Cyprus-Forum.com

[Eliko]

Whoa Stout !!, , wasn't it you who remarked that you thought 'I' came out swinging ? , if you allow the responses of others to anger you your days are numbered mate, one must learn to be tolerant when dealing with those (particularly older) who seem unable to grasp the points you are trying to make.

I have become quite accustomed to being misunderstood, it does not bother me, the fact that some are able to comprehend the contents of my posts is a reward in itself.

Chin up mate, (can Gorillas do that ?) it is early days yet.

[Stout]

My children will be back from school soon Eliko, I wouldn't like them to catch me on this forum because I told them I was finished with it when I logged off last time and they will laugh at me.
It's been very nice talking to you, I see you will be in the UK soon, if I send you a personal message maybe we can meet up for a drink if you are anywhere near north London, we might even be able to have an argument.
See you later maybe.

[cyprusgrump]

Free Spirit, I am so disappointed with what you have sent in answer to my questions. I know all about what happened before the Iraq invasion, so does everyone else in the world by now. What I wanted to know was if anyone had any information that we don't know. If you can send anything helpful along those lines, I am sure we will all be very pleased.

All you have done as far as I can see, is sent the whole subject in another direction, no wonder everyone is arguing when you do things like that.

I don’t think you can pick and choose a part of history out of context in the way that you are implying we should…

There is no doubt whatsoever that Saddam was not a nice guy, he performed atrocities against his own people and lets not forget, invading Kuwait, letting the oil into the sea, setting light to the oil wells, etc. Let us not also forget that he let his own people starve as a propaganda tool against the West while living in unimaginable luxury and building new palaces.

9/11 and WMD may have been feeble excuses to invade Iraq but you have to set it in the context of what was happening at that time.

I know that many of the people that criticise the invasion now would have been for it if you had asked them at the time and that goes for many Iraqis.

Argue your case by all means but don’t try and stifle the discussion by setting unreasonable limits on it. I’m sure there are those that had pleasant times spent with Hitler but you can’t say he was a nice guy based solely on their limited experiences.

[FreeSpirit]

Free Spirit, I am so disappointed with what you have sent in answer to my questions. I know all about what happened before the Iraq invasion, so does everyone else in the world by now. What I wanted to know was if anyone had any information that we don't know. If you can send anything helpful along those lines, I am sure we will all be very pleased.

All you have done as far as I can see, is sent the whole subject in another direction, no wonder everyone is arguing when you do things like that.

As I and every any free thinking person knows the problem in Iraq is from outside where do you think the RPGs etc come from most of the ordanence has proven to be from Iran. Syria harbours and train terrorist so does AL Quaeda.
The biggest mistake as once again I have said repeatedly was to disband the Iraqi armed forces and police, this was my own personal view right from the very start, it now appears those were Blairs wishes but they were vetoed by Bush. It worked very well after south east asia was libererated when the Japanese were kept on maintaining law and order under strict supervision.

You claim the deaths of hundreds of thousands and millions of homeless on the coalition these figures are exagerated and totaly ubsustantiated. It is more than likely these figures would be true had Saddam remained in power, I also think that stupid remarks such as Saddam was gaining momentum therefore they had to execute him help little in these issues.

[FreeSpirit]

Free Spirit, I am so disappointed with what you have sent in answer to my questions. I know all about what happened before the Iraq invasion, so does everyone else in the world by now. What I wanted to know was if anyone had any information that we don't know. If you can send anything helpful along those lines, I am sure we will all be very pleased.

All you have done as far as I can see, is sent the whole subject in another direction, no wonder everyone is arguing when you do things like that.

I don’t think you can pick and choose a part of history out of context in the way that you are implying we should…

There is no doubt whatsoever that Saddam was not a nice guy, he performed atrocities against his own people and lets not forget, invading Kuwait, letting the oil into the sea, setting light to the oil wells, etc. Let us not also forget that he let his own people starve as a propaganda tool against the West while living in unimaginable luxury and building new palaces.

9/11 and WMD may have been feeble excuses to invade Iraq but you have to set it in the context of what was happening at that time.

I know that many of the people that criticise the invasion now would have been for it if you had asked them at the time and that goes for many Iraqis.

Argue your case by all means but don’t try and stifle the discussion by setting unreasonable limits on it. I’m sure there are those that had pleasant times spent with Hitler but you can’t say he was a nice guy based solely on their limited experiences.

An excellent and well balanced response.

Stout, you cannot invoke censrship a whilst claiming genuine debate.

Whenever I see written on this open forum unbalanced bisaed views I will feel free to put foreward the other side of the coin which I consider to be my right and duty.
This is not pre liberation Iraq or pre 911 Afghanistan, this is what is commonly known as the free world that our Fathers and Grandfathers fought two world wars for.

[FreeSpirit]

The reasons for my posting Eliko are very simple, first of all I was interested to know if anyone disagreed with some of the facts which are now generally accepted about the lies which sparked the trouble in Iraq.
Secondly, I was wondering why, if people were in agreement with those facts, why do they keep arguing about them unless they just like arguing.
I can see now that there are some people who just seem to like things that way, how can anything be settled if they have that kind of attitude ?.
I am not used to arguing on computers, if you lose your rag and throw a punch you will smash your screen, espescially if you are a gorilla.

It is not so much the lies told for starting the conflict it is the lies not facts about death totals attributed to the coalition.
None Iraqis (not coaltion) have murdered far more people since the end of the 2nd gulf conflict than the coalition killed in armed combat with Iraqi military.
95% of deaths since the atart of the second conlict were nothing to do with the coalition.

[Eliko]

cyprusgrump, I think the object of Stout's post was to discover if there were any members who were in agreement with the attack on Iraq, knowing that the reasons for such were based on lies.

He also wished to know if any member had any evidence that would suggest that they were NOT lies.

The reason for his questions seem to reveal his interest in the fact that members are rather more anxious to engage in an argument than to resolve an issue.

Within the scope of such enquiries, I would have thought that the events preceding the attack are quite irrelevant.

Had Bush and Blair presented the events of the past, the atrocities of Saddam (of which we know there were many) as the reason for their actions, I am sure they would have attracted considerable support, (mine for sure).

Had they made it known that the 'Oil' was the primary consideration since Saddam was likely to hold the West to ransom on account of his control of it, THAT would also have probably been an acceptable reason for the conflict.

Providing (in both cases) the action was openly debated and agreed upon by ALL the interested nations.

Under such circumstances, even Saddam himself would probably have capitulated, as it was, faced with what he KNEW was fabrication, he could hardly be blamed for adopting the stance he did.

The above is representative of my own opinion, it does not imply that I am in agreement with 'Suicide Bombings' nor does it indicate that I am a Muslim or a supporter of Osama bin Laden or any other despotic leader of the past or present.

I like to think that it indicates my ability to consider the facts.

[miltiades]

cyprusgrump, I think the object of Stout's post was to discover if there were any members who were in agreement with the attack on Iraq, knowing that the reasons for such were based on lies.

He also wished to know if any member had any evidence that would suggest that they were NOT lies.

The reason for his questions seem to reveal his interest in the fact that members are rather more anxious to engage in an argument than to resolve an issue.

Within the scope of such enquiries, I would have thought that the events preceding the attack are quite irrelevant.

Had Bush and Blair presented the events of the past, the atrocities of Saddam (of which we know there were many) as the reason for their actions, I am sure they would have attracted considerable support, (mine for sure).

Had they made it known that the 'Oil' was the primary consideration since Saddam was likely to hold the West to ransom on account of his control of it, THAT would also have probably been an acceptable reason for the conflict.

Providing (in both cases) the action was openly debated and agreed upon by ALL the interested nations.

Under such circumstances, even Saddam himself would probably have capitulated, as it was, faced with what he KNEW was fabrication, he could hardly be blamed for adopting the stance he did.

The above is representative of my own opinion, it does not imply that I am in agreement with 'Suicide Bombings' nor does it indicate that I am a Muslim or a supporter of Osama bin Laden or any other despotic leader of the past or present.

I like to think that it indicates my ability to consider the facts.

As always Eliko , you are WRONG. Intelligence Information on which both the American and British governments had at their disposal indicated that WOMD were being manufactured in Iraq. Just as Iran can not and should not be trusted with its continued efforts to become a nuclear power , Iraq with Sadam at the helm could not be trusted. No lies , No oil , just no WOMD . You despise the West and you have grasped at every opportunity to state your anti West views , same as the other West hater your Buddie GR.
In my humble opinion you Eliko have a great deal to learn
and much more to regret with advancing years. When I think that as a young man in London I joined demonstrations against Ian Smith of Rhodesia and shouted support for Robert Mugabe it makes me puke. Little did I know then !!

[FreeSpirit]

Had Bush and Blair presented the events of the past, the atrocities of Saddam (of which we know there were many) as the reason for their actions, I am sure they would have attracted considerable support, (mine for sure).

Had they made it known that the 'Oil' was the primary consideration since Saddam was likely to hold the West to ransom on account of his control of it, THAT would also have probably been an acceptable reason for the conflict.

Eliko haven't you always maintained that what goes on in any country is the business of that country and know one elses regardless of what goes on in that country.

Surely your above remarks are a reversal of your recently stated views.

[FreeSpirit]

My children bought me a P.C. for a Xmas present and gave me some advice which led me to join this forum in late December.

I found myself in amongst people of many nations with many different views about matters which to me seemed quite obvious.

I withdrew from the forum because I did not feel comfortable with the constant abuse directed from one member to the other and have since spent time in reading, rather than writing my own views.

I would now like to make some comments which I hope will not attract abuse, in fact I cannot see how they can if thought about.

My first offering is on the subject of Iraq:-

George Bush is now known to have used the events of 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq.

His real objective was to gain control of the oil fields of the nation and that is common knowledge.

In human terms, the unlawful action against that nation has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, regardless of how they may have occurred after the event or by whose hands.

Millions of that country's people have been made homeless or have been displaced as a result of the attack upon that nation.

The situation in Iraq is now far worse for the people than it was under the regime of Saddam Hussein, that is an obvious fact.

Without resorting to abuse or referring to events which may or may not have taken place in Iraq before the attack, I wonder if any member has any real evidence to contradict the above comments.

My own view is that they are all proven to be true and that is why I cannot understand where the necessity to create arguments and abuse each other on account of them comes from, unless the members are only interested in argument for the sake of it, in which case there can never be a resolution to any problem.

Stout
Just a few pointers.
1) 911 was not the reason for the coalitions action, Fact!
2) The true issue was oil but not to control supply but to maintain supply.
3) They are not all proven to be true regarding blame and figures regarding fatality figures.
4) Todays conditions are mainly caused by outsiders.