Cyprus-Forum.com

[FreeSpirit]

At the most, it was a cowardly and murderous attack upon an innocent and sleeping nation, the carnage that has resulted is without precedent (unless you compare it to the annihilation of the Red Indians of course) in the annals of military atrocities, if such a thing exists.

Sleeping alright; permanently in the case of the millions slaughtered by Saddam.
Everything was alright after the glorious Liberation until the terroists started pouring in and carrying out their cowardly deeds.

[Eliko]

At the most, it was a cowardly and murderous attack upon an innocent and sleeping nation, the carnage that has resulted is without precedent (unless you compare it to the annihilation of the Red Indians of course) in the annals of military atrocities, if such a thing exists.

Sleeping alright; permanently in the case of the millions slaughtered by Saddam.
Everything was alright after the glorious Liberation until the terroists started pouring in and carrying out their cowardly deeds.

FreeSpirit, had you taken the time to READ what Stout submitted, you would possibly have noticed (although I seriously doubt it) that a request was made by him that there should be no references made to events PRIOR to the unlawful attack upon Iraq.

I think the man is seeking some insight to the conditions that are NOW prevelant in that stricken land in order that he may learn something positive about where the truth of the matter lies.

I hardly think 'Pearl Harbour' is of interest to him, he probably wasn't around at that time, YOU however, seem to be stuck in those days, you know, the days when the general population were not allowed the luxury of thinking and reaching intelligent conclusions.

Some, even to this very day, are quite unable to READ and DIGEST what is before them plainly in their OWN language.

[Tim Drayton]

I find it amazing that you all maintain a blinkered view to what went on in Iraq before the Liberation of the country.
It is not the first time the UK has come to the aid of the people of Iraq and Iran I just hope that it will be the last

The oppressed and murdered millions on innocent men women and children who suffered under the regime of the despot Saddam Hussain are of no consequence in your blinkered anti west minds. You may feel comfortable seeing millions gassed; decent people don’t!
Hundreds of thousands have not been killed since the Liberation started, 95% of those killed are victims of terrorists from outside Iraq, 98% of the 5% killed by the coalition Liberators were military personnel.

The liberation was all about oil everyone must agree on that; had Saddam got his way the world would have been held to ransom regarding oil supplies, prices would have rocketed along with mile long queues at filling stations, the knock on effect would haves caused turmoil across all aspects of life. Had this happened you’d all be on your lefty soap boxes complaining about nobody stopping him.

The best thing that could and should happen is for alternative fuels and forms of energy to be developed therefore cutting the dependency on Arab oil; the Arabs could then descend back into their medieval existence of ‘Tales of the Arabian Nights, ‘Sinbad’ and ‘Aladdin’.

There is one serious flaw in the justification now being advanced for invading Iraq (everybody seems to have forgotten about the weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist!) that it was necessary to get rid of that terrible tyrrant Saddam Hussein.

Remember the first Gulf War. At the end of it, Iraq was beaten and the road to Baghdad was open and undefended. Had the West wanted, they could have marched in and apprehended Saddam Hussein in his very palace then. But they didn't. Instead he was permitted to continue with his tyrannical rule.

Remember that the crimes for which Saddam Hussein was finally hung were committed well before the first Gulf War. If the West didn't feel that he deserved to be hung for these crimes then, why did it change its mind more than a decade later?

[Eliko]

The liberation was all about oil everyone must agree on that; had Saddam got his way the world would have been held to ransom regarding oil supplies, prices would have rocketed along with mile long queues at filling stations, the knock on effect would haves caused turmoil across all aspects of life. Had this happened you’d all be on your lefty soap boxes complaining about nobody stopping him.

Had Bush and Blair based their aggression on the above principles, perhaps the civilized world would be a little less disgusted with such.

It is the fact that the whole murderous illegal campaign was based on a tissue of lies, which 'Decent People' (your words not mine) find so abhorrent.

In my humble opinion.

[Eliko]

I find it amazing that you all maintain a blinkered view to what went on in Iraq before the Liberation of the country.
It is not the first time the UK has come to the aid of the people of Iraq and Iran I just hope that it will be the last

The oppressed and murdered millions on innocent men women and children who suffered under the regime of the despot Saddam Hussain are of no consequence in your blinkered anti west minds. You may feel comfortable seeing millions gassed; decent people don’t!
Hundreds of thousands have not been killed since the Liberation started, 95% of those killed are victims of terrorists from outside Iraq, 98% of the 5% killed by the coalition Liberators were military personnel.

The liberation was all about oil everyone must agree on that; had Saddam got his way the world would have been held to ransom regarding oil supplies, prices would have rocketed along with mile long queues at filling stations, the knock on effect would haves caused turmoil across all aspects of life. Had this happened you’d all be on your lefty soap boxes complaining about nobody stopping him.

The best thing that could and should happen is for alternative fuels and forms of energy to be developed therefore cutting the dependency on Arab oil; the Arabs could then descend back into their medieval existence of ‘Tales of the Arabian Nights, ‘Sinbad’ and ‘Aladdin’.

There is one serious flaw in the justification now being advanced for invading Iraq (everybody seems to have forgotten about the weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist!) that it was necessary to get rid of that terrible tyrrant Saddam Hussein.

Remember the first Gulf War. At the end of it, Iraq was beaten and the road to Baghdad was open and undefended. Had the West wanted, they could have marched in and apprehended Saddam Hussein in his very palace then. But they didn't. Instead he was permitted to continue with his tyrannical rule.

Remember that the crimes for which Saddam Hussein was finally hung were committed well before the first Gulf War. If the West didn't feel that he deserved to be hung for these crimes then, why did it change its mind more than a decade later?

My own views on the above are quite clear, I believe that Saddam was gaining momentum during the period of his captivity, to exercise his right as President, to place both Bush and Blair in the witness box before a suitable court, in order to reveal certain truths which were being kept from the general public.

The hanging of Saddam was the surest way to obviate the possibility of such an event, what better way to dispose of any evidence which may reveal the truth behind the whole scenario.

[FreeSpirit]

There is one serious flaw in the justification now being advanced for invading Iraq (everybody seems to have forgotten about the weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist!) that it was necessary to get rid of that terrible tyrrant Saddam Hussein.

Remember the first Gulf War. At the end of it, Iraq was beaten and the road to Baghdad was open and undefended. Had the West wanted, they could have marched in and apprehended Saddam Hussein in his very palace then. But they didn't. Instead he was permitted to continue with his tyrannical rule.

Remember that the crimes for which Saddam Hussein was finally hung were committed well before the first Gulf War. If the West didn't feel that he deserved to be hung for these crimes then, why did it change its mind more than a decade later?

Tim I fully agree that the job should have been done in the first Gulf War, in doing so this alone would have saved the hundreds of thousands that Saddam slaughtered in between the two conflicts.

The proper title of the game is Oil; I'm sure we all know that.

[Stout]

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.

[FreeSpirit]

At the most, it was a cowardly and murderous attack upon an innocent and sleeping nation, the carnage that has resulted is without precedent (unless you compare it to the annihilation of the Red Indians of course) in the annals of military atrocities, if such a thing exists.

Sleeping alright; permanently in the case of the millions slaughtered by Saddam.
Everything was alright after the glorious Liberation until the terroists started pouring in and carrying out their cowardly deeds.

FreeSpirit, had you taken the time to READ what Stout submitted, you would possibly have noticed (although I seriously doubt it) that a request was made by him that there should be no references made to events PRIOR to the unlawful attack upon Iraq.

I think the man is seeking some insight to the conditions that are NOW prevelant in that stricken land in order that he may learn something positive about where the truth of the matter lies.

I hardly think 'Pearl Harbour' is of interest to him, he probably wasn't around at that time, YOU however, seem to be stuck in those days, you know, the days when the general population were not allowed the luxury of thinking and reaching intelligent conclusions.

Some, even to this very day, are quite unable to READ and DIGEST what is before them plainly in their OWN language.

You cannot separate the two that is far too simplistic it is a joint issue.
The truth of the matter is outside interference; not from the liberators but from neighbouring countries that actualy harbour a grudge against Iraq and not the coalition.

You keep going on about the cowardly attack on iraq as undeclared war yet deny the presidence set by previous despots as if all the ills of the world began with the US.

[Eliko]

Stout, don't be too disappointed mate, look back over the past contributions of FreeSpirit and you will discover many examples of his ability to screw up intelligent exchanges between members.

I think his mind is stuck in the days when he was shoving little schoolkid's heads down toilet pans and pulling the chain on them.

I do think your post was a bit restrictive (as I mentioned before), however you did make your points quite clear, it's a pity they were ignored, quite common on this forum I fear.

[Stout]

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.