Thread: Warning to all freedom seekers the world over

Originally Posted by socal

I meant one boot in the Mid East that was not welcome there by a sovereign government.

You must be joking. There have been US covert operations in 'muslim' countries for years.
I'll bet the Iranian government didn't welcome US intervention in 1953.
I'll go further and bet the US fucking regrets it as well now.

Originally Posted by Pol the Pot

Socal's pretty ignorant I've noticed.

And Mr. Fred [at] #89, you're approaching a huge pile of turds there, it's the unmentionable...

Large fan available on request.

Originally Posted by mr Fred

Originally Posted by socal

I meant one boot in the Mid East that was not welcome there by a sovereign government.

You must be joking. There have been US covert operations in 'muslim' countries for years.

I'll bet the Iranian government didn't welcome US intervention in 1953.
I'll go further and bet the US fucking regrets it as well now.

Here we go again....


The US gets shit from people like you for having diplomatic relations with Mid East coutries (Saudi Arabia, The Shah of Iran)

And the US gets shit for not having diplomatic relations with Mid East countries.(Iraq,Iran now)

Originally Posted by socal

Originally Posted by mr Fred

Originally Posted by socal

I meant one boot in the Mid East that was not welcome there by a sovereign government.

You must be joking. There have been US covert operations in 'muslim' countries for years.

I'll bet the Iranian government didn't welcome US intervention in 1953.
I'll go further and bet the US fucking regrets it as well now.

Here we go again....


The US gets shit from people like you for having diplomatic relations with Mid East coutries (Saudi Arabia, The Shah of Iran)

And the US gets shit for not having diplomatic relations with Mid East countries.(Iraq,Iran now)

Don't you see the very obvious differences between then and now?

Is this a wind up or do you really not know?

Originally Posted by socal

People like you give the US shit for not having diplomatic means of dealing with countries like Iraq, yet you also give them shit for HAVING diplomatic relations with a middle eastern country like Saudi Arabia.

Me thinks you're mixing up diplomatic relations with commerce / easy access to oil.

Saddam was making noise as if he may not accept dollars anymore for Iraq Oil, that was the little publicized impetus for Bush cutting his nose off and invading it.
In hanging Saddam, a secularist , US did SA a big favor.
Yeah 9- 11 was ALLOWED to happen. Make more and more sense as time passes.
Needed that one big whammy to stupify US citizenry ( yes, even more than they already were. )

My god, Saddam even had an equal rights amendment for women, HORRORS upon Old Goat God horror !


Nipped that bud.

^Yup, Iraq invasion was a personal family (Bush,Cheney/Saddam) dispute that we paid for in lives and taxpayer coin.

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

Yup, Iraq invasion was a personal family (Bush,Cheney/Saddam) dispute that we paid for in lives and taxpayer coin.

You're right about the "taxpayer coin" part. The Iraq war had nothing to do with oil, Saddam, or WMD. If you want to know what the war is about, just follow the money.
It was about corporate America lining up at the trough for lucrative bid and "no-bid" contracts. That's where most of the money went. Ironically a lot of the "no-bids" were given to the Vice Presidents former company.

Originally Posted by Ripley

Originally Posted by socal

People like you give the US shit for not having diplomatic means of dealing with countries like Iraq, yet you also give them shit for HAVING diplomatic relations with a middle eastern country like Saudi Arabia.

Me thinks you're mixing up diplomatic relations with commerce / easy access to oil.

Saddam was making noise as if he may not accept dollars anymore for Iraq Oil, that was the little publicized impetus for Bush cutting his nose off and invading it.
In hanging Saddam, a secularist , US did SA a big favor.
Yeah 9- 11 was ALLOWED to happen. Make more and more sense as time passes.
Needed that one big whammy to stupify US citizenry ( yes, even more than they already were. )

My god, Saddam even had an equal rights amendment for women, HORRORS upon Old Goat God horror !


Nipped that bud.

You left something out,what about this ?????

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).

On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

unanimous 15-0 vote

Originally Posted by pickel

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

Yup, Iraq invasion was a personal family (Bush,Cheney/Saddam) dispute that we paid for in lives and taxpayer coin.

You're right about the "taxpayer coin" part. The Iraq war had nothing to do with oil, Saddam, or WMD. If you want to know what the war is about, just follow the money.
It was about corporate America lining up at the trough for lucrative bid and "no-bid" contracts. That's where most of the money went. Ironically a lot of the "no-bids" were given to the Vice Presidents former company.

Then why did the following countries support the Coalition in March-April 2003 ? Yes your seeing it right, this is the list of countries that supported the war in Iraq. But its all about Halliburton right ?? You have been buying into too much socialist media propaganda.
Western Europe:
United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Denmark
Netherlands
Iceland
Italy

Baltic States:
Estonia #
Latvia #
Lithuania #

Central Europe:
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia #
Hungary

Balkans:
Albania #
Macedonia #
Romania #
Bulgaria #
Turkey
Croatia #
Slovenia #

Eastern Europe
Ukraine

Asia

Japan
South Korea
Singapore
Philippines
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Uzbekistan
Georgia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Solomon Islands
Mongolia
Palau
Tonga

North America:
United States of America

South and Central America:
El Salvador
Colombia
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Honduras

ANZ:
Australia

Middle East:
Kuwait

Africa:
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Uganda
Rwanda
Angola

They're all greedy bastards wanting a piece of the cake. Which most, especially those little banana republics and coconut kingdoms and 'new' Europe countries didn't get. How many of those are still there? Do you know?

Originally Posted by socal

Then why did the following countries support the Coalition in March-April 2003 ?

Bribes or the threat of aid cutoffs perhaps?

Did you notice how insignificant most of those countries are? I'm sure the Marshall Islands put a lot of boots on the ground and helped win the war.

Originally Posted by mr Fred

Originally Posted by FlyFree

The argument that the West invaded more countries than Muslims did is rather mindless, fit only for a mind that can accept religion. Unthinking. .

Not really. many on here claim Islam is a threat to their way of life but in fact western countries (mainly the USA) are the greatest threat to that.

The 9/11 attacks were in response to US aid to Israel who used the weapons to attack the Palestinians. The London bombs were a reply to the invasion of Iraq and atrocities in other Muslim countries.
Now while I don't have any support for murdering some poor bastard out shopping I maintain these were misguided attempts at stopping foreign intervention in Muslim affairs.

These attacks were then used by the governments in question to restrict the rights and freedoms of their own people regardless of race, creed or colour as we saw with press photographers and train spotters being arrested.

I won't give any argument that the extremist need killing off but they are a nothing threat compared with the US and UK governments.

As I say, unthinking/ignorant. You miss the point by a country mile. This may be on purpose, to duck the issue, due to ignorance/lack of knowledge, denial or just a lack of intelligence. Fertile ground for religion.

I can't be arsed to spell it out for you.

Originally Posted by pickel

Originally Posted by socal

Then why did the following countries support the Coalition in March-April 2003 ?

Bribes or the threat of aid cutoffs perhaps?

Did you notice how insignificant most of those countries are? I'm sure the Marshall Islands put a lot of boots on the ground and helped win the war.

Aid cut offs ? Seriously you people dont know a whole lot on the subject. These are the countries loaning the US their money.

^ What is your point with that? The overwhelming majority of the countries in your pretty pie chart weren't in the coalition to invade Iraq?

Originally Posted by socal

Then why did the following countries support the Coalition in March-April 2003 ?

Because they were lied to, same as the American people.

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

Originally Posted by socal

Then why did the following countries support the Coalition in March-April 2003 ?

Because they were lied to, same as the American people.

As was proven by the total lack of WMD. The US (Well, Bush) wanted to impose his ideas on some other bugger regardless of the outcome. His arrogance told him the invading forces would be welcomed as liberators. That was bollocks as well.

So I have to ask again, who is a threat to who?

Originally Posted by mr Fred

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

Originally Posted by socal

Then why did the following countries support the Coalition in March-April 2003 ?

Because they were lied to, same as the American people.

As was proven by the total lack of WMD. The US (Well, Bush) wanted to impose his ideas on some other bugger regardless of the outcome. His arrogance told him the invading forces would be welcomed as liberators. That was bollocks as well.

So I have to ask again, who is a threat to who?

I guess you have a short memory but why did resolution 1441 get a 15-0 vote ?

If Saddam Hussain was innocent then why didn't he let the UN weapons inspectors do their jobs ?

Why did Saddam not let the UN weapons inspectors reveal his innocents ?

Originally Posted by socal

I guess you have a short memory but why did resolution 1441 get a 15-0 vote ?

If Saddam Hussain was innocent then why didn't he let the UN weapons inspectors do their jobs ?

Why did Saddam not let the UN weapons inspectors reveal his innocents ?

The first thing i should point out is Sadam's hanging was a favour to the world however the way it was achieved was not. Sadam killed a lot and was a serious problem in the region but not half as big a problem as the invasion of Iraq proved to be.

Lets see what he was accused of.

"In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq supports terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."

None found so that was a lie.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 found "extremely grave" human rights violations

True and a very good reason to hang him

Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.

A fucking massive lie.

Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.

I'm unsure of that so will have to research before I can comment.

Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.

True but given the charges were made up by the very powers that were carrying out the inspections it's hardly a shock. Sadam knew the charges were an invention so I assume he expected the inspectors to 'find' something.

Given the US is guilty of war crimes (On video - the daft bastards), buys weapons while some of it's people starve and has killed many more people than Sadam ever managed, should the US be invaded?

Originally Posted by socal

If Saddam Hussain was innocent then why didn't he let the UN weapons inspectors do their jobs ? Why did Saddam not let the UN weapons inspectors reveal his innocents ?

He did, it was America that didn't want them to do their jobs.

1 October 2002: Hans Blix and Iraq agree practical arrangements for the return of weapons inspectors. US Secretary of State Colin Powell rejects it and says the US wants a tough new UN Security Council resolution.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Timeline: Iraq weapons inspections

Originally Posted by pickel

Originally Posted by socal

If Saddam Hussain was innocent then why didn't he let the UN weapons inspectors do their jobs ? Why did Saddam not let the UN weapons inspectors reveal his innocents ?

He did, it was America that didn't want them to do their jobs.

1 October 2002: Hans Blix and Iraq agree practical arrangements for the return of weapons inspectors. US Secretary of State Colin Powell rejects it and says the US wants a tough new UN Security Council resolution.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Timeline: Iraq weapons inspections

Nope wrong again. Iraq was constantly misleading UN weapons inspectors (guilty maybe ?)

July 5, 2002

• Iraq once again rejects new UN weapons inspection proposals.

August 19, 2002

• The UN Secretary General rejects Iraq's August 2 proposal as the "wrong work program", but recommends that Iraq allow the return of weapons inspectors in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284, passed in 1999.

December 19, 2002
UNMOVIC Chairman Hans Blix tells UNSC members that the Iraqi weapons declaration filed on December 7 "is essentially a reorganized version" of information Iraq provided UNSCOM in 1997, and that it "is not enough to create confidence" that Iraq has abandoned its WMD efforts

January 27, 2003

• Chairmen of the inspections effort report to the UN Security Council that, while Iraq has provided some access to facilities, concerns remain regarding undeclared material; inability to interview Iraqi scientists; inability to deploy aerial surveillance during inspections; and harassment of weapons inspectors.

February 13, 2003

• A UN panel reports that Iraq's al-Samoud 2 missiles, disclosed by Iraq to weapons inspectors in December, have a range of 180 km (above the 150 km limit allowed by the UN), splitting opinion over whether they breach UNSCR 1441.

February 26, 2003

• Hans Blix states that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation. Specifically, Iraq has refused to destroy its al-Samoud 2 long range missiles. (These are not a WMD, and Iraq is permitted "battlefield" missiles. However, Iraq's missiles were limited by UN instruction to a diameter of 600mm, and the Al-Samoud II has a diameter of 760mm). These missiles are deployed and mobile. Also, an R-400 aerial bomb was found that could possibly contain biological agents. Given this find, the UN Inspectors have requested access to the Al-Aziziyah weapons range to verify that all 155 R-400 bombs can be accounted for and proven destroyed. Blix also expresses skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said

Originally Posted by socal

February 26, 2003 * Hans Blix states that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation. Specifically, Iraq has refused to destroy its al-Samoud 2 long range missiles. (These are not a WMD, and Iraq is permitted "battlefield" missiles. However, Iraq's missiles were limited by UN instruction to a diameter of 600mm, and the Al-Samoud II has a diameter of 760mm). These missiles are deployed and mobile. Also, an R-400 aerial bomb was found that could possibly contain biological agents. Given this find, the UN Inspectors have requested access to the Al-Aziziyah weapons range to verify that all 155 R-400 bombs can be accounted for and proven destroyed.

The latest date in your post. Now how would they know that if he didn't allow them in?

Originally Posted by socal

(guilty maybe ?)

Do you still believe they have WMD????

^ Erm, you lost the debate to socal, picks. Concede now before you make yourself look even more stupid.

I think the Kurds in Iraq are much happier since the US went in. Are chemical weapons classed as WMDs?

Thinking about it, should Muslims be classified as WMD's?