• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Another shooting in Murica

scaramanga said:
I'm fairly sure we reduced a fudgetonne (official measure) of deaths too. Wouldn't have been much left of Kuwait by now of we hadn't.

The reasoning was flimflam, the action was sound.
Click to expand...

You are confusing the first and second gulf wars.

The second had fudged up reasoning and even more fudged up results.
 
DTA said:
You are confusing the first and second gulf wars.

The second had fudged up reasoning and even more fudged up results.
Click to expand...
You're right. Same attitude from them over a different subject though.

1st time they were repeatedly told to withdraw troops and didn't. When US troops pushed up to the border they did. That cannot go on indefinitely and eventually had to end in war.

2nd time weapons inspectors were repeatedly blocked and delayed, leaving time to move weapons and clear up sites. Same pattern of events - only changing when absolutely forced to. Sending in troops was inevitable.
 
scaramanga said:
You're right. Same attitude from them over a different subject though.

1st time they were repeatedly told to withdraw troops and didn't. When US troops pushed up to the border they did. That cannot go on indefinitely and eventually had to end in war.

2nd time weapons inspectors were repeatedly blocked and delayed, leaving time to move weapons and clear up sites. Same pattern of events - only changing when absolutely forced to. Sending in troops was inevitable.
Click to expand...

From memory, the Iraqis were not significantly delaying any inspections. The complaint was that they were not telling the west (US and their poodle Blair) where the Wmds were... their response to this was there was not any... which proved to be true.

Sadam was a C unt. What he done to the iraqi Kurds was enough to have him killed.. and that should have been the time to do it. but the second Gulf war was a travesty that eventually lead to the mess we have today and will have for a long time in the future.
 
scaramanga said:
I'm fairly sure we reduced a fudgetonne (official measure) of deaths too. Wouldn't have been much left of Kuwait by now of we hadn't.

The reasoning was flimflam, the action was sound.
Click to expand...

Two different Iraq wars. Yes, we've used them twice. Along with others in the Middle East.
 
scaramanga said:
You're right. Same attitude from them over a different subject though.

1st time they were repeatedly told to withdraw troops and didn't. When US troops pushed up to the border they did. That cannot go on indefinitely and eventually had to end in war.

2nd time weapons inspectors were repeatedly blocked and delayed, leaving time to move weapons and clear up sites. Same pattern of events - only changing when absolutely forced to. Sending in troops was inevitable.
Click to expand...

You raised the first Iraq war because you got confused. I am not about to defend Iraq invading Kuwait, although it does all boil down to billions borrowed fighting the Iran-Iraq war. Still, no excuses.

The second time? No they weren't, gonads, the inspectors were given access and told there were no WMDs. Because there weren't.Despite the likes of Scott Ritter saying it as it was at the time, it took over a decade before the likes of BLIAR would concede that there was no evidence of WMDs and thus it was a sham. Look, if you want to to get into modern Middle Eastern history, I'm here all day.

Needless to say, it was not MY fudging fault that tens of thousands died in Iraq because some rich and powerful people with a fat neocon agenda decided to invent a reason to line their pockets for generations.
 
DTA said:
From memory, the Iraqis were not significantly delaying any inspections. The complaint was that they were not telling the west (US and their poodle Blair) where the Wmds were... their response to this was there was not any... which proved to be true.

Sadam was a C unt. What he done to the iraqi Kurds was enough to have him killed.. and that should have been the time to do it. but the second Gulf war was a travesty that eventually lead to the mess we have today and will have for a long time in the future.
Click to expand...

This. Of course he was the west's c unt for a while, our pet c unt. Then we ditched him. But agreed.
 
DTA said:
From memory, the Iraqis were not significantly delaying any inspections. The complaint was that they were not telling the west (US and their poodle Blair) where the Wmds were... their response to this was there was not any... which proved to be true.

Sadam was a C unt. What he done to the iraqi Kurds was enough to have him killed.. and that should have been the time to do it. but the second Gulf war was a travesty that eventually lead to the mess we have today and will have for a long time in the future.
Click to expand...
I distinctly remember a lot of delays. The message from the inspectors was that they hadn't found anything but we're being delayed long enough that sites could have been cleared out.
 
thfcsteff said:
You raised the first Iraq war because you got confused. I am not about to defend Iraq invading Kuwait, although it does all boil down to billions borrowed fighting the Iran-Iraq war. Still, no excuses.

The second time? No they weren't, gonad*s, the inspectors were given access and told there were no WMDs. Because there weren't.Despite the likes of Scott Ritter saying it as it was at the time, it took over a decade before the likes of BLIAR would concede that there was no evidence of WMDs and thus it was a sham. Look, if you want to to get into modern Middle Eastern history, I'm here all day.

Needless to say, it was not MY fudging fault that tens of thousands died in Iraq because some rich and powerful people with a fat neocon agenda decided to invent a reason to line their pockets for generations.
Click to expand...
The inspectors weren't only there for WMDs. There were also restrictions on propulsion tech, launch sites, various banned forms of arms etc.

I don't believe there were any WMDs (as the term has come to mean here - nerve agents, nuclear, etc). I do believe that Iraq were still developing banned weapons as per 1441:
https://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/do...FjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2P6SuY9LxJvacBRyyeRtE7

The WMD stuff was flimflam, we all know that. I don't know why Blair thought there was a need to spin that the way he did.

But let's not pretend Iraq was being compliant, because it wasn't. It was continually frustrating the efforts of weapons inspectors at every opportunity.
 
thfcsteff said:
How would you go about making sure that every week, a crowd of 60,000 are all NOT going to spout anything offensive or racist?
Click to expand...
You do what all clubs do. If you fail you get banned or the fans do.

The rioters are not behaving, they are inconveniencing proper people, therefore the protesters should no longer have the right to protest.
 
scaramanga said:
You do what all clubs do. If you fail you get banned or the fans do.

The rioters are not behaving, they are inconveniencing proper people, therefore the protesters should no longer have the right to protest.
Click to expand...

I could not disagree more. Your reasoning equates to that of dictators and autocrats.

With regards to Iraq, if you'd like we can spend more time picking apart your feeble "reasoning" behind the events which occurred.
 
thfcsteff said:
I could not disagree more. Your reasoning equates to that of dictators and autocrats.

With regards to Iraq, if you'd like we can spend more time picking apart your feeble "reasoning" behind the events which occurred.
Click to expand...
If you're able to show that Iraq was compliant with inspections (something the UN disagrees with) then please do.
 
scaramanga said:
The inspectors weren't only there for WMDs. There were also restrictions on propulsion tech, launch sites, various banned forms of arms etc.

I don't believe there were any WMDs (as the term has come to mean here - nerve agents, nuclear, etc). I do believe that Iraq were still developing banned weapons as per 1441:
https://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/do...FjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw2P6SuY9LxJvacBRyyeRtE7

The WMD stuff was flimflam, we all know that. I don't know why Blair thought there was a need to spin that the way he did.

But let's not pretend Iraq was being compliant, because it wasn't. It was continually frustrating the efforts of weapons inspectors at every opportunity.
Click to expand...


Approx 900 inspections occurred at what, 350-400 sites? Nothing found. The fact that they were not as polite as we wanted when it came to arms is neither here or there. Inspections were allowed, things were not found, information was squeezed. Try not to rewrite too much here...
 
scaramanga said:
If you're able to show that Iraq was compliant with inspections (something the UN disagrees with) then please do.
Click to expand...

See the post above.

Of more interest to me is to ask whether you are now going to try and justify the Iraq War? Can we add that to your "any aggro = no protest" and "if a protest inconveniences my elevenses then ban it" stances?
 
thfcsteff said:
Approx 900 inspections occurred at what, 350-400 sites? Nothing found. The fact that they were not as polite as we wanted when it came to arms is neither here or there. Inspections were allowed, things were not found, information was squeezed. Try not to rewrite too much here...
Click to expand...
From 1441 as linked above - it's on the first page, you don't have to work all that hard to find it....

UN said:
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM......
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
thfcsteff said:
See the post above.

Of more interest to me is to ask whether you are now going to try and justify the Iraq War? Can we add that to your "any aggro = no protest" and "if a protest inconveniences my elevenses then ban it" stances?
Click to expand...
Going to now justify? I have always said it was just. The reasoning given to the public was flimflam but that's Blair and his spin team for you.

And yes, no protest should be allowed to inconvenience me. They should especially be banned from London - the traffic they cause is horrendous.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
Going to now justify? I have always said it was just. The reasoning given to the public was flimflam but that's Blair and his spin team for you.

And yes, no protest should be allowed to inconvenience me. They should especially be banned from London - the traffic they cause is horrendous.
Click to expand...
:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back