Are you Brits for Iraq or againast it? (thanks for sticking with us)

Which particular democracy are you talking about? The one that ignores the feelings of hundreds of thousands nay millions of its citizens and defies international law?

 

But millions of British citizens wanted us to go to war to oust Saddam! Far more than were against such military action! I bet at the most there were 400,000 on the biggest anti-war march not two million as claimed by the anti-war movement. Why, because I saw pictures on TV of the countryside march a few days before and then pictures on TV of the anti-war march and both demos looked about the same size.

Also didn't Saddam break international law on numerous occasions often resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands such as his war against Iran. Surely such a persistant violator of international law does not deserve to be protected by international law himself! The sovereignty of a country should be no defence against acts of mass murder, torture and persecution.

 

Your wasting your breath i think Treehouse ..people are not anti iraq war ...they are anti-war aka know war at all at any cost..... just pop a flower into the busines end of a gun is some peoples thinking.

 

Nice, intelligent contribution there Matthew. Shame it's factually incorrect. The issues that the majority of us have with the Iraq war are specific to that particular war, and not connected to any objection to the notion of war, per se. Dismissing those opinions with glib statements about flowers and guns just makes you look like an ignorant fool.

 

Is the tv and tabloid press your only source of news? Where are you getting your figures about the majority of the UK from are have you been living in a hole?

Ok what about the remainder of Native Americans living in reserves? Shall we all go and liberate them from social degradation? How about the Palestinians, the chinese, the turkish Kurds etc etc etc etc

 

Don't forget the Welsh

 

oh but you ARE a brit!
you sound a tad nationalistic?
I know that when I hear anyone say "I am ENGLISH not british" I know that it is usually followed by a load of nationalistic biggoted racist crap......
I am a brit, but these boundaries really piss me off. I would rather be a european. Or better still a citizen of the united nations - one that hails from the north of england.
Surely you are a brit who hails from and whose ancestery is scottish? (better definition maybe? if the human race had historically defined itself like this there would surely have been less conflict?).........

 

the reasons for the war were simple.
1. American politics - in particular right wing american politics - NEEDS an enemy, and in this age of post-cold war politics a new threat needed to be found.
2. If a new enemy is to be found it needs to be an oil rich one so that the real props of american politics can line their purses.

And that is it! The enemy found was 'terrorism', the war on iraq was (is) just part of that.
And if anyone doubts that the west would spend so many lives just so that a certain political ideology can be stabalised, then rest assured that we would. We cause far more suffering than that on a daily level just so we can have cheap high street brand clothes.

As for folk of the US thanking the brits and cursing the french .... FECK! there are times I wish I was french! (mind you, their abstenance in this war seems to have been investment lead... typical)

 

I was just jumping too conclusions , thats all. Not very nice is it.

I realise what your saying is true (well apart from the ignorant fool part :& )

 

In order to add further weight to what's probably already been said:

OUR GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REPRESENT US

 

Fucking terrorists.

 

I would go for , most people don't care that much, glad some nutters do though.

 

Bollocks! Who attacked who first? Islamic terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Centre in New York way back in 1993!

You have got it the wrong way round mate! Islamic fundamentalism needs an enemy and they have chosen us in the west as their target!

 

I don't think they had to look very hard.

Trying to apportion blame is pretty ghey, you'll never come to a decent conclusion because both sides have been total shits to one another for centuries. The Crusades, anyone?

 

I think it is you who is talking bollocks. You only have to go back in time a little bit to see how much capitalistic US foreign policy has interfered in the Middle East.

 

Yeah too right we have interfered in the Middle East - helping the arabs refine oil and turn it into a marketable commodity petrolium! Without the west the arabs would still be living in the middle ages. Western know how and trade helped create the wealth these arabs states enjoy today.

Perhaps they hate us so much for giving support to Israel. A tiny country comprising well under one per cent of arab land as a Jewish homeland. A country which doesn't even have any oil - so what the hell are they against Israel for?

Maybe the real reason there is trouble and terrorism in the Middle East is that arabs countries have such corrupt, poor government. Governments who find it easier to shift the blame for their countries problems on the west and Israel rather than doing something themselves to sort out their internal problems. Therefore bringing democracy to Iraq will be a step forward, once democracy is established and takes root in the Middle East then good government will follow.

 

Woohoo!!! It's really amazing, but if you scratch hard enough at the surface of anyone with vaguely right wing views, you always find a racist lurking underneath. Doesn't this strike you as a bit of an arrogant generlaisation, you bigotted fucking ****?

 

It is arabs who are racist and bigoted as they blame all their problems on westerners and Jews! To them the West is the Great Satan, how much more bigoted and racist can you get than that!

 

You really are a stupid racist, aren't you? You just made a negative generalisation and applied it to an entire ethnic group. That's the very definition of racism, you schmuck.

 

treehouse. This is typical of a lack of knowledge leading to misunderstanding of the meaning behind peoples words. This is why education is the key to tackling the worlds problems, not war.
The 'personality' of satan is very different in islam than it is in christianity.
In christianity satan is demonic, bad to the core, evil.
In islam satan is a devious character, but not all evil. He could be likened to a con-artist. He is a liar and a trickster.
This is why islamic states might, by way of insult, call the USA "the mother of satan". In other words the mother of all con-men, the mother of all tricksters and liars.
It is meant as a humerous insult.
The problem is the lack of education on both sides. They assume that the US will understand their meaning, and the US assumes a different understanding.
They both assume that because they are both using the same common language and the same technical detail of language that they will both draw the same meanings and conclusions from what is said.

Once this was explained to me I realised that this name calling of the USA by some islamic states of "the mother of satan" was not just born of hatred, it was an extremely funny, witty comment - I can see exactly where they are coming from!

BTW, the christian definition of satans character was historically the same as the islamic one, but it was bastardised from the old catholic pulpit to be used as a tool for striking fear into the hearts of any would be strayer from the straight and narrow. It was our re-invention of satan a few centuries ago that brought about this evil demonic character. Before that we shared the same satan as our islamic friends. Makes me wonder what sort of twisted culture would create such a twisted character to keep its minions in line....? :X