How do native western Europeans feel?

[Unkotare]

..... "Those people" have always been at war with infidel nations and their peoples. There is an old saying that rings true:
"Where a non-Muslim nation borders a Muslim nation, there is blood."
They are the enemy and always have been.

You lack depth of earnestness. You've been terrorizing peoples and nations since the end of the Second World War. Communists, Latin Americans, Africans, Muslims, etc. and every time you light a match you start intimidated the rest of the world to pick a side - telling everyone, "You are either with us or you are against us." So you might be able to impress the kids in the High School parking lot at recess with your 'old sayings' ..... but I've been around the world and back again. I know a snake-oil salesman when I see one.

What is your nationality?

 

[Drummond]

..... "Those people" have always been at war with infidel nations and their peoples. There is an old saying that rings true:
"Where a non-Muslim nation borders a Muslim nation, there is blood."
They are the enemy and always have been.

You lack depth of earnestness. You've been terrorizing peoples and nations since the end of the Second World War. Communists, Latin Americans, Africans, Muslims, etc. and every time you light a match you start intimidated the rest of the world to pick a side - telling everyone, "You are either with us or you are against us." So you might be able to impress the kids in the High School parking lot at recess with your 'old sayings' ..... but I've been around the world and back again. I know a snake-oil salesman when I see one.

What is your nationality?

Good question. I'd also like to see this answered .....

 

[LuckyDuck]

Family out of Schull, Ireland.
And, its importance is?...................

 

[Vagabond63]

Breathtakingly dishonest.
Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.

And you are a prosecutor for the ICC/ICJ are you to make that declaration.

Would you also say that the whole labour leadership were war criminals as well because thy did not oppose the invasion of iraq, and instead voted along the party line.

How about the members that voted Brown as the next leader knowing he was a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.

Parliament voted on a pack of lies presented by Blair.

You will need to provide evidence of Gordon Browns crimes and that labour members knew about it.

I look forward to reading that.

Still does not make him a war criminal because you say so, you dont have the authority.

Operation Ore which named him as one of the buyers, and then this Revealed: British Premier Gordon Brown Is A Pedophile

Rense.com is your source for this? Well if any of it was true, I'd have thought the Tories would have had a field day naming and shaming all those nasty Labour paedos using Parliamentary privilage to do so. Or have they got something to hide as well? As for Operation Ore, that was a joke.
Operation Ore exposed

Seriously mate.Keep your distance from this guy.He is a nutter.

Bit harsh, but he does seem a little "focused" on far-right views.

 

[Vagabond63]

Breathtakingly dishonest.
Where is anyone saying that Sadaam was a good man ?
He was a monster but he was no threat to us.
If those idiots had gone into Iraq with a proper plan then it might have been justified.
But they didnt. And we are now left to pick up the pieces.
Blair and Bush are war criminals and should be in jail.

And you are a prosecutor for the ICC/ICJ are you to make that declaration.

Would you also say that the whole labour leadership were war criminals as well because thy did not oppose the invasion of iraq, and instead voted along the party line.

How about the members that voted Brown as the next leader knowing he was a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.

Parliament voted on a pack of lies presented by Blair.

You will need to provide evidence of Gordon Browns crimes and that labour members knew about it.

I look forward to reading that.

Still does not make him a war criminal because you say so, you dont have the authority.

Operation Ore which named him as one of the buyers, and then this Revealed: British Premier Gordon Brown Is A Pedophile

Rense.com is your source for this? Well if any of it was true, I'd have thought the Tories would have had a field day naming and shaming all those nasty Labour paedos using Parliamentary privilage to do so. Or have they got something to hide as well? As for Operation Ore, that was a joke.
Operation Ore exposed

Still has a "D" notice on it which means it cant be disclosed by the British media.

They all have something to hide which is why they cant get a Judge to chair the inquiry, it could bring the whole house of commons down like a card house.

Someone's been reading too many conspiracy theories. Ever watched House of Cards? (the Uk version) or A very British Coup?

 

[Vagabond63]

How about ..... Brown .... a pedophile and responsible for Blair being forced into Iraq by the US.

Forced because Brown is a pedophile ..... or because the Americans stuffed slivers of bamboo under his phoenails? I think 'forced' is too strong a word. I would say bribed, blackmailed, coerced. But then again I've heard him speak, Blair. He had the same opaque curtain over his eyes as Bush did. A liar - right down to the centre of his soul.

Perhaps we give him too much credit by assuming he was dupped.

Forced by threatening to expose the labour party cabinet members as being involved in child porn. Some of the details are coming out now like the labour M.P's who signed a letter supporting the scrapping of the age of consent sent to PIE.

I am not prepared to believe that UK government would commit it's nation to an illegal war and murder a million innocent men, women, and children ….. just to avoid whispers in the corridor over what most of the world already knows to be public school standard practices.

I am not prepared to believe that the UK Government committed its nation to an illegal war ... at all.

I bet you believe in unicorns and fairies.

 

[Vagabond63]

.... My chief 'problem' is accepting it was ever an 'illegal' war..

You most certainly have a problem all right.

Yes. My problem is that I don't swallow Leftie propaganda. At the time, it was accepted as legal. It was only questioned in those terms by Lefties with an agenda (the agenda being to save Saddam from ever being attacked !), and the doubts didn't stick. They only gain traction many years after the event, and only after memories have dimmed and the erosive effect of propaganda efforts have had time to make their mark.

Instead you swallow neocon propaganda. At the time it was NOT accepted as legal, that's why Blair wanted a second Security Council resolution. Saddam was never a threat to the UK, he even asked US permission to invade Kuwait! Saddam was set up. He may have been a "monster" to his political opponents, but Iraq remained prosperous and secular under his rule. Looking at Iraq today with it's rampant factionalism, sectarian murders and of course, the rise of ISIS, my, didn't we do well.

 

[Mindful]

.... My chief 'problem' is accepting it was ever an 'illegal' war..

You most certainly have a problem all right.

Yes. My problem is that I don't swallow Leftie propaganda. At the time, it was accepted as legal. It was only questioned in those terms by Lefties with an agenda (the agenda being to save Saddam from ever being attacked !), and the doubts didn't stick. They only gain traction many years after the event, and only after memories have dimmed and the erosive effect of propaganda efforts have had time to make their mark.

Instead you swallow neocon propaganda. At the time it was NOT accepted as legal, that's why Blair wanted a second Security Council resolution. Saddam was never a threat to the UK, he even asked US permission to invade Kuwait! Saddam was set up. He may have been a "monster" to his political opponents, but Iraq remained prosperous and secular under his rule. Looking at Iraq today with it's rampant factionalism, sectarian murders and of course, the rise of ISIS, my, didn't we do well.

What was it like under the King?

I'm beginning to think Monarchy might be the lesser of all the evils.

 

[GLASNOST]

..... Saddam was set up. ......

Much proof of it is still hidden away, but it'll come to light in good time. He apparently was led to believe that confiscating the oil fields of Kuwait would be OK. I'm not all that clued up on the regional, geo-historical politics but it does seem odd to me that those tiny (and rather tiny) 'states' are being nurtured by the west. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, ....... someone's been fiddling with the drawing board. When I was still rather young I remember seeing a lot of diamond-shaped frontier bits marked 'neutral'. Where have they gone?

 

[Mindful]

..... Saddam was set up. ......

Much proof of it is still hidden away, but it'll come to light in good time. He apparently was led to believe that confiscating the oil fields of Kuwait would be OK. I'm not all that clued up on the regional, geo-historical politics but it does seem odd to me that those tiny (and rather tiny) 'states' are being nurtured by the west. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, ....... someone's been fiddling with the drawing board. When I was still rather young I remember seeing a lot of diamond-shaped frontier bits marked 'neutral'. Where have they gone?

Why didn't the Americans take out Saddam during Gulf War 1?

 

[GLASNOST]

Why didn't the Americans take out Saddam during Gulf War 1?

A very good question. We'll find out eventually. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that white Rook to A-4 (check mate) was being thwarted by a well-placed black pawn on B-5, probably left there by the UN. Until that pawn could be dealt with ....... the game had to play on.

Ps. When the Americans realized they couldn't outmaneuver that pawn they simply knocked the board over ... and onto the floor.

 

[Mindful]

But back to an original premise; and supposition.

How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?

 

[Mindful]

Interesting piece about the monarchy in Iraq.

Iraq’s obsession with Faisal II reflects its hunger for a lost era | The National

 

[GLASNOST]

But back to an original premise; and supposition.

How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?

The UN had already got Saddam to destroy his weapons. Step One of the UN mission had thus been accomplished. Step Two was of equal importance, that being cooperating with Saddam over the (first) CIA inspection team, removing it, and replacing it with an international team eager to find out the truth. Perhaps for the first time Saddam could feel the UN was not entirely in Washington's back pocket and that it would move forward justly. We can only speculate on any further cooperation because the US violated international law and murdered him. We'll never know for sure. We can only say that with the UN calling the shots there was at least a chance. All good things begin with an opportunity.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What is your nationality?

Above Top Secret by the looks of it.

 

[Unkotare]

.... My chief 'problem' is accepting it was ever an 'illegal' war..

You most certainly have a problem all right.

Yes. My problem is that I don't swallow Leftie propaganda. At the time, it was accepted as legal. It was only questioned in those terms by Lefties with an agenda (the agenda being to save Saddam from ever being attacked !), and the doubts didn't stick. They only gain traction many years after the event, and only after memories have dimmed and the erosive effect of propaganda efforts have had time to make their mark.

Instead you swallow neocon propaganda. At the time it was NOT accepted as legal, that's why Blair wanted a second Security Council resolution. Saddam was never a threat to the UK, he even asked US permission to invade Kuwait! Saddam was set up. He may have been a "monster" to his political opponents, but Iraq remained prosperous and secular under his rule. Looking at Iraq today with it's rampant factionalism, sectarian murders and of course, the rise of ISIS, my, didn't we do well.

Conspiracy forum crap

 

[Mindful]

But back to an original premise; and supposition.

How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?

The UN had already got Saddam to destroy his weapons. Step One of the UN mission had thus been accomplished. Step Two was of equal importance, that being cooperating with Saddam over the (first) CIA inspection team, removing it, and replacing it with an international team eager to find out the truth. Perhaps for the first time Saddam could feel the UN was not entirely in Washington's back pocket and that it would move forward justly. We can only speculate on any further cooperation because the US violated international law and murdered him. We'll never know for sure. We can only say that with the UN calling the shots there was at least a chance. All good things begin with an opportunity.

I think I got muddled up on the threads, so was talking at cross purposes. Sorry about that.

 

[GLASNOST]

I think I got muddled up on the threads, so was talking at cross purposes. Sorry about that.

No,it's me. I realized it afterward but I'd already put so much effort into my reply that just left it be, hoping you'd be sympathetic and not tell me what an idiot I am. Sorry .......

 

[Drummond]

But back to an original premise; and supposition.

How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?

The UN had already got Saddam to destroy his weapons. Step One of the UN mission had thus been accomplished. Step Two was of equal importance, that being cooperating with Saddam over the (first) CIA inspection team, removing it, and replacing it with an international team eager to find out the truth. Perhaps for the first time Saddam could feel the UN was not entirely in Washington's back pocket and that it would move forward justly. We can only speculate on any further cooperation because the US violated international law and murdered him. We'll never know for sure. We can only say that with the UN calling the shots there was at least a chance. All good things begin with an opportunity.

How many times must I make this point ?

THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROOF AVAILABLE THAT SADDAM HAD DESTROYED HIS 'WEAPONS' (I.E WMDS). THE WHOLE POINT WAS TO EITHER GET THAT PROOF, OR TO SEE TO IT THAT SADDAM'S REGIME COULDN'T USE ANY.

Is this clear yet ????

Prevarication from Saddam prevented this from ever being established, one way or the other. Question .. if you've got nothing to hide, why not be straightforward and candid about the full truth ? Saddam was never any of that, he couldn't be trusted, so, action was rendered necessary.

Action was duly taken. It had to be.

 

[Mindful]

I think I got muddled up on the threads, so was talking at cross purposes. Sorry about that.

No,it's me. I realized it afterward but I'd already put so much effort into my reply that just left it be, hoping you'd be sympathetic and not tell me what an idiot I am. Sorry .......

I've been replying on here to stuff from another thread. lol

Don't know how that happened.