Liverpool FC Forum

[IstanBuL-FenerBaHce]

What that idiot Bush and your Blair done, is much more suffering than Saddam's cruelty for these people.

Nobody likes Saddam b.stard of course, but nobody respect your politicians anymore.

It's too late to draw your troops back..you went into Iraq without any permission or community approval, ruined Iraq, killed thousands of civils (called war casualities by governments!), tortured arrested people (even they were guilty) and created a chaos country.

Nobody wants to see another flag on his own land. Can you guess how is not to be free in homeland? No..But they know..

Don't be hopeful without grounds, nobody would talk about USA or Britain as heroes..

[skipper]

It's a lose-lose situation.

Losses are going to be suffered whether we stay in or pull out. 

[76-1115222408]

the attacks on the WTC were not in response to the 'war on terrorism' directly,

Just wanted to point out that, the 'War on Terror' began AFTER that attack. That attack WAS the cause of the 'War on Terror'.

[JBG]

There were terrorist attacks before 9/11, such as the attack in 1993 against the Twin Towers and the attack against the USS Cole.

[76-1115222408]

Yes I know that, but there wasnt a 'War on Terror' after those attacks or the attacks in Sonalia and Kenya!!

[JBG]

Yes I know that, but there wasnt a 'War on Terror' after those attacks or the attacks in Sonalia and Kenya!!

Yes, there was. Clinton bombed Afganistan and Sudan.

The War on Terror is a jingoistic name the Republicans have put on it. The Americans have been fighting a war on "terror" since at least the early 1990s, although previously it was half hearted and hugely ineffective.

Islamic Terrorism rose its head against the west in the 1970s, after anger against US support of Israel in the Middle Eastern wars.

[woof woof !]

American "agencies" have been fighting terrorist revolutionary groups since the 60's  .
Only in more recent years as their activities had increasing impact on those at home did the media begin to give more than a passing interest to such matters , at the same time governments began allocating greater resources to combat a spiralling problem .Just because you never read about it before  doesn't mean the war wasn't being fought .

[Judge]

that was more of hatred towards the jews by extremist muslims in the 70's. lets face it the jewish population have suffered tremedously at the hands of others

for example 2300 BC at the hands of ramses, 694AD at the hands of early muslim arabs, 1939-45 at the hands of the Nazi's, and they are still attacked even now. so terrorism for one population stretches back many thousands of years, we are only getting a taster now.

my point is, it is in human nature for one set of individuals to force themselves upon another, its nowt new. we as a species are extremely violent. that will never change.

however, we are in a position to at least get some control over minority groups, who wish everyone dead, including their own. I dont think the problem is a creation just of the USA/Britain, it is a perversion of what one should do to another in a totalitarian way, such as the insurgency and terrorism we see today

[Big Niall]

the mistake wouldve been to allow saddam to stay in power. if you ask ordinary iraqi's, i bet they are glad that britain and the usa were willing to help them. its a case where the minority are again spoiling the majority.

the terrorists would be more abundent if saddam was still in power, imo

What are you on about? the terrorists would be worse if he was still there? so where were all the terrorists  in Sadams reign?

Iraq was secular, no threat to any other country. nothing to do with 9/11. bush wanted oil for america, britain is america's bitch, they invaded and unleashed a world of shitte and then after "our brave soldiers" kill thousands of innocent muslims wonder why any muslim would be willing to kill innocent brits/americans (note - not excusing any terrorism but it goes both ways)

It was obvious the war was wrong from the start. Burn tabloid newspapers and research the truth yourself.

[JBG]

An American Senate committee recently examined Saddam's alleged connections with terrorism and concluded that Saddam had no connection with 9/11.

This was embarassing to Bush, and I think as about as authorative as we can get on the issue.

Saddam DID sponsor Palestinian terroris, however, albeit not on the same scale as Iran or Syria.

I remember when the most recent Intafada began Saddam promised $25,000 to the families of every suicide bomber that attacked Israel.

Iraqi agents also attempted to blow up George Bush senior in Kuwait when he left office, although this is largely seen as an attempted assasination rather than terrorism (which is rapidly losing its meaning).

I don't think Saddam had major links to terrorism, although I also think its fair to say that Saddam could have resorted to eventually using terrorism in the future had he stayed in power, and American military thinking was that had Saddam backed terrorism it would have been extremely dangerous, as his terrorists would have been well funded, well trained and most dangerously of all, well armed, potentially with chemical or biological weapons.

[Judge]

the mistake wouldve been to allow saddam to stay in power. if you ask ordinary iraqi's, i bet they are glad that britain and the usa were willing to help them. its a case where the minority are again spoiling the majority.

the terrorists would be more abundent if saddam was still in power, imo

so where were all the terrorists  in Sadams reign?

niall, how about when saddam gassed 3500 kurds in the north of iraq in the eighties, and the slaughter of 2200 shi'ites in the south.

if thats not internal terrorism then, then what is??


prior to 1990, there were jaunts made into iraq to discover the threat of terrorists, that may pose a threat to other countries, and certain evidence was collated but we did nothing (lets not forget that iraq has declared war on iran and kuwait). nonwtheless, the man (saddam) was a despot and welcomed torture and terrorism as part of the syllabus within iraq. so i dont agree with your statments mate

this is my opinion and thats it

[JBG]

(lets not forget that iraq has declared war on iran and kuwait).

Was it not the case that the US (and to a lesser extent the UK) gave Saddam every encouragement to start the Iran-Iraq War as he was seen as a friendly dictator that could tie a belligerent Iran down in the Middle East after the 1979 seizure of power by the Ayatolahs (sic)?

[Judge]

(lets not forget that iraq has declared war on iran and kuwait).

Was it not the case that the US (and to a lesser extent the UK) gave Saddam every encouragement to start the Iran-Iraq War as he was seen as a friendly dictator that could tie a belligerent Iran down in the Middle East after the 1979 seizure of power by the Ayatolahs (sic)?

if i were in, or ever was in the CIA, i could answer that one straight away jbg, unfortunately i was only in the Army. sorry







however, i believe the news said that, rather than an admission from the US and UK governments, so i still dont know 

[JBG]

(lets not forget that iraq has declared war on iran and kuwait).

Was it not the case that the US (and to a lesser extent the UK) gave Saddam every encouragement to start the Iran-Iraq War as he was seen as a friendly dictator that could tie a belligerent Iran down in the Middle East after the 1979 seizure of power by the Ayatolahs (sic)?

if i were in, or ever was in the CIA, i could answer that one straight away jbg, unfortunately i was only in the Army. sorry







however, i believe the news said that, rather than an admission from the US and UK governments, so i still dont know 

Donald Rumsfeld visited Saddam personally a couple of times in the 1980s, and Britian and America both extended agricultural and industrial parts credits to Saddam in the 1980s.

I don't think there is any proof of the allegations that Britain and the USA gave Saddam chemical weapons although the Sunday Times last Sunday have shown that the spores in Saddam's anthrax came from a cow that died form anthrax in Oxfordshire in 1937!!!!

[woof woof !]

JBG is right . Iraq received massive backing from western sources (primarily USA and UK) both economically and politically . It wasn't so much that they saw saddam as a friendly dictator rather they saw him as someone they could control and of course they also took the view my enemies enemy is a friend of mine , With Iran being the greater threat USA were desperate to destabilise the country as much as possible.

I'm very much a supporter of the American people but over the last 40 years their politicians have lurched from one disasterous foriegn policy to another ,dragging the world with them .