Time for British soldiers to leave iraq?

lucernarian

Originally posted by brendan

Quote:
Originally Posted by To_be_confirmed

The coalition soldiers in Iraq, who are the bottom in the chain of command, do not seek to kill and maim every Iraqi they see, as opposed to the apparent objectives of most insurgents,


There are anywhere from 70-90 insurgent attacks everyday in Iraq, about 4 or 5 of them result in civilian deaths one or two at most per day which actively target civilians, usually Shias done by Zarqawi's mob so to say that most insurgents target civilians is false and a clear case of believing what the Bush/Blair meadia tell you to believe.

You misleading little liar. You cut my quote short. There is a clause (in the grammatical sense) after that comma you cut.

Originally posted by Menmoch,

wrong, it is your allegation that ALL insurgents or even a VAST majority are part of this holy war, it is up to you to prove this allegation or withdraw it.

I was the person who asked the question first, not you. The ball is in your court. All credible sources of information that I have access to see this as a war involving religion and unless I am as ignorant as you probably believe I am then we must come to the conclusion that my sources of information are pretty accurate.

It doesn't matter what the bottom of the chain of the command seek, at the end of the day the dropped the bombs and fired the guns and have killed countless iraqis in a war of agression. Being at the bottom of the chain is no excuse as I've said before.
Also your claims of what the "apparent objectives" of "most insurgents" are completely ludicrous and full of hot air. How do you know what "most insurgents" want? Where is the evidence to support your so called claims?

Could you explain to me what a "so-called claim" is? I thought it was a case of either a claim was made or not. If you look at my last post there should be no ambiguity over this. Even if the point you make is true, what proof do you have that the intentions of the top of the chain of command is to indiscriminantly kill men, women and children?

there is no distortion of reality here. They invaded another country in a war of agression and killed countless number of it's inhabitants, OFF COURSE they are fair game. They started the war and invaded the country, if they die they only have themselves to blame. Following orders is NOT an excuse.

Life is a right. Who are you to claim that the lives of some individuals are forefit? Whether they slaughtered hundreds of thousands in ethnic warfare or gave their possessions to charity doesn't make a ****ing difference. Please don't lecture people about what is right and wrong when you dont have a ****ing clue about what is really moral and what is not.

how do u know it was the insurgents that bombed the school? maybe it was an american black ops mission? where is the proof. But even leaving that aside the indisputable fact remains that the americans are on iraqi soil, not vice versa. The iraqi's have a right to defend themselves against this invasion. So yes the iraqi's ARE acting under different circumstances. They are invaded and occupied, not the ones plundering another country.

The right to defend yourself against an invador does not mean you have the right to kill them. Your point is irrational and nonsensical. Mahatma Gandhi did not encourage the deaths of British soldiers.

breandan

To_be_confirmed wrote:

You misleading little liar. You cut my quote short. There is a clause (in the grammatical sense) after that comma you cut.

Agreed, I did cut your quote to suit my purposes and I appologise for that it was wrong but by trying to equate the fact that American forces are not systamatically trying to target all Iraqi's and using this to in some way claim that the objectives and tactics of the insurgents are in some way more underhand and barbaric in attacking and trying to kill all coalition soldiers.
Who if you believe the press are the best trained and best armed forces in the world and are occupying the lands from which the insurgents draw their support against the wishes of the local population (the vast majority of Sunni's dont want the coalition forces there) you yourself are being deliberately misleading in trying to justify your views.

Your quote in full..............

The coalition soldiers in Iraq, who are the bottom in the chain of command, do not seek to kill and maim every Iraqi they see, as opposed to the apparent objectives of most insurgents, who would view the maiming and deaths of all coalition troops in Iraq as a victory.

To_be_confirmed

To_be_confirmed wrote:

You misleading little liar. You cut my quote short. There is a clause (in the grammatical sense) after that comma you cut.

Obligatory weeks holiday from the forum for that.

ISAW

the_syco wrote:

If the US pull out now, the insurgents will take over the country again,

what do you mean by "again". when was the last time fundamentalist muslims took over Iraq?

ISAW

To_be_confirmed wrote:

You have given me no reason that I can understand for believing that they are not terrorists so I must apologise as I do not see the obvious.

This is specious reasoning. Using this you could suggest that the US were given no reason to believe that WMD were NOT in Iraq and that therefore that gave them a reason to invade because they believed WMD were there.

It is for the person making the positive claim i.e. that there are terrorists or that there are WMD to provide the evidence. It is NOT for the people who disagree to prove the negative i.e. to prove someone is NOT a terrorist or prove WMD are NOT there.

Ever heard the term "assumed innovent until PROVEN guilty"?
Ever heard of Dreyfuss or the Guildford 4 or Birmingham 6 or annie Mc Guire?

Hobbes

lili wrote:

making a deal with saddam for oil?
no, i think that saddam became a way to much embarassing for a so called democratical country.
it was more the way of the frenchies which were already installed there.

You do know that the US was the biggest customer of Saddam during the sactions and was even getting Oil from the oil-for-food program up until they attacked Iraq (and ramped it up before the attack).

Funny how everyone forgets that.

Rock Climber

breandan wrote:

(the vast majority of Sunni's dont want the coalition forces there)

That may well be, but the vast majority of Iraqis as represented by a big turn out of voters dont agree with those insurgents either.
The government elected by all those people have been actively opposing the insurgents.
Mind you they are now talking to them which I suppose is a good step.
It's a pity the insurgents up to now have prefered bombing an shooting instead of talking.

Same kind of lunatics I suppose are to be found no matter where in the world you are

And make no mistake about it, a bomber whos aims are clearly not in line with the democratically elected government of the country he's trying to change is a terrorist.
One can try to colour it up any way one likes but thats a fact.

Rock Climber

Rock Climber wrote:

Mind you they are now talking to them which I suppose is a good step.

What a nice positive note to end this discussion on