iraq war the facts

[wildhorses]

jimbo;1083399 wrote: without starting another free for all



here are he facts on the war



Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq war





are these lies ?



or are here facts saying there were WMD and biological weapons


The truth according to whom? Everyone has a different "truth". Proof that just because something is written or broadcast does not make it true.

[wildhorses]

jimbo;1083408 wrote: well it seems he truth is there were no WMD'S



that is why we went to war :-3:-3


Thats right there were not. But it was broadcast and written right? So my point was that just because something is written or broadcast does not mean it it true. The Iraq war was never about WMD's. It was about going after terrorists in that area. But they could not get away with that so they needed a front. What about the attacks in India? First they said the attackers came by boat....but then all the sudden they said they came from the border area. That is so they have an excuse to go into another country. The reason is that the terrorist front spans across several countries. Some of those countries are not into weeding them out, so western governments have to go in to do it. But they dont need to attack the country per se...but the terrorist front within the country. So they need a "front" reason to present.

[wildhorses]

jimbo;1083420 wrote: there never was a terrorist reason for a war in iraq



the muslim terrorists hated saddam as much as they hate some of us



i'm a patriot i hate what bush and blair have done to our countries



what was once the home of the free and a shining beacon to the rest of the world now looks like a seedy red light



sometimes if your emporer has no clothes then it takes a lot of guts to say my emporer has no clothes



and if you watch this and many other programmes there can be no other conlusion than the facts



it was not a war on terror



and there was no threat to any one other than other iraqies by saddam ,there was no legal or any justification for the war



if you can post any facts no hot air false patriotism ,to keep quite when you know some one has done your country wrong in my opinion is the most unpatriotic act of all :-3:-3


It is a war on terror. And no reason to start getting angry. This one program is just a presentation. How do you know it presents all of the facts? How do you know any presentation presents all of the facts? You dont. Maybe we will never know all of the facts. Just because someone says they know the truth does not mean they do. Yes Bush has done my country wrong in many ways....but going into Iraq was not one of them.

[wildhorses]

jimbo;1083420 wrote: there never was a terrorist reason for a war in iraq



the muslim terrorists hated saddam as much as they hate some of us



i'm a patriot i hate what bush and blair have done to our countries



what was once the home of the free and a shining beacon to the rest of the world now looks like a seedy red light



sometimes if your emporer has no clothes then it takes a lot of guts to say my emporer has no clothes



and if you watch this and many other programmes there can be no other conlusion than the facts



it was not a war on terror



and there was no threat to any one other than other iraqies by saddam ,there was no legal or any justification for the war



if you can post any facts no hot air false patriotism ,to keep quite when you know some one has done your country wrong in my opinion is the most unpatriotic act of all :-3:-3


This is very nasty and sounds angry. I have just as much right to my opinion as you do.

[wildhorses]

jimbo;1083446 wrote: angry where do you see even a hint of anger in my post :wah::wah:



i am trying without any nastiness to present facts just facts ...facts that come from senior Americans ,from the CIA and other high places



so you seem to accept that Blair and bush have done wrong aha



we are getting somewhere at least



soooo by you staying loyal to bush even though he has wronged your country are you not being unpatriotic



we went to war based on lies ,lies about a nuclear programme and lies about WMD



the war on terror had nothing to do with Iraq



now you/we have turned every one against you/us he are terrorist by the boat/bus/carbomb full



all we have done really is stir up a hornets nest and put our beloved sons and daughters in a strange land where every local now hates them and our children are sitting ducks


Just because I agree with one thing that Bush did, does not mean I am loyal to him. I agree with what he did.

How can you say that every Iraqui hates our children? Have you spoken with every single Iraqui?

[spot]

wildhorses;1083448 wrote: This is very nasty and sounds angry. I have just as much right to my opinion as you do.


Opinions can be sound or unsound. Yours seem based solely on ideology and bias unless you'd care to at least occasionally introduce some evidence to go along with the opinion. Justified opinion is worth more than unjustified opinion. We know what you think, now justify it.

Sorry Jimbo, I interrupted you. Do carry on.

[wildhorses]

jimbo;1083451 wrote: i'm not angry in the least :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl



you have every right to your opinion i'm just rying too find out what it is :)



by the way i have a 19 year old american daughter who is joining the us army or at least she is trying to



so no american bashing from jimbo ok :)



i just want to discuss the facts and the facts are we were all lied to by blair/bush government .... its a fact you cannot dispute


Well just letting you know that you sound angry and hostile. There is no reason to get your panties in a bunch just because I dont agree with you. Yes we were lied to about WMD. But still ...going into Iraq was the right thing to do. And any other country we go into will also be ok. Why is your daughter trying to enter the army if being in Iraq is the wrong thing? She must think it is the right thing or she would not want to join.

[wildhorses]

spot;1083460 wrote: Opinions can be sound or unsound. Yours seem based solely on ideology and bias unless you'd care to at least occasionally introduce some evidence to go along with the opinion. Justified opinion is worth more than unjustified opinion. We know what you think, now justify it.

Sorry Jimbo, I interrupted you. Do carry on.


Prove me wrong if you like to try. There are all kinds of opinions on both sides of the argument. You have not "justified" your opinion either. An opinion does not have to be "justified". It is an opinion. All you can show me are other people's opinions that agree with your own opinion. But those are also opinions. Just because you can find someone to agree with you does not mean you are right.

[wildhorses]

jimbo;1083476 wrote: she believes the war in iraq is wrong as do most americans i know



but to defend your country is an honourable thing .... blindly towing the line and invading other countrys against international law is wrong ... when obahma gets in are you then going to blindly follow him ???



my painties are unbunched as i know my facts are right ... there are probably more anti uk/usa terrorists in nottingham than there was in iraq there was no justification for the war in iraq



could you please put forward some facts if you have any .....:)


It makes no sense to say that your daughter is entering the army because it is the honorable thing to do, when she will be entering a war that she believes is not honorable. You said blindly towing the line is wrong....but that is what she will be doing.

[wildhorses]

jimbo;1083489 wrote: obahma will stop the war



but getting back to the war on iraq and leaving my daughters thoughts out of it



what was the justification for us UK/USA breaking international law and invading iraq



i say none i have posted facts





your turn :)


Obama wont stop the war right away. And we might be going into other countries as well. Your daughter probably does not agree with your views and just does not feel comfortable talking to you about it. Otherwise I cant see why she would enlist in a war that she thought was wrong. I am sure she thinks going into Iraq was the correct thing to do.

[wildhorses]

jimbo;1083508 wrote: no she dont honest





i have loads of friends in the army



they like myself was all for the war when i thought



iraq had WMD ,NOW the facts are they did not have them, i like most of them have changed our minds



i keep asking for facts justifications on the war somehow you keep talking about my daughter



no matter what she thought it would not be a fact in making the war right



what fact would it take for you as thinking human being to change your mind and to think ... hang on this is not right ??


But your daughter DOES have the facts now. She chooses to enlist. My guess is she cant talk to you about this because of your hostile attitude. That is very sad.

[Galbally]

I think you have to give some context to why attitudes are so sharply different in the UK and the US.

In the UK, there was never mass support for this war, at least one million people marched in London in 2003 to urge the government not to send the British Army into Iraq.

The feelings about Afganistan were (and are) quite different, and people agree in the main, that the US had a right to use force in Afganistan against the people shielding Al Queda, but not in Iraq, however, as this was nothing (and once more I repeat, nothing) to do with the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.

Unlike in the US, where the Bush administration sucessfully put Saddam and September 11th somehow together into the minds of most Americans; in the UK, the Government knew that the population weren't going to fall for that.

Therefore, the whole premise of the British Army being sent into Iraq was that the Iraqis were 45 minutes (remember that?) from being able to deploy WMDs. This was the only reason why Britain was supposedly at war in 2003 and since, and as we know now, there simply were no WMDs and never were in Iraq.

The country that (as it turns out) actually has them is Iran, which has been left inviolate despite its advanced nuclear program, which is ongoing.

In March 2003 on the eve of war, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair MP basically told Parliament that he had intelligence that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the UK.

There were people within the intelligence community in Britain at the time that challenged the Governments premise; and somewhere along the way, a government scientist (Dr David Kelly) was discovered to be leaking information to journalist Andrew Gilligan that the dossier was based on very questionable intelligence.

In the subsequent scandal, Dr Kelly committed suicide, and Andrew Gilligan's career was destroyed. Now of course it turns out that much of what was coming out at the time was actually true, and the government and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom blatantly lied to the houses of Parliament, and to the UN Security Council, in order to provide Mr Bush the diplomatic cover he required for his war.

This is why people in the UK are so disillusioned and angry about Iraq.

They never wanted to be in this war, they never believed the guff about it being part of a war on terror, and they were only bounced into it based on stories about Iraq having the ability to use WMDs imminently in 2003.

This was a blatant lie told to them, live on National Television, in Westminster, by their own Prime Minister, who it seems cared more about keeping the US administration happy than he did about being honest with his own people or the rest of the world.

In doing so, he has dragged Britain's reputation for some form of political integrity and adherence to International Law (at least in regards to waging aggressive war) into the mud. The consequences of that are yet to really be made clear for the UK.

Several Labour party figures do admit that privately the Iraq War has essentially destroyed the trust that the British people put in their party, and foreigners put in Britain being a country that has respect for the concept of the rule of law; and the damage will last at least a generation.

Now the British Army is demoralized and withdrawn to barracks in Basra, in a war they do not want to fight; while NATO and particularly the British are encountering fierce Taliban resurgence in Afganistan.

I don't think US posters really realize that the depth of feeling in Britain about Iraq is actually very high, and traditional British sang froid and genuine support for the US makes it appear that Brits were more or less at ease with this conflict, I don't think that was ever the case.

[Oscar Namechange]

wildhorses;1083414 wrote: Thats right there were not. But it was broadcast and written right? So my point was that just because something is written or broadcast does not mean it it true. The Iraq war was never about WMD's. It was about going after terrorists in that area. But they could not get away with that so they needed a front. What about the attacks in India? First they said the attackers came by boat....but then all the sudden they said they came from the border area. That is so they have an excuse to go into another country. The reason is that the terrorist front spans across several countries. Some of those countries are not into weeding them out, so western governments have to go in to do it. But they dont need to attack the country per se...but the terrorist front within the country. So they need a "front" reason to present.


Bush may have invaded Iraq due to 9/11 which was a little pointless because the pilots in the planes were Saudi and not Iraqi. I obviousley do not know as much about your Bush as you do, however, i do know a lot more on the subject of Tony Blair.

The only and fore-most reason that he took Britain into Iraq was based on this statement... 'I promise you people of Great Britain, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction'. He went on to say should a missile be fired from Iraq, We could be hit witin a 20 minute striking distance.

Unless there is an excavation of the Iraq desert and they un-cover these WMD, they did not exist. I don't believe for a moment that in the months leading up to the capture of Saddam and the decimation of his 'Elite Guard' that if they had them, they would have used them against our Coalition forces to stave off attack.

I was watching sky one night last week and i can't remember this guy's name (which is annoying because he was very good), and he interviewed Tony Blair Live.

He started pinning down Blair about the Iraq war and i thought 'Oh this is going to be good, let's see him squirm'. I could not believe that Blair never faltered (as usual). He vagually admitted there were no WMP (due to the excellence of the interviewer) but when pushed, he finally said that he took Britain to Iraq because AT THE TIME he believed there were WMD. What astonished me is where we would be throwing chairs at him, your American Audience was whooping every damn lie that came out of his mouth.

Al-Quaeda and religeous extremists are not an army based in one country or other. We can not just invade any country we like because there may be pockets of them dotted around a country. We have pockets of them here and you have pockets of them there. It is down to Anti-terrorist Intelligence to track down, arrest, imprison and deport.

We have had suicide bombers here but nothing on the scale that you have had and even say, the attack on the Westerners in Bali. It comes down to one thing only... the quality and diligence of our Intelligence. Without boring everyone with names and dates, we have had a succession of arrests linked to terrorism in this country from before 9/11. I happen to believe that this is the most safest country in the west. (Who would have thought Bali would be hit?) I don't believe America is safe and they won't be for many years to come.

The difference in Britain over the past year, is that we now have a Prime Minister that is aware of the bullshit that came out of Blair's mouth. the announcement that our troops will be out of Iraq by June has won him massive support in the country especially from the Muslim population here.

I think (maybe foolishly) that we are seeing a new Britain under Gordon brown. A Britain that is not going to invade on the back of idiots like George Bush. That has earn't Britain more respect in the past months than anything else.

In the interview i spoke of, what was even funnier, was to hear Blair try to explain why he had followed Bush. It was great TV.

[wildhorses]

Galbally;1083536 wrote: I think you have to give some context to why attitudes are so sharply different in the UK and the US.

In the UK, there was never mass support for this war, at least one million people marched in London in 2003 to urge the government not to send the British Army into Iraq.

The feelings about Afganistan were (and are) quite different, and people agree in the main, that the US had a right to use force in Afganistan against the people shielding Al Queda, but not in Iraq, however, as this was nothing (and once more I repeat, nothing) to do with the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.

Unlike in the US, where the Bush administration sucessfully put Saddam and September 11th somehow together into the minds of most Americans; in the UK, the Government knew that the population weren't going to fall for that.

Therefore, the whole premise of the British Army being sent into Iraq was that the Iraqis were 45 days (remember that?) from having WMDs (and the ability to attack people with them). This was the only reason why Britain was supposedly at war in 2003 and since, and as we know now, there simply were no WMDs and never were in Iraq.

The country that as it turns out, actually has them is Iran, which has been left inviolate despite its advanced nuclear program, which is ongoing.

In March 2003 on the eve of war, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair MP basically told Parliament that he had intelligence that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the UK.

There were people within the intelligence community in Britain at the time that challenged the Governments premise; and somewhere along the way, a government scientist (Dr David Kelly) was discovered to be leaking information to journalist Andrew Gilligan that the dossier was based on very questionable intelligence.

In the subsequent scandal, Dr Kelly committed suicide, and Andrew Gilligan's career was destroyed. Now of course it turns out that much of what was coming out at the time was actually true, and the government and Prime Minister blatantly lied to the houses of Parliament, and to the UN Security Council, in order to provide Mr Bush the diplomatic cover he required for his war.

This is why people in the UK are so disillusioned and angry about Iraq.

They never wanted to be in this war, they never believed the guff about it being part of a war on terror, and they were only bounced into it based on stories about Iraq having the ability to use WMDs imminently in 2003.

This was a blatant lie told to them, live on National Television, in Westminster, by their own Prime Minister, who it seems cared more about keeping the US administration happy than he did about being honest with his own people or the rest of the world.

In doing so, he has dragged Britain's reputation for some form of political integrity and adherence to International Law (at least in regards to waging aggressive war) into the mud. The consequences of that are yet to really be made clear for the UK.

Several Labour party figures do admit that privately the Iraq War has essentially destroyed the trust that the British people put in their party, and foreigners put in Britain being a country that has has respect for the concept of the rule of law; and the damage will last at least a generation.

Now the British Army is demoralized and withdrawn to barracks in Basra, in a war they do not want to fight; while NATO and particularly the British are encountering fierce Taliban resurgence in Afganistan.

I don't think US posters really realize that the depth of feeling in Britain about Iraq is actually very high, and traditional British sang froid and genuine support for the US makes it appear that Brits were more or less at ease with this conflict, I don't think that was ever the case.


I dont know galbally....I dont think Americans ever thought that saddam had anything to do with 911. Most believed he was just taken out along the way...but not the main reason for going into Iraq. In fact I dont believe that Americans ever thought that going into Iraq had anything to do with 911 at all. And hey...if the British government decided to go to Iraq that was their decision to go so they should look to their own government for the answers to that.

[sunny104]

oscar;1083542 wrote: Bush may have invaded Iraq due to 9/11 which was a little pointless because the pilots in the planes were Saudi and not Iraqi. I obviousley do not know as much about your Bush as you do, however, i do know a lot more on the subject of Tony Blair.

The only and fore-most reason that he took Britain into Iraq was based on this statement... 'I promise you people of Great Britain, Iraq has weapons of mass destruction'. He went on to say should a missile be fired from Iraq, We could be hit witin a 20 minute striking distance.

Unless there is an excavation of the Iraq desert and they un-cover these WMD, they did not exist. I don't believe for a moment that in the months leading up to the capture of Saddam and the decimation of his 'Elite Guard' that if they had them, they would have used them against our Coalition forces to stave off attack.

I was watching sky one night last week and i can't remember this guy's name (which is annoying because he was very good), and he interviewed Tony Blair Live.

He started pinning down Blair about the Iraq war and i thought 'Oh this is going to be good, let's see him squirm'. I could not believe that Blair never faltered (as usual). He vagually admitted there were no WMP (due to the excellence of the interviewer) but when pushed, he finally said that he took Britain to Iraq because AT THE TIME he believed there were WMD. What astonished me is where we would be throwing chairs at him, your American Audience was whooping every damn lie that came out of his mouth.

Al-Quaeda and religeous extremists are not an army based in one country or other. We can not just invade any country we like because there may be pockets of them dotted around a country. We have pockets of them here and you have pockets of them there. It is down to Anti-terrorist Intelligence to track down, arrest, imprison and deport.

We have had suicide bombers here but nothing on the scale that you have had and even say, the attack on the Westerners in Bali. It comes down to one thing only... the quality and diligence of our Intelligence. Without boring everyone with names and dates, we have had a succession of arrests linked to terrorism in this country from before 9/11. I happen to believe that this is the most safest country in the west. (Who would have thought Bali would be hit?) I don't believe America is safe and they won't be for many years to come.

The difference in Britain over the past year, is that we now have a Prime Minister that is aware of the bullshit that came out of Blair's mouth. the announcement that our troops will be out of Iraq by June has won him massive support in the country especially from the Muslim population here.

I think (maybe foolishly) that we are seeing a new Britain under Gordon brown. A Britain that is not going to invade on the back of idiots like George Bush. That has earn't Britain more respect in the past months than anything else.

In the interview i spoke of, what was even funnier, was to hear Blair try to explain why he had followed Bush. It was great TV.


*snort*



sorry...carry on..............

[Oscar Namechange]

wildhorses;1083550 wrote: I dont know galbally....I dont think Americans ever thought that saddam had anything to do with 911. Most believed he was just taken out along the way...but not the main reason for going into Iraq. In fact I dont believe that Americans ever thought that going into Iraq had anything to do with 911 at all. And hey...if the British government decided to go to Iraq that was their decision to go so they should look to their own government for the answers to that.


They did and the found the decision was down to Tony Blair.... who was kicked out on his sorry arsses when the Party faithful to Gordon Brown voted Blair out of no 10 for Brown to take over.

[Oscar Namechange]

sunny104;1083554 wrote: *snort*



sorry...carry on..............


I know... I spotted it after i'd posted it... No offence meant :yh_rotfl

[Galbally]

wildhorses;1083550 wrote: I dont know galbally....I dont think Americans ever thought that saddam had anything to do with 911. Most believed he was just taken out along the way...but not the main reason for going into Iraq. In fact I dont believe that Americans ever thought that going into Iraq had anything to do with 911 at all. And hey...if the British government decided to go to Iraq that was their decision to go so they should look to their own government for the answers to that.


I totally agree with the point about the British having to look at their own responsibility in this situation. The country voluntarily entered upon this war, and the British Government must answer to the British people to that, its not the fault of the American's, its the responsibility of the British government about what it does with its own Armed forces.

I can't say for sure whether Americans would be that comfortable with the concept of Saddam being "taken out" on the whim of a US President along the way to some point where the world is safe. That's not how the US system is supposed to operate, your country is not a totalitarian state and the President is supposed to be honest with the facts, when it comes to waging war on behalf of the American people.

To commit the lives and the future of your country to wage a war against a nation that has not attacked you, or about to attack you; it would occur to me that you would need some form of truly compelling reason or realistic threat. I cannot see how Iraq posed any threat to the US in 2003, in fact the Iraqi State was the sworn enemy of the Islamic Terrorism with which we are all at war with, this is what makes this Iraqi War such a self-defeating nonsense.

[sunny104]

Galbally;1083566 wrote: I totally agree with the point about the British having to look at their own responsibility in this situation. The country voluntarily entered upon this war, and the British Government must answer to the British people to that, its not the fault of the American's, its the responsibility of the British government about what it does with its own Armed forces.

I can say for sure whether Americans would be that comfortable with the concept of Saddam being "taken out" on the whim of a US President along the way to some point where the world is safe. That's not how the US system is supposed to operate, your country is not a totalitarian state and the President is supposed to be honest with the facts, when it comes to waging war on behalf of the American people.

To commit the lives and the future of your country to wage a war against a nation that has not attacked you, or about to attack you; it would occur to me that you would need some form of truly compelling reason or realistic threat. I cannot see how Iraq posed any threat to the US in 2003, in fact the Iraqi State was the sworn enemy of the Islamic Terrorism with which we are all at war with, this is what makes this Iraqi War such a self-defeating nonsense.


he was convicted and "taken out" by his own people.

[Oscar Namechange]

sunny104;1083569 wrote: he was convicted and "taken out" by his own people.


As a Muslim would say... 'Yanni'... Just shows how ridiculous the whole debacle was.

[Galbally]

jimbo;1083573 wrote: hey hoff great points as always



but at no stage have i blamed bush more than blair



those mericans which i love have gone a bit baldist on me so i thought i'd just point that out :)


I agree Jimbo, I feel strongly that Iraq was a foolish debacle. Not because I'm anti-US or anti-UK, (and anyone who knows my posts will know that's true) or because admired Saddam Hussein, the man was an inhumane tyrant undoubtedly. Also, I am not a pacificst or a peacenik, and if I thought Saddam really was a threat, I would have supported what was done.

What depresses me about Iraq is that there really was no requirement to fight this war, (a war of choice, mostly fought to me is seems because the opportunity arose to get rid of an annoyance, and make an example of someone the US Administration didn't like, admittedly with reason, but not enough for a war) and the consequence is that it has undermined the real war against Islamicism, which I do support.

Whether I support something or not of course, makes little difference, but I am not the only person that feels this way. I have felt the same about it since 2003.

Also, it has cost an enormous amount of lives, money, and material and distracted attention and resources away from the real conflict which at the moment we are not winning.

[qsducks]

Galbally;1083585 wrote: I agree Jimbo, I feel strongly that Iraq was a foolish debacle. Not because I'm anti-US or anti-UK, (and anyone who knows my posts will know that's true) or because admired Saddam Hussein, the man was an inhumane tyrant undoubtedly. Also, I am not a pacificst or a peacenik, and if I thought Saddam really was a threat, I would have supported what was done.

What depresses me about Iraq is that there really was no requirement to fight this war, (a war of choice, mostly fought to me is seems because the opportunity arose to get rid of an annoyance, and make an example of someone the US Administration didn't like, admittedly with reason, but not enough for a war) and the consequence is that it has undermined the real war against Islamicism, which I do support.

Whether I support something or not of course, makes little difference, but I am not the only person that feels this way. I have felt the same about it since 2003.

Also, it has cost an enormous amount of lives, money, and material and distracted attention and resources away from the real conflict which at the moment we are not winning.


I agree with you too GB and Jimbo. There was no reason to go into this mess and I've never supported this war. It galls me when people in this country say "they are fighting for our freedom":-5 and Iraq was involved in 911". Bullcrap! The admin pushed their propaganda onto the American's with lies, etc.

[wildhorses]

Galbally;1083566 wrote: I totally agree with the point about the British having to look at their own responsibility in this situation. The country voluntarily entered upon this war, and the British Government must answer to the British people to that, its not the fault of the American's, its the responsibility of the British government about what it does with its own Armed forces.

I can't say for sure whether Americans would be that comfortable with the concept of Saddam being "taken out" on the whim of a US President along the way to some point where the world is safe. That's not how the US system is supposed to operate, your country is not a totalitarian state and the President is supposed to be honest with the facts, when it comes to waging war on behalf of the American people.

To commit the lives and the future of your country to wage a war against a nation that has not attacked you, or about to attack you; it would occur to me that you would need some form of truly compelling reason or realistic threat. I cannot see how Iraq posed any threat to the US in 2003, in fact the Iraqi State was the sworn enemy of the Islamic Terrorism with which we are all at war with, this is what makes this Iraqi War such a self-defeating nonsense.


Thats true it is not how the US system is supposed to work. But dont forget its Bush....so I think thats what he did. I dont really think it was the primary reason we went to Iraq. Although they did make it the first thing they did over there.

Yeah....the president is supposed to be honest...well maybe the next one will, this one wasnt. The country was not about to attack us.....but they were not cooperating in the fight against terrorism. Just because terrorists and the Iraqui State are enemies does not mean that there are not terrorist operating in that country.

Terrorists operate in countries they deem their enemy all the time. That is the whole idea to infiltrate and destroy from within. I dont think we attacked the country per se....but the terrorist front within the country.

[qsducks]

jimbo;1083722 wrote: sorry if i came across all hostile at any time there duckypoo :-3:-3


I agreed with you silly:wah:.

[Oscar Namechange]

wildhorses;1083759 wrote:

Terrorists operate in countries they deem their enemy all the time. That is the whole idea to infiltrate and destroy from within. I dont think we attacked the country per se....but the terrorist front within the country.


The only problem with that is the amount of innocents that get caught up in the mass bombing.

I have just been on a website to adopt an Iraqi orphaned baby. It's heartbreaking. Our troops are fighting, they don't have innocent members of family and children in the firing line with them do they??

[Oscar Namechange]

Galbally;1083585 wrote: IAlso, it has cost an enormous amount of lives, money, and material and distracted attention and resources away from the real conflict which at the moment we are not winning.


Oscar has agreed with galbally twice in one week now. I must re-join the T.A. as i'm getting soft.

If the money were invested into the excellent anti-terrorism intelligence that we already have in this country (and the reason we haven't had a 9/11), more of Islamic extremists could be brought to arrest, detention and deportation. luckilly, here that is one area our government does not skimp on.

[along-for-the-ride]

Wildhorses touched on the subject of "honesty". We are tired of the lies, and the hidden truths, our Government has presented to us. We are tired of being patronized. Everytime I hear of another casualty of war, my heart breaks. Something needs to change.............asap.

Good thread, Sir Jimbo. Galbally..............you the man.