Cyprus-Forum.com

[pitsilos]

well they went there to rescue the iraqis from a dictator. whats wrong with that?

[pitsilos]

you saying other countries shouldn't invade to save the masses? should they let them sufer?

[shahmaran]

no thats what YOU are saying

[Pete_D]

Miltiades
don't think any body is saying that the bombers are right in what they do and I for one condemn them. I condemn them the same way that I condemn the bombers in planes from the US.

Zan, as is often the case in your posts, you've made good points here, and in a concise manner.

Miltiades was making a point about suicide bombers. And I am pleased to hear you condemn that.

But now this thread has expanded into the whole "invasion of Iraq" thing again. Well then, lets discuss that too.

Those that knowingly murder innocents on any side are also to be condemned. That is equally wrong and they will be judged also based on their actions. Only today in the british news, we hear about the killing of a UK soldier as a direct result of the incompetence of the US military machine. Many innocents have been killed in Iraq by both sides, proving how this war was such a bad thing. (As an aside, having met Iraqi people and having had Iraqi friends I can assure you they all that they are amongst the nicest people you ever could meet. Which just makes it worse as now there is so much uncertainty there over life, it is in fact worse than it was under Saddam in places, I'm sorry but that is the case).

I was against this war in Iraq from the start, it was not in my name. You know, all the people I spoke to in the UK about it at the time well I never found ANYONE who was for the war. I do not know the case in the US because I do not know enough people from the US to comment.

Bush and Blair indeed have blood on their hands. But you know, I think it is worse for Blair and I will tell you why. I honestly believe Bush thought - erroneously - that he was doing the right thing. I honestly believe Bush and his administration are too stupid to understand. But Blair... I think he knew it was the wrong thing, I think he just did it to stick with the USA, I think Blair is an intelligent man and certainly his political advisers could not have been advising him the British public were for the war. He lied to us, the people in this country like me who helped elected him. (Yes, I voted for Blair in 1997, I supported the Labour party back then). But Blair lied - blatantly - about his WMD claims, and lost all credibility when the truth was revealed. Now Blair will have it on his conscience what he has done, war can never be the right answer and in the case of Iraq there were so many alternatives.... if Blair had chosen a different path, he & his government could maybe have convinced the Americans differently... who knows... but he didn't, and many have died and the world is a worse place because of those actions taken by leaders who are elected by the people, to speak for the people, and who it would seem did and continue to not act for those people .

Pete

[zan]

Miltiades
don't think any body is saying that the bombers are right in what they do and I for one condemn them. I condemn them the same way that I condemn the bombers in planes from the US.

but zan, just to be honest with you, why are you condemning the yanks?

whats wrong with invading another country and capturing land.

who gives a shit about the killings and the ethnic cleansing? right?

Didn't say I was condemning the Yanks sweetie. What I am condemning are their techniques as I have stated previously. Try to keep up. Getting Saddam out was one thing seeing the process through was another and bombing and kicking in the doors of family homes is another still.

As ever your comparing the Cyprob with that of Iraq is predictable and inaccurate to a degree but I will play along for a while.


First the US went in to save the people that were being killed by a dictator. Then they beat back the insurgence. They are now trying to broker peace and we all think that in the end the country will be split into two or three parts to accommodate the different peoples of that country. The US will and is stripping the country of all its oil and will probably have bases there for a very very long time. Ring any bells........

[shahmaran]

you know it might sound extreme but that old bastard saddam, as brutal as he was, did manage to keep the country together, maybe thats what it took to keep such people under control, because we see what they can do when they got the freedom everyday on the news, and i dont think america will ever be able to pull this one off.

eventually, if not already, they will be less poppular than saddam, an independant agency claims that the overall death tall from the "consequences of the war" is around 600,000!!

and since the war was americas idea, i think they can directly be blamed for that number, and yes miltiades, including thoose savage suicide bombers...

[zan]

you know it might sound extreme but that old bastard saddam, as brutal as he was, did manage to keep the country together, maybe thats what it took to keep such people under control, because we see what they can do when they got the freedom everyday on the news, and i dont think america will ever be able to pull this one off.

eventually, if not already, they will be less poppular than saddam, an independant agency claims that the overall death tall from the "consequences of the war" is around 600,000!!

and since the war was americas idea, i think they can directly be blamed for that number, and yes miltiades, including thoose savage suicide bombers...

You can never be sure but had he treated all the people properly and looked after them maybe they would have ended up ok. The problem now is the void that has been created by the US and Britain and everybody is vying for power and control.

[Pete_D]

Remember the reason for invading had nothing to do with the way the people were treated.... it was because Saddam had WMD and the threat he posed needed to be neutralised. That is what we were all told. That was the legal case put to us.

If the reason was to rescue the people from Saddam, then why has nobody "invaded" the Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somalia.... to name just a few places?

Conclusion: whatever the real reason was to invade Iraq, it was not to liberate the Iraqis.

[pitsilos]

Didn't say I was condemning the Yanks sweetie. What I am condemning are their techniques as I have stated previously. Try to keep up. Getting Saddam out was one thing seeing the process through was another and bombing and kicking in the doors of family homes is another still.

i think you missed the point pretty boy, see if you can follow. you condemn the way the yanks go about it but you are ok with ethnic cleansing.

As ever your comparing the Cyprob with that of Iraq is predictable and inaccurate to a degree but I will play along for a while.

i didn't know that injustices are measured in degrees, but you might be onto something here pretty boy. silly me and i thought an injustice is an injustice.

Ring any bells........

of double standards? loud and clear

[shahmaran]

yes exactly, but i still think that the US will have to restore to deperate measure in order to stableise the country, as did saddam, pete i was in UK during that period too, and i do remember Blair desperately trying to convince people that they could not wait any longer, not even long enough for the UN inspectors to finish their research, and that inspector ended up hanging himself, very dodgy way of working i would say...