple of days and a United Nations force could have gone in to sort things out. But no. Your Arab brothers halted that plan.

I'm no fan of Bush or the US contrary to what you may think or claim. I've pointed out many times on this forum what an incompetent buffoon both he and his administration were. But I also see you pointing fingers and totally absolving yourself of the blame. I see you whining whilst you were quite happy to watch Saddam commit genocide.

The fact is that you have as much blood on your hands as anyone else.

they looked the other way

And you obviously don't condone it.
So what would you have done to stop it?

You haven't answered. All you've done is bluster and point fingers at the West again. I'm not asking a question about the West or Africa. I'm asking a question about the Arabs.

Let me ask you again:

What was the Arab world doing whilst Saddam was murdering other Arabs?

Maybe you guys don't understand the question and that's why you haven't answered it.

If it's too difficult for you to understand, let me rephrase it and then maybe you'll be able to give an answer.

What was the Arab world doing whilst Saddam was murdering other Arabs?


Notice that I haven't said "Muslims" purely so you fakes can't go on whining about how I must hate your religion.

See how they avoid the question.

Are you guys going to answer it with just more questions?

Answer the question guys. Where were you?

I condemn saddams action in his hey days in power and so do i condemn US actions in supporting him and making him a tyrant and i also condem the US for invading Iraq but any sense of objectivity has evaded you otherwise you wouldnt condemn Saddam , condemn 9/11 and the praise US invasion of Iraq!!!

That's not an answer. That's a statement of bluster.

What is the Muslim excuse for doing nothing?

Zaidi threw shoes !! Bush threw bombs!!!

You guys throw the accusations around without recourse to logic yet when someone questions you, they're either racist or anti-muslim.
Yet it's fine for you to harp on about mostly unjustified allegations as if they're far worse. It's hypocrisy and turning the blind eye of the worst kind.

Let me again ask you the same question that I've asked elsewhere on this forum and that you dodged with yet more hypocricy:

While Saddam was murdering a million Muslims, where were you? What was your excuse for doing nothing? What was your excuse for letting him get away with murder?

A simple answer to the question will suffice. Not all the blathering smoke-screen bullshit that you posted elsewhere.

oyb.

When are you going to post these photos of "rape and murder"? That's what you were burbling on about, yet still you haven't shown anything of the sort. A naked man being held to the floor with a gun at his head? Is that your proof? How do you know that the prisoner hadn't stripped off and then attacked his guards? Or do you suppose that sort of thing never happens?

Remember these?

[img]http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/mirror/uk_military_torture/00070B15-4CBB-1093-953F80BFB6FA0000.jpe[/img]
[img]http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/mirror/uk_military_torture/00049B0E-4D57-1093-953F80BFB6FA0000.jpe[/img]
[img]http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/mirror/uk_military_torture/0009DF21-4C67-1093-953F80BFB6FA0000.jpe[/img]

Remember how you guys spewed vitriolic hate on the UK because these photos showed soldiers urinating and beating prisoners?
Then do you remember how you swept it all under the carpet when it was proven that they were fakes?

Either put up the proof of your claims or shut up - you're boring me.

oyb.

So you're saying that is a genuine photo even when it isn't?

I've yet to see a single photograph proving rape or murder in Abu Ghraib. Just a load of crap from Google that proves absolutely nothing.

Blah, blah, blah.

Stop whining.
If you guys had got your house in order, there would have been no invasion.
Instead you just sat back and let Saddam kill a million Muslims and threaten his neighbours.

What's your excuse for doing nothing? What's your excuse for letting him get away with murder?

anyway - you obviously reason like a five year old - expecting cartoon villains and heroes

Actually, you're the guy posting the cartoons.
Let's take a look at the rest of the page that you posted as proof of Abu Ghraib atrocities:

[img]http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/05.05/photos/15-abughraib1-450.jpg[/img]  

This is the scene from a stage play. It purports to be nothing else yet you say it is proof?

And how about the photo of the woman showing her breasts with the caption "Now can I have my cheeseburger?". Is that proof of murder and rape in Abu Ghraib?

You can play the racism or anti-muslim card all you want. The fact is that I am opposed to bullshitters - whatever their race and whatever their religion.

You are scared of being murdered yet the 38 civilians killed in iraq are mere collateral damage perhaps u could also become a collateral damage amidst a bigger objective!!!!

Try reading my post in context and then using it properly next time.
But anyway, you've posted the above as some sort of smear but it's actually pretty close to the truth. Or did you expect me to disagree with you? People like me are collateral when idiots like you and the rest of the drones plant your bombs.

By the way: your bigger objective is getting people to believe in your god not deposing a tyrant.
I know which is the more worthy cause. And it ain't yours.

@oyb.

Are you some kind of dipshit? Posting the Google Image Search page for "Abu Ghraib" doesn't mean that those photos are authentic.

How about posting the results for "Aliens exist" and then tell us that those photos are proof that they do.

you seem to be silent on the 'humilating photos'

Because they turned out to be nothing more than "humiliating ".

The claim that they contained scenes of rape and murder were bullshit.
Again, if they did, where are they? Even according to the website you gave, under US law they had to be published yet not one showed rape or murder.

It's OK saying these things but how about offering some proof?

El Baradai IAEE head said Iraq had no WMD he was ignored yet the intelligence of Ahamad Chalabi was taken to be correct and funny the US military went after him.

El Baradi receiving the Nobel Prize was a white-wash.
Up until the US forces were assembled in Kuwait, the UN inspectors were whining that they weren't being given access to Saddam's weapons programs and that they strongly suspected he had WMD.
Do you think a war begins with the first bullet fired? You are wrong, my friend. Once thier forces were in place, the US had no option but to attack. 300,000 men with their equipment were encamped in a position a couple of kilometers wide. If Saddam had pre-emptively launched Scuds, he could have wreaked utter devastation. Trying to pull them out would not only have caused major political damage for the US but the dangers of making a military withdrawal could have been even worse.

Changing your tune when it's too late like the UN did, doesn't make you a hero. It's like me telling a friend to go around to your house and punch you in the face. When he arrives on your doorstep and is throwing his fist, do you think he could be stopped because I've changed my mind? No. The punch is being thrown. Even if I then tried to stop the punch, I've done it way too late and can't be absolved of guilt can I? Yet you say that the UN can?

Once those forces were in place, the war had begun. Crossing into Iraq was only the second phase. And during the first phase, the UN inspectors were doing their utmost to sow seeds of unrest. Believe me, those bastards were as guilty as anyone of starting that war. But what do you expect? The truth? You'll never get it because it would totally destroy any credibility that the UN has left.

Intellectuals would agree with me that this statement of yours is pathetic. The main objective of a war was not met and yet it means nothing?

The objective of the war was to remove Saddam. It was a resounding success. Again, sentimentality doesn't come into it. Those who have died since are just collateral in the cold light of day. Any negatives can't be taken into account, simply because they have nothing to do with the objective.
That doesn't mean that I don't care. Again, it's just a statement of fact. Therefore, logically, your so-called intellectuals would be talking through their butts.

I will continue to maintain that he is a Legend because there might never be smone that will get the opportunity to do what he did.

Again, bullshit. Leaders of democracies are pretty soft targets when it comes to this sort of thing. Look at history.


What amuses me is that this guy was a journalist. A guy whose job it is to make money by selling newspapers. How much money do you think he'll make out of this? I see it as nothing more than a cynical publicity stunt to make a fortune for the media and for himself. Again, history will back me on this.


@oyb. The reason the world is bleeped up is because mouth-breathing retards like you think that everyone who disagrees with you is either a racist or an Islamaphobe. Truth is, there are just a load of people out here who are tired of your bullshit.

By the way. Seymour Hersh is full of shit. He also claimed to have tapes of these so-called rapes. Where are they? It's 5 years later and he hasn't published a single one. Yet a journalist of his demeanour would definitely show them to the world if they existed, wouldn't they?
An article about the way that Seymour Hersh operates:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/11/seymour_hershs_other_reality.html

I like to respect people and not be abusive or combative and my posts reflect this but this statement of yours is very sad and depicts your intelligence.

The truth often hurts.

The fact is that I am at risk of being murdered by Islamic extremism. The fact that you find my saying that to be "combative" doesn't make that threat any less real or any less unjustified.

Look at you!!! comparing deaths of human beings like it was chicken that were killed.

38 civilian deaths a day!! so what are you inferring that this figure is low? or high?  Kai 38 human souls a day for 5 years. Is this to justify liberation? I just can't understand your arguement.

Simple question.
Which would you prefer? 38 a day for a few years or 125 a day for the next 3 or 4 decades. By the way, the 38 figure was given for the invasion. It is not the overall average, which is somewhat lower.

The figures have nothing to do with sentimentality. They are a fact.
So please give your answer.

The objective of the war was WMD. Just answer the simple question was WMD found in Iraq? maybe the answer would end the debate.

Was it? Normally guys like you would say it's oil. My view is that Saddam was on the road to causing even more trouble in the region. Trouble that would make the problems now look like a family picnic. Don't believe me? History shows this. I've already pointed to a million dead.
Also, people whine on about the Yanks and WMD. They forget that it was the UN who were saying that Iraq was compiling a WMD arsenal. They also forget that Saddam implicity tried to make it look like he had WMDs. They also forget that Saddam had even used WMDs both against the Iranians and his own people. So the WMD argument can't be dismissed even though you would like it to be. The fact that they found none means absolutely nothing. The fact that he was trying to obtain them, the fact that he had used them in the past and the fact that he was quite capable of using them again if he got his hands on them means a helluva lot more.

i don't know if u noticed, but the liberators you are so fervently celebrating TORTURED, RAPED and ABUSED innocent irqi civilans at Abu Ghraib.

That's just sheer and utter bullshit. The US guards did not rape anyone.
As for torture? It's relative. Under Saddam, they would have been tortured properly. Under the US they had to pose for humiliating photographs. I know which one I would consider real torture - proper torture involves a lot of pain and agony: not unlike reading the crap that you post.
"Innocent Iraqi civilians?". Nope. Most were Baathist members of the Saddam regime. It's very amusing to see how you try to twist the facts to justify your hatred of the US. I pity you.

Is it easy to stone the world's most "powerful" man?

And yet you see absolutely no irony in that statement?

Again, you're joking.

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf was seen as a complete turkey. This is the guy who said that the US was beaten, when there tanks were patrolling streets a mere couple of hundreds of yards away from him.

He ran a wonderful propaganda war that amazed and confused western media outlet.

He didn't confuse anyone. He was seen as a figure of fun. They called him "Baghdad Bob".
He wasn't good at his job. The fact that he was seen as a figure of fun with a sense of humour merely means that everyone in the West knew that he was talking rubbish. The only people he convinced were those who wanted to believe - ie: the Syrians. He even became a cult phenonmenon in the West. He was all the Iraqis could put out against the West though.

Again, have a read and educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf

The only thing he got right was the fact that Iraq would turn into a shitstorm once the invasion was over.

The destruction of Iraqi Govt buildings is that liberation What significance is that?

Major significance. If you hit an administration's infrastructure you reduce his capacity to operate. For example - one of the first buildings hit was the Ministry of Information. This severely limited Saddam's ability to run a propaganda war.
Not only that but as the words "Shock and Awe" imply, you intimidate him.
"Shock and Awe" was a way of showing those who did support the Saddam regime that they were totally outgunned.

True Saddam wasnt as friendly with the Shias and it was because many of them supported his enemy Iran because of religious links.

They didn't support the enemy. They were the enemy. "As friendly"? Understatement of the year.

Not just 1 million Iraqi Shias but also Kurds, Iranians and Kuwaitis. It matters not if it was in warfare. They were wars he started.

Here's just one small example of what he got up to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

According to the HRW during the Anfal campaign, the Iraqi government:

   * massacred 50,000 to 100,000 non-combatant civilians including women and children;
   * destroyed about 4,000 villages (out of 4,655) in Iraqi Kurdistan. Between April 1987 and August 1988, 250 towns and villages were exposed to chemical weapons;
   * destroyed 1,754 schools, 270 hospitals, 2,450 mosques, 27 churches;
   * wiped out around 90% of Kurdish villages in targeted areas.

Then go and read up about the Marsh Arabs. Then take a look at the genocide of the Shia right after the first Gulf War.
When you've read those things, then come back to me and tell me I'm wrong.

The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

Using the figures put out by Saddam himself (and therefore probably way overstated), the US invasion cost 38 civilian deaths a day.

Lets look at another of your statements.

Liberation by carpet bombing and in Donald Rumsfeld words “Shock and awe”

Do you even know what carpet bombing is? The US didn't carpet bomb a single Iraqi town or city.

As for "Shock and Awe". Do you even know what that was? It was precision strikes at Iraqi governement targets.
Do you know how many civilian casualties were a result of "Shock and Awe"?
Less than a dozen.

And Zimbabwe is irrelevant. But you can bet anything that if the West did move in to remove Mugabe, you and your ilk would be the first out on the streets protesting and whining.

Where did you get your sources from Vast number my foot!

Your foot probably has webbed toes.

The vast number of Iraqis are Shias. This is the group that Saddam had systematically targetted and beaten into submission for decades. They were dancing in the streets when the US rolled into Baghdad.
My sources come from every single media outlet that reported during the invasion. To say that most Iraqis weren't happy when Saddam was removed from power is a joke. Even now, polls show that the majority are still grateful that he's gone. The fact that they now hate the US has nothing to do with it.

They had security and power under Saddam? Over a million of them died. The vast majority of the rest lived under repression.

You're a joke.

Iraq had the 4 strongest army in the world in the 80s

No. It had the 4th largest. There's a huge difference between being "large" and being "strong". 1000 men on horseback with swords are not going to beat a tank are they? Having a large army only proves that you have a large population and have conscripted more people into it's ranks than your neighbours.

Iraq has the highest number of scientis from any Arab country

Again, totally irrelevant. It's quality not quantity.

Iraq had the 2nd best healthcare system in the world in the 80s

Says who?

They should marry and raise children.

How can you preach if you don't know about life?

Marrying and creating and raising children is the biggest lesson in life. As a single man, one knows nothing about life. One can only guess.
Why should we be preached to by someone who is only guessing?

in your book abu ghraib counts as liberation

I don't know if you've noticed, but Abu Ghraib is a prison.

Incidentally, do you think Nigerian prisons are much better?

No he is not.

Neither is Billy Graham.