Cyprus-Forum.com

[ukman]

WHAT A TOSSER

[Southerner]

So too were barbarous acts in Rwanda against inoccents but the USA and the rest of the world were silent. I believe that the US / UK invasion was also calculated and deliberate - but the reason for invading wasnt to save the Iraqis from the dictator Sadaam but to get rid of the chemical weapons? The very same weapons that were always denied - and never found ? The whole episode stinks and thank God the decent people of America and Britain are now to realising it. They invaded because of money - OIL, nothing more nothing less, end of. You cannot FORCE democracy on people - that in itself is undemocratic, most of these people are still known by which tribe they belong to, they need a strong leader to pull them together and I am sure that eventually they will have true democracy - but from within, and maybe it will never happen in our lifetime. The Scots clans a few hundred years ago fought the English Invaders - AND each other for power. These people are NOT of our culture, we are interfering in things we dont comprehend,
Tess

This why things get out of hand on this forum, the "two wrongs make a right" mentality, bosnia had no rescources but NATO went in. you are quite right oil is the main reason in the middle east, Saddams aim was to hold the west and the rest of the world to ransom and in doing so destabalise the economys of those countries that are dependent on Arab oil.
The sooner that we become less dependent on oil and develope alternative fuels the better for us, it is a well known fact that OPEC keep the price artificaily by mutual agreement.
The cost of middle east intervention could have been put to better use, but nobody has answered why the rest of the Arab world stood by and watched Saddam carry out his mass murders, no silly tit for tat answers please.

[Southerner]

And why no intervention in Zimbabwe??

Nothing to do with the fact that there is nothng to benefit from I'm sure!!

You never contribute all you ever do is snipe, there are plenty of African states who should intervening in Zimbabwe, down the years the west has poured Billions into the continent which seems to have its finger permanently placed on the self destruct button.

[miltiades]

And why no intervention in Zimbabwe??

Nothing to do with the fact that there is nothng to benefit from I'm sure!!

You never contribute all you ever do is snipe, there are plenty of African states who should intervening in Zimbabwe, down the years the west has poured Billions into the continent which seems to have its finger permanently placed on the self destruct button.

And if I was the Prime Minister of the UK I would be pushing for troops to get this f.ng monster , Mugabe , and hang him by the balls. He alone is responsible for turning a once thriving Rhodesia into the shit hole it now is.The fact of the matter is we have let the people of this nation down by allowing this obscene megalomaniac with the brains of a chimpanzee to rule this country into oblivion.

[Eliko]

miltiades, If you were prime minister of England ?.

A fine example you would set eh', send in the troops and hang 'em up by the balls you say, NICE ONE.

[RichardB]

And why no intervention in Zimbabwe??

Nothing to do with the fact that there is nothng to benefit from I'm sure!!

You never contribute all you ever do is snipe, there are plenty of African states who should intervening in Zimbabwe, down the years the west has poured Billions into the continent which seems to have its finger permanently placed on the self destruct button.

And you continually rise to the occaision.

FYI I agreed with the coilition intervention in Iraq I think Sadaam Hussein was a meglomanic despot who needed to be deposed But it is blatantly obvious that despite all the planning that went into the invasion no-one seemed to have done any planning for the aftermath.

It is also blatantly obvious that the USA only considers intervention when it can be of benefit to them (ie OIL).

You say there are plenty of African states who should be intervening in Zimbabwe and this is true but also there were plenty of Arab states who should have intervened in Iraq But they didnt and the American led forces went in. So would it not be reasonable to expect them to do the same in Zimbabwe (In the interests of peace of course)

Miltiades-I agree with your sentiments

BTW southerner you say I snipe but do you have an answer to the question i posed

[miltiades]

Mugabe has ruined Rhodesia . First he changed the name to Zimbabwe !! Then he told his people that they are now free from the White man , then he took his people to the cleaners , and then (This is for you Eliko )
He fucked them !
He is APIECE OF SHIT AND THE QUICKER HE IS FLASHED ALONG WITH HIS CRONIES DOEN THE TOILET
the quicker the people will begin to recover from the suffering that this sicko has brought upon them .
The people of Zimbabwe deserve a chance , let us hope that the powers to be give them that chance.Their Archbishop has made a passionate plea to the UK to intervene and topple this monster. Unfortunately there is no politician in the UK with adequate balls to do anything about it.
I could not stand Thatcher but she had balls .

[RichardB]

miltiades, If you were prime minister of England ?.

A fine example you would set eh', send in the troops and hang 'em up by the balls you say, NICE ONE.

Actually Eliko the quote was "hang HIM (Mugabe ) up by the balls"

I dont think this is such a bad idea he has turned a once prosperous country into a Sh*thole whose people are afraid to speak out and any opposition party members are imprisoned and beaten ..This is dictatorship of the worst kind that is happening in Zimbabwe and must be stopped

[Get Real!]

FYI I agreed with the coilition intervention in Iraq I think Sadaam Hussein was a meglomanic despot who needed to be deposed But it is blatantly obvious that despite all the planning that went into the invasion no-one seemed to have done any planning for the aftermath.

I am shocked that you saw fit for the US to intervene militarily in Iraq just because its leader was a "megalomanic despot"!!!

I can think of two dozen other countries with leaders that fit this description and even worse, not excluding the US itself!

You also talk about "planning for the aftermath" like it's some sort of a project! What kind of "planning for the aftermath" where you expecting by the perpetrators after an entire nation is bombed to kingdom come???

Perhaps a rubble collection service? Maybe a rotting body disposal system? How about an orphan cleansing team?

I sometimes wonder which planet some of you posters come from...

[Southerner]

And why no intervention in Zimbabwe??
Nothing to do with the fact that there is nothng to benefit from I'm sure!!

BTW southerner you say I snipe but do you have an answer to the question i posed

We seem to be forgetting something regarding Iraq, Saddam mudered hudreds of thousands of his own coutrymen, men, women and chidren in an open policy of genocide, the 180,000 Muslim Kurds are just one example.
The Iraqi people welcomed the coalition when they arrived, the biggest mistake was to get rid of the Iraqi army, In south east asia after WWII the Allies left the Japanese in charge but under strict control of the Allies.
Saddams acts were calculated and deliberate, for that alone the rest of the Arab world should taken action against him, their silence was deafening.

The above passage is a previous reply

If you had read and understood my replies you would see that I answered regarding Zimbabwe I also said the same about Iraq, words to the effect of "What were the neighbouring countries doing?" the answer is nothing!
BTW I did ask for no silly tit for tat answers.
Blair wanted to do as we did in the far east at the end of WWII, Bush vetoed it