Iraqis voice support for attacks on UK troops (1 Viewer)

[soha]

Iraq? Free, democratic? To have a free and democratic society, the people within a country, first, have to be kind and have to want to work towards such a system.

The iraqis..... are iraqis ... and are living like people did 400000 years ago.

"You can take the ape out of jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the ape."

wtf
i dont understand what you mean by apes from a jungle?
iraqi people are well educated civilised people
of all the iraqis i know(and thats a fuck load) they are all university educated..have degrees..are doctors engineers etc..
unfortunately they push trolleys for a living but thats coz their qualifications arent recognised in oz..but still
wtf?...

 

[Comrade nathan]

Iraq? Free, democratic? To have a free and democratic society, the people within a country, first, have to be kind and have to want to work towards such a system.

The iraqis..... are iraqis ... and are living like people did 400000 years ago.

"You can take the ape out of jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the ape."

Modern Iraq (the colonial creation of the British) is situated on the area called "Mesopotamia". Today that area is called "Cradle of Civilization". That would mean there would be people living there that are the descendents of the most advanced people.

 

[supercharged]

Who ever said that it was going to be easy? I supported the war in the first place and I have continued to support it, because in the end, no matter how long it takes, the coalition will eventually prevail and both peace and relative freedom will be established in Iraq.

Australia and the UK were both part of the original military action, it's our mess as well as Americas.

ROFLAO 'relative freedom' , what makes you so sure?

Why would the Iraqis abide by a governmental process in which they have to put up with waiting years till the next election to get rid of offcials they don't like? With all the AK-47s and RPGs lying around they can easily shoot or blow up anyone they don't like. There is no motive for them to put away their weapons.

Australia and UK were just the lapdogs. They had no real stance on the war execpt for saying 'I'm with george'.

If America started threatening Iraq but then later decided not to invade, do you think Australia and UK would gone and in and invaded all by themselves?

The war is another step in the neo-con U.S, anti-American nations (usually muslim) world bombing campaign stretching from Afganistan to Iraq and then Iran and Syria next.

 

[Calculon]

ROFLAO 'relative freedom' , what makes you so sure?

Why would the Iraqis abide by a governmental process in which they have to put up with waiting years till the next election to get rid of offcials they don't like? With all the AK-47s and RPGs lying around they can easily shoot or blow up anyone they don't like. There is no motive for them to put away their weapons.

Australia and UK were just the lapdogs. They had no real stance on the war execpt for saying 'I'm with george'.

If America started threatening Iraq but then later decided not to invade, do you think Australia and UK would gone and in and invaded all by themselves?

The war is another step in the neo-con U.S, anti-American nations (usually muslim) world bombing campaign stretching from Afganistan to Iraq and then Iran and Syria next.

I'd rather be from a "lapdog" country than one with the highest rate of democide on record.

 

[supercharged]

I'd rather be from a "lapdog" country than one with the highest rate of democide on record.

democide? Sounds rather like Iraq atm.

 

[Calculon]

democide? Sounds rather like Iraq atm.

Pre-war Iraq was a haven of democide, yes.

 

[supercharged]

Pre-war Iraq was a haven of democide, yes.

And all the more so now with daily bloodshed galore.

 

[leetom]

How bizarre was it when some US Patriot- by total chance- missle hit, downed and killed all on board a British helicopter. Ah, the inconspicuous downsides to super-tech coalition.

 

[Calculon]

And all the more so now with daily bloodshed galore.

War casualities are not counted as democide, dear.

 

[supercharged]

War casualities are not counted as democide, dear.

War? The war phase in Iraq is long over. Now its sectarian violence, local resistance to occupation and violent anarchy in general.

I wouldn't consider the deaths of thousands of Iraq civilians following the collapse of the Saddam government to be 'war casualties'.

 

[Calculon]

Civil war is still war dude.

 

[supercharged]

Civil war is still war dude.

And where does one draw the line between civil war and non-war blood letting?

Is a bomb going off outside a shite mosque civil war or just destablising violence? How about the stampede on the bridge which killed over a hundred in a day, not long ago?

If you call the current attrition 'civil war', I wonder what you are going to call the total battlefield scenario once the Americans pull out and the tribal Iraqis are left to their own devices?

 

[Calculon]

And where does one draw the line between civil war and non-war blood letting?

Is a bomb going off outside a shite mosque civil war or just destablising violence? How about the stampede on the bridge which killed over a hundred in a day, not long ago?

If you call the current attrition 'civil war', I wonder what you are going to call the total battlefield scenario once the Americans pull out and the tribal Iraqis are left to their own devices?

War is a state of inherent instability in a country where two or more opposing factions fight for control of land or resources. If these two factions are from within the country then it is civil war. It would seem to me that this is a combo of the two, given a lot of those on the coalition side are actually iraqi, and the enemy is the iraqi resistance.

 

[supercharged]

It would seem to me that this is a combo of the two, given a lot of those on the coalition side are actually iraqi, and the enemy is the iraqi resistance.

Read the article posted on page one: "Iraqis voice support for attacks on UK troops " Now who were you saying the enemy was again?

 

[Calculon]

Read the article posted on page one: "Iraqis voice support for attacks on UK troops " Now who where you saying the enemy was again?

Fine then, change it to "their enemy".

 

[Saddam Hussein]

I hereby fully endorse the coalition's mission in Iraq.

 

[Calculon]

I'm also perturbed that, just to appear different, the conservative party adopts left wing policy :S

 

[supercharged]

Fine then, change it to "their enemy".

And moreso the Iraqis are NOT on the side of the coalition.
The coalition troops are there for their own purposes.

The Iraqis want the US/UK troops kicked out, and each of the three groups wants their own mullah or whatever to be the new 'Saddam' in Iraq

 

[Calculon]

And moreso the Iraqis are NOT on the side of the coalition.
The coalition troops are there for their own purposes.

The Iraqis want the US/UK troops kicked out, and each of the three groups wants their own mullah or whatever to be the new 'Saddam' in Iraq

This would inevitably create problems, and while the coalition may be unpopular, they must impartially preside over the creation of a government which represents all three major sects. Also you speak as though NO Iraqis support the coalition, and this is simply not true.

 

[supercharged]

This would inevitably create problems, and while the coalition may be unpopular, they must impartially preside over the creation of a government which represents all three major sects. Also you speak as though NO Iraqis support the coalition, and this is simply not true.

Again read the article, the majority are against them.

The only ones that support the coalition are the kurds/shi'ites who think the Americans will allow them to dominate their areas of interest (oilfields) anyway. Whatever government is produced, it will be too weak to rule since disgruntled factions will always have the option of armed conflict if the government does anything against their factional interests.