"The troops are fighting for your freedoms and without them you won't have any"

Wrong, Saddam Hussein was just as grave a threat as Adolf Hitler. He massacred hundreds of thousands of his own people, forced millions of them to flee Iraq as refugees, and waged to wars of terror against Iran and Kuwait. Not only that he was a supportter of international terrorism - the PLO had a Bagdad headquarters in the 1980s and the Palestinian terrorist mastermind Abu Nibal was given a safe haven in Iraq. Saddam had also publicly stated that he fully supportted Palestinian terrorists. Saddam was also an arch enemy of America and Britain for having driven him out of Kuwait. He had also persistantly obstructed UN weapons inspectors for 12 years from 1991 to 2003. I think it was the right decision to overthrow that despot.

 

Dude, I seriously think you'd give Goebbels a run for his money.

You're a propaganda pro!

ha, saddam as much of a threat than hitler, that shit is whack!

 

Lying in a field do you believe every single newspaper, tv station, radio station etc are filled with propaganda from the government.

You obviously know nothing about the British press. The British press are bastards. If they can dish dirt on you they will and they don't care who you are, princess diana, prince charles, george bush, tony blair, Sven Goran-Eriksson anyone. They don't care.

If you are doing something wrong the press will tear you apart over here. So I don't believe that everything I read, see and hear is propaganda. The BBC is an independant station funded by the tax payer and have some of the best coverage news there is. I defy you to tell me they don't.

Every single political party in the UK is happy that Saddam was removed from his position. They may not be happy with Tony's reasons but they are now also fairly happy that we are staying there until the time is right to leave.

Sometimes words aren't enough and a bit of action is needed.

 

Well then again, Hitler never used chemical weapons, though he had more then the capability too, Saddam on the other hand....

 

whoooooah, shit you guys are just pulling them out your asses!

I'm proabbly going to be voting for you all in 20 years, damn

Oh, yeah, Hitler actually possessed over half of Europe, we're talking france, russia, some of the most powerful countries in the world. Not to mention Gary, Britain was being bombed on a daily basis and had Germans occupying the coast of france only a few kilometres away. Oh yeah, lets not forget the systematic termination of 6,000,000 jes, gypsys, homosexuals and intellectually disabled civilians using chemical weapons.

So he didn't use chemical weapons in warfare, oh by golly, he's just a saint then isn't he!!!

And gary, I don't know shit about the British press. I don't know why, i'll just keep scratchin my noggin until I figure it out!

OH THATS IT, ITS BECAUSE IM AUSTRALIAN YOU TWIT

And in Australia almost every political party in opposition as well as some members of the liberal party are opposed to the Iraq war. Because at least some of us are smart enough to know the difference between a third world country and a fucking superpower.

But don't stop, you're making people laugh. And laughter is the best medicine.

 

hmmm.........I would consider gas chambers a chemical weapon.....................

 

So if everyone in Australia are against the war why are Australia involved. My guess is that there is a split and that there are plenties of people that aren't necessarily for the war but equally see the merits of a world without Saddam.

The way you go on I would bet that you had a signed t-shirt from Saddam himself.

Do you believe Saddam should still be the leader in Iraq? If you don't believe he should be the leader of Iraq what is your complaint being that war (or civilwar) was the only way to stop him being leader being that Iraq was a dictatorship.

A bit of leaflet campaigning and a few whist drives were going to do the job I reckon. And being that Iraq has very few trees I would imagine chaining yourself to them wouldn't work either.

I'm not sure why you targeted me on the chemical weapons bit because I never put anything to do with chemical weapons.

Hitler was an arse so was Saddam. Both had to go. I never suggested for a second Saddam was as bad as Hitler but I'm sure given the opportunity he would have been.

 

uh, when did I say that?

My guess is that 4 years ago, the prime minister changed media ownership laws allowing rupert murdoch and kerry packer to own app. 70% of Australia's popular media. Both men are staunch liberal party supporters as well as supporters of the Iraq war so we have been getting the same shit you guys are pulling your asses for years now. People don't actually know about the true nature of the Iraq war because they are misinformed

Please give me one example where I have actually praised Saddam.

Please give me one example where I have actually claimed to be a hippy and a supporter of non-violence. Hmmm, *cough* stereotyping. So anyone who opposes war is a hippy right? Get a grip

As for whether I think saddam should still be in power, well no he shouldn't but whether he still had the power to do all the things you claimed he did, he did not. The UN as well as the Gulf War had seriously destroyed his military capabilities, i mean, where were the weapons of mass destruction?

Was it worth the death of millions over 30,000 civilians as well as over 4000 (i think) american soldiers, all the while abandoning Afghanistan allowing the Taliban to remain in control, as well as leaving alone the brutal governments in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and ignoring other injustices such as Aids and famine worldwide. All of this against the ruling of the United Nations, one of the only safeguards against tyrrany.

There must be a better way!

I didn't, have you read the other posts?

I know you didn't, again have you read the other posts. The idea that Saddam is as much of a threat as hitler is pure propaganda, and this is exactly what i was trying to say.

 

Suddam compared to Hitler.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

first let me say i did not!! read every word of this thread!!! i am challaging any and all peeps from the uk ru usa japan china and any outher industrialisd nation to tell me truthfully that their nation has not been involved in a campain to circumvent outher goverments for the porpose of holding some kind of power over the outher!

 

Australia is guilty of such campaigns during the Boer War of the 1800s, the Vietnam War, and the recent "War on Terror"

So whats your point? It doesn't actually make it right.

 

Britain used to own half the world so I guess during that time the Brits could have been accused of that.

Incidentally had we not been invaded by Vikings, Normans, Romans etc maybe we wouldn't have been so bad. As the Normans were the last to invade (and succeed) maybe we can just blame the French which is something I like to do on a daily basis.

Damn you France.

 

Fucking frogs, sorry versau

 

Read up on some history, the Vietnam War was to save democratic South Vietnam from invasion by communist dictatorship North Vietnam. It was a just war. Also the current "War on Terror" is a just war, to take out and destroy international terrorists who want to destroy US. Have you no sympathy for the 3,000 people who were murdered by Islamic terrorists on September the 11th 2001? Or the thousands of other victims of Islamic terrorism, such as the thousands of Israeli citizens who have been murdered by suicide bombers?
http://www.protestwarrior.com

 

Have you no sympathy for the one million Vietnamese combatants and four million civilians that were killed in the Vietnam war. Not to mention the 58,226 American soldiers also died in the war or are missing in action. as well as the 538 soldiers from Australia and New Zealand.

Here are some more easter eggs for your intellectual pleasure:
Agent Orange
Napalm
[size=-1]600,000 tons of bombs dropped over the course of a decade
[/size]Significant loss of buddhist cultural buildings and artifacts
Widespread poverty and economic ruin throughout the country
Widespread environmental degradation
Mental health deterioration of thousands of US troops, oh, not to mention life long physical disablities...Oh and alienation for the next 20-30 years for fighting in an unjust war
Little consideration for the choices and livelihood of Southern Vietnamese civilians, many of whom offered aid to the Viet Cong and disapproved entirely of America's occupation of the country.
Vicious, deceitful and propagandist campaigning from the US and Australian governments to fool millions of citizens into believing that North Vietnam posed an actual high-risk threat to the rest of the world...sound famliar?

And guess what dude, we still lost!
Going by your standards of judging what is a "just war", I seriously doubt what you say about Iraq has any footing behind it.

 

"The troops [aka poor folk] are fighting for your oil and without them the rich won't stay rich" That's what I saw when I read the title of this thread.

 

Yep, its pretty simple, but some people just can't seem to understand it.
Freedom? uuurgh.

 

Lying in a field how are you not bullied more. You must be a complete walkover because your attitude to war is that there must be another way.

When dealing with people like Hitler, Saddam, etc there is no other way. They are not going to listen to reason.

Its like that big fat geezer as school that would pin you against the wall and ask for your dinner money. You have three choices, pay up, run or fight. The same goes for countries.

Big fat dictator versus individual citizen. They can pay up and conform to his opinion, run for cover or fight. On their own they aren't strong enough but get more than one citizen together and they can overthrow him but they can't do it using words alone. Hence war.

If you don't stand for something you will stand for anything. If I were stood in a street with a gun and I aimed it at every person that walked by and no matter what you said I was going to continue shooting until someone stopped me physically what would you do. You would use force to stop me.

The Iraq situation is the same thing on a greater scale.

 

You mean george bush right?

Look man, i've said it athousand times, Saddam was not as much of a threat that they originally made him out to be, and this is becoming more obvious all the time, and to compare him to hitler in terms of power is just sheer propaganda. So you say saddam is a big fat dictator, of course he is (or was), fat with fucking oil.

No thats a complete distortion of the truth. There are other men with guns still running around shooting people, we went for the one with the oil, and shot a whole bunch of civilians in the process. Big victory.

 

So who's next. Lets go and get them. Mugabe?