| Welcome to 606 Rebels. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: Wealso allow junior members. |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Iraq | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 31st January 2008 - 10:25 PM (449 Views) | |
| Milgod | 31st January 2008 - 10:25 PM Post #1 |
Giver of REBELOVE !!!
|
Not wanting to get into the debate about whether the whole invasion/liberation thing should have happend in the first place what do people think should happen now? This is of course is linked to the Presidential election thread as whoever wins will play a big role in deciding what happens. Should the troops be pulled out ASAP even if we aren't sure that the Iraqi's can defend themselves yet? Or should they remain for an undetermined time scale? |
 |
 
|
| Mugsey | 2nd February 2008 - 04:11 PM Post #2 |
100% Leeds
|
no if you go in and fuck the whole country up please be kind enough to stay and clean up YOUR MESS!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
| Fitz | 4th February 2008 - 08:52 PM Post #3 |
Perfectly formed member
|
Get them out and let them kick the shit out of each other til the UN are called in and the Americans pay for it. |
|
|
|
| Sir Quej Of Quejdom | 5th February 2008 - 02:52 PM Post #4 |
100% Leeds
|
The problem with pulling the troops out now is that if the Iraqi government is not strong enough to take care of the country and the extremists regain control, we are then back to square one. The main difference being that the Extremists have even MORE reason to despise us than they did before we went in. I think pulling out of Iraq too soon is very dangerous and the timing needs to be right. |
|
|
|
| Fitz | 6th February 2008 - 05:16 PM Post #5 |
|
Perfectly formed member
|
Can't go back to square one, Quej, the Americans control the oil now...... |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | 6th February 2008 - 08:08 PM Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
That's just what they are trying to do, but Lefties and Muslims (over here, don't want them to). They've had considerable success of late with the new tactics, but the problem is the corruption, murderous tribalism, and incompetence. It's now up to the Iraqis to get their fingers out and not just rely on the Americans. |
|
|
|
| Fitz | 7th February 2008 - 05:25 PM Post #7 |
|
Perfectly formed member
|
They hope to have that sorted if Obama or Hilary gets in. |
|
|
|
| cuppy | 7th February 2008 - 06:04 PM Post #8 |
Friendliest Poster 2006
|
I think with a new president around the corner it will be a milestone in being able to move on and look to a brighter future for Iraq. Lets be realistic here, the country is in a mess, but lets not kid ourselves that this is all down to America, the place has always been a cancerous infested wound, with King Tumour and his oppresive reign. Problem is you remove the main tumour but the cancer then spreads into small growths all over the country. Its gonna take a long long time for Iraq to become anywhere near stable. Its something that everyone needs to work towards, and pulling out of Iraq should only happen when the country is able to govern itself properly. Hilary In!! |
|
|
|
| Fitz | 7th February 2008 - 06:26 PM Post #9 |
|
Perfectly formed member
|
Erm, King Tumour was supported and armed by whom, exactly? When it suited them of course....... |
|
|
|
| cuppy | 7th February 2008 - 06:42 PM Post #10 |
|
Friendliest Poster 2006
|
does it still not make him King Tumour? Sorry its one of my bug bears, its a point and a valid one Fitz, I dont disagree with you. However, he was an evil man who did a lot of evil things and the people he killed or tortured deserve better than to have his name mentioned with a but at the side. He was what he was, regardless of who aided what, when it suited whoever. I wont excuse him by following up any mention of what he did with a deterrant elsewhere. |
|
|
|
| KATKIT | 7th February 2008 - 08:03 PM Post #11 |
Team Favourite
|
According to the United States they could be there for an hundred years. If the troops pull out there will be civil war, nobody could say for sure who eventually would seize control of the country, if its Islamic militants then the West is back to square One. The atrocities that are happening in the country are not being reported by the press, civilians are being murdered by the hundreds. Basically its a mess created by Bush. |
|
|
|
| cuppy | 7th February 2008 - 08:09 PM Post #12 |
|
Friendliest Poster 2006
|
So no change then as this was actually happening before |
|
|
|
| KATKIT | 7th February 2008 - 08:18 PM Post #13 |
|
Team Favourite
|
Were they ? Where have you read that ? The standard of living in Iraq is now rock bottom ,normal people are living in hell and living in an occupied country. Saddam did kill many of his people but now Iraqis are killing each other,and the initial shock and awe killed thousands of innocent civilians. Are you suggesting Iraq is now a better safer Country ? |
|
|
|
| cuppy | 7th February 2008 - 08:25 PM Post #14 |
|
Friendliest Poster 2006
|
Same place you read yours? Saddam killed thousands of people, tortured even more and would have continued to do so. His sons were both equally sadistic in nature and the regime would have continued with them. I am not for one minute suggesting Iraq is a better safer place, don't put words in my mouth, but neither was it safe for its people before. Fact. |
|
|
|
| KATKIT | 7th February 2008 - 08:46 PM Post #15 |
|
Team Favourite
|
I went to Uni with a few people from Iraq,you're talking bollox. Saddam and his regime killed alot of people but more people have died since operation shock and awe. Theres plenty of video evidence to peruse on the net of whats really interested. |
|
|
|
| cuppy | 7th February 2008 - 08:50 PM Post #16 |
|
Friendliest Poster 2006
|
Okay this is a debate forum, its where you discuss and give opinions, even if they are of opposing views. If you dont have enough respect than to tell me I am talking bollox then I wont waste my time with you. What I said was totally true, he has killed a lot of people and it would have continued. Nothing remotely untrue about that. You havent actually read what I put. Don't talk to people like that, it will not go down well on this forum. Show some respect please. |
|
|
|
| KATKIT | 7th February 2008 - 08:53 PM Post #17 |
|
Team Favourite
|
How many people have the coalition forces killed ? compared to Saddam,why didnt the USA intervene in Rwanda etc ? Its a serious debate and you're relating facts you have read in the Sun. |
|
|
|
| cuppy | 7th February 2008 - 08:55 PM Post #18 |
|
Friendliest Poster 2006
|
I don't read newspapers, so thats you talking utter twaddle then. As I said, show some respect and i'll discuss, until then talk to yourself |
|
|
|
| MDF | 7th February 2008 - 09:03 PM Post #19 |
A little rusty....
|
Approx 151,000 Iraqi deaths since the occupation, no substantiated figures of deaths during Saddams reign, but estimates are between 150,000 to 1 million. Deaths by violence, that is, of course. |
|
|
|
| KATKIT | 7th February 2008 - 09:12 PM Post #20 |
|
Team Favourite
|
Where did you get these figures ? ,the coalition have not been counting civilian deaths ,do the figures on Saddams reign include the Iran - Iraq war. |
|
|
|
| KATKIT | 7th February 2008 - 09:15 PM Post #21 |
|
Team Favourite
|
http://www.stinkzone.com/cgi-bin/archives/000184.html According to these people more people are dying per year under US occupation. |
|
|
|
| cuppy | 7th February 2008 - 09:18 PM Post #22 |
|
Friendliest Poster 2006
|
Thats only sustainable if it continues. Your same source is saying that between 500k and 1 million died at the hands of saddams regime, which is what I was saying before. You are contradicting yourself. |
|
|
|
| KATKIT | 7th February 2008 - 09:21 PM Post #23 |
|
Team Favourite
|
No Im not,those figures are based on a report based in 2004, its well documented that the coalition dont count civilian casualties. These figures are estimates not FACT. |
|
|
|
| cuppy | 7th February 2008 - 09:24 PM Post #24 |
|
Friendliest Poster 2006
|
Exactly!!! As is the number of deaths since the removal of Saddam. You are chasing your own tail here and failing miserably lol You really need to at least attempt to sound like you know what you are talking about, otherwise you just sound stooopid |
|
|
|
| KATKIT | 7th February 2008 - 09:24 PM Post #25 |
|
Team Favourite
|
We think about 650,000 extra people have died because of this invasion, and about 600,000, some 90%, are from violence. . . . this cluster survey approach, is the standard way of measuring mortality in very poor countries where the government isn't very functional or in times of war. And when UNICEF goes out and measures mortality in any developing country, this is what they do. When the U.S. government went at the end of the war in Kosovo or went at the end of the war in Afghanistan and the U.S. government measured the death rate, this is how they did it. And most ironically, the U.S. government has been spending millions of dollars per year, through something called the Smart Initiative, to train NGOs and UN workers to do cluster surveys to measure mortality in times of wars and disasters.--"Co-Author of Medical Study Estimating 650,000 Iraqi Deaths Defends Research in the Face of White House Dismissal ," democracynow.org, October 12, 2006 Other estimates of civilian deaths are higher. |
|
|
|
| Milgod | 7th February 2008 - 09:29 PM Post #26 |
|
Giver of REBELOVE !!!
|
Well that must make it true then. I know a few Iraqi's that fled the country in the early 90s, they didn't have the best words to say about Saddam. In fact because I kniow a few people who feel that way I state that you are talking bollox and they are 100% representative of the whole country. |
|
|
|
| KATKIT | 7th February 2008 - 09:30 PM Post #27 |
|
Team Favourite
|
I do know what Im talking about ,all Im saying is that ultimately the Iraqi people will lose more civilians during and after an US invasion. More than a million will die in a civil war when the USl eaves Iraq. |
|
|
|
| KATKIT | 7th February 2008 - 09:32 PM Post #28 |
|
Team Favourite
|
I think you will find that if you read my posts Im informed. Im not stating that Saddam was great for Iraq,but life for the ordinary person is a lot worse now,to suggest otherwise is foolish. |
|
|
|
| cuppy | 7th February 2008 - 09:33 PM Post #29 |
|
Friendliest Poster 2006
|
|
|
|
|
| cuppy | 7th February 2008 - 09:34 PM Post #30 |
|
Friendliest Poster 2006
|
Unless you have been to Iraq personally, lived there both before and after the regime was removed you do not know that. Am sorry but you don't. You are no more informed than any one else is. And to suggest otherwise is foolish |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Mass Debate Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
3:40 AM Nov 28
