@Seun
What are "serious consequences"?

@Afam
So there are countless polls that show that Iraqis think the toppling of Sadddam is not worth it.?Please link me to one.The last time I asked ,u told me to ask CNN.For something that is inumerable,u seem to have a hard time linking me to one.Let me tell why u can't,because it does not exist.THERE IS NO SUCH POLL IN 2006.

As for the no-fly zones which u said were imposed after the Coalition onslaught in Gulf War 1 prompted Iraqi forces to start killing Shias-a killing u say is normal-it is strange that the Northern no-fly zone was imposed in April 1991,2 months after the end of the Gulf War and Coaltition bombings and the Southern no-fly zones imposed on the 27th of August 1992-more than a year after the end of the Gulf war.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/737483.stm
A simple check on Google would have put u in possesion of the facts,but like I noted earlier u don't like the facts getting in the way of your argument.

@Mochafella
Are u saying that the reason Bush invaded Iraq was to enrich Dick Cheneys former colleagues at Haliburton?That to me seems implausible, that he staked his political capital to enrich former colleagues of his vice-president.A lot has been made of the fact that Haliburton got a lot of exclusive contracts after the Iraq war but we coveniently forget that Haliburton has been given such exlusive contracts since the Korean War in the 50s long before Bush became President and Cheney CEO of Haliburton.Do u know who got exclusive contracts from the Clinton adminstration during the conflicts over Kosovo and Bosnia?-HALIBURTON.

@Easyy
Yes the present Coalition prescence was unanimously approved by the Security Council and was recently unanimously renewed at the request of Iraq-seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107_AP_UN_IraqPS-If anyone can find the source of Afam's  claim that there are inumerable polls of Iraqis which show that they say that the invasion was not worth it,please let me know

4 Play:

@Mochafella
Are u saying that the reason Bush invaded Iraq was to enrich Dick Cheneys former colleagues at Haliburton?That to me seems implausible, that he staked his political capital to enrich former colleagues of his vice-president.A lot has been made of the fact that Haliburton got a lot of exclusive contracts after the Iraq war but we coveniently forget that Haliburton has been given such exlusive contracts since the Korean War in the 50s long before Bush became President and Cheney CEO of Haliburton.Do u know who got exclusive contracts from the Clinton adminstration during the conflicts over Kosovo and Bosnia?-HALIBURTON.

That's fine, your opinion. Halliburton as a company in this scenario is not my concern. It might as well be Shell or Chevron. I'm more concerned about the un-metered oil being taken out of the country. How do you explain that?

My concern about Halliburton would be as a tax-payer in the US since the no-bid contract is with US money not Iraqi resources.

I did also mention political control over Iraq's resources or is that implausible as well?

4 Play:


@Easyy
Yes the present Coalition prescence was unanimously approved by the Security Council and was recently unanimously renewed at the request of Iraq-seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107_AP_UN_IraqPS-If anyone can find the source of Afam's  claim that there are inumerable polls of Iraqis which show that they say that the invasion was not worth it,please let me know 

We are really going round here. You keep bringing up fables which you have been brainwashed with. you also posted a weblink of something like your local newspaper (which seemed to have been re-directed).
Please read here where it explicitly states that the war started without a resolution on whether or not to attack Iraq; hence the war was percieved by many governments as ILLEGAL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_UN_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_war

The only mandate they got was to remain in Iraq after they started the war; naturally to stay there and finish what they started.

4 Play:

.

The present Coalition prescence in Iraq was unanimously approved by the Security Council and was unanimously extended this week at the request of Iraq

This is my quote from earlier on to which u responded

Easyy:



Unanimously approved? oh my God

now u say

"The only mandate they got was to stay in Iraq after they started the war;naturally to stay there and finish what they started"

Which is what I meant abinitio

Is it not the same elusive UN mandate that is ensuring that the genocide in Sudan continues? So will you accuse the U.S of illegality if inspite of no UN mandate they go into Sudan and stop the genocide?

Since no one has got the guts to do the right thing, they will all hide behind the lack of a UN mandate to excuse their irresponsible inaction in the face of apparent evil.

@mochafella
I have no knowledge of Iraqi oil been siphoned by America.Where this is done,it is by corrupt Iraqi Govt officials especially at the oil Ministry -much like what happens in Nigeria-and criminal elements including Iraqi insurgents.America has not made a dime out of Iraqi oil revenues.

The no-bid contracts have an element of "job for the boys" but I don't think that featured in US thinking as motivation.You can't say that they waged war simply to reward former colleagues of the vice-president or any other acquaintances.

Political control is certainly a more plausible factor.In this sense,a friendlier Govt in Iraq will open up the oil sector for for US energy coys and will be more amenable to US pressure in influencing OPEC meetings to supply more oill to reduce any oil price increases as Saudi Arabia presently does.Again this to me was not the primary reason for invasion

I feel it was down to the following factors;the desire to remove what was seen as a rogue regime who in the light 9-11 might collaborate with Islamists,the bebelf that Saddam had WMDs or at least intent to acquire them in the future,a desire to show American military prowess,a perception than a friendly democratic regime in the Middle East will help combat Islamic extremism,a desire to use National Security to help REpublicans defeat the Democrats as it was Bush's key strenghte.t.c

@Afam
www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

Is it not the same elusive UN mandate that is ensuring that the genocide in Sudan continues? So will you accuse the U.S of illegality if inspite of no UN mandate they go into Sudan and stop the genocide?

Since no one has got the guts to do the right thing, they will all hide behind the lack of a UN mandate to excuse their irresponsible inaction in the face of apparent evil.

I am sure that Bush would have gone into Sudan by now to checkmate the genocide if not that he is weary of the United Nothing Nations. The majority want to be politically correct never minding the many lives that have been destroyed by their inaction. What a world.

@Tayo D
It is amazing how many of these Bush critics don't seem to care about issues affecting Africa.I have never come across a topic dealing with the conflicts in Africa like in Sudan or the D.R.C Congo.All they seem to care about is how to attack the US and Bush,hence they become more Arab than the Arabs.

Because America is not in Sudan,they are not interested even though they are Africans.Am sure Arabs are not sitting down discussing conflicts in Africa.One insurgent leader said that part of the reason they hate American troops is the prescence of Black people in the American military

@4 Play

       
One insurgent leader said that part of the reason they hate American troops is the prescence of Black people in the American military     

Can you lead us to a web page that can support this claim?

4 Play:

This is my quote from earlier on to which u responded



now u say

"The only mandate they got was to stay in Iraq after they started the war;naturally to stay there and finish what they started"

Which is what I meant abinitio

Perhaps you should have said straight that there was no UN mandate for the Iraqi invasion by Bush's America, therefore, the invasion is illegal. The continued stay is necessary for them to sort out the mess they have created in the country hence the mandate granted by the UN for them to remain.

TayoD:

Is it not the same elusive UN mandate that is ensuring that the genocide in Sudan continues? So will you accuse the U.S of illegality if inspite of no UN mandate they go into Sudan and stop the genocide?

Since no one has got the guts to do the right thing, they will all hide behind the lack of a UN mandate to excuse their irresponsible inaction in the face of apparent evil.

Why did Bush not wait for the same mandate before going into Iraq? Why does he need the mandate to go into Sudan but felt he did not need it to go into Iraq?

4 Play:

@Tayo D
It is amazing how many of these Bush critics don't seem to care about issues affecting Africa.I have never come across a topic dealing with the conflicts in Africa like in Sudan or the D.R.C Congo.All they seem to care about is how to attack the US and Bush,hence they become more Arab than the Arabs.

Because America is not in Sudan,they are not interested even though they are Africans.Am sure Arabs are not sitting down discussing conflicts in Africa.One insurgent leader said that part of the reason they hate American troops is the prescence of Black people in the American military

It is amazing the lengths Bush apologists go to defend him.

This thread is about Bush's illegal action and masacre of Iraqis. We cant discuss every item on the same thread and there's no need to point out what someone else has done wrong when you're defending your own wrong doing.

4 Play:

@Tayo D

One insurgent leader said that part of the reason they hate American troops is the prescence of Black people in the American military

Dont make flase claims in your bid to defend Bush

@Easyy,

I am not responsible for the statement you have termed "false claim" that you have now asked me to defend.

This thread is about Bush's illegal action and masacre of Iraqis. We can't discuss every item on the same thread and there's no need to point out what someone else has done wrong when you're defending your own wrong doing.

Can you please show us and tell us how many car bombings and suicide attacks that Bush is sanctioning in Iraq? Bush is not responsible for the massacre. The Iraqis are!!! Trying to put the blame on Bush is totally unjustified when we realise that the kurds and the Christians in Iraq are not involved in the ethnic/religious cleansing going on in that Country. The two culprits are the Shia and the Sunnis whose enmity and universal hostility towards each other began during the life time of Mohammed.

So now that Bush is waiting for the UN to give the go-ahead to go into Sudan, would you say the thousands of lives that are being lost is worth the wait? I personally feel he should have gone into that country despite the lack of mandate. Each life saved will be worth whatever names you guys will call him.

TayoD:

@Easyy,

I am not responsible for the statement you have termed "false claim" that you have now asked me to defend.
Can you please show us and tell us how many car bombings and suicide attacks that Bush is sanctioning in Iraq? Bush is not responsible for the massacre. The Iraqis are!!! Trying to put the blame on Bush is totally unjustified when we realise that the kurds and the Christians in Iraq are not involved in the ethnic/religious cleansing going on in that Country. The two culprits are the Shia and the Sunnis whose enmity and universal hostility towards each other began during the life time of Muhammad.

So now that Bush is waiting for the UN to give the go-ahead to go into Sudan, would you say the thousands of lives that are being lost is worth the wait? I personally feel he should have gone into that country despite the lack of mandate. Each life saved will be worth whatever names you guys will call him.

You want to know how many car bombings Bush sanctioned?

You will first tell me who prepared the grounds for the car bombs.

@

Easyy:

It is amazing the lengths Bush apologists go to defend him.

This thread is about Bush's illegal action and masacre of Iraqis.

U talked about Bush's massacre of Iraqis as if he ordered their mass killings like Saddam.But see how u justify ur claim of Bush's massacres

Easyy:

You want to know how many car bombings Bush sanctioned?

You will first tell me who prepared the grounds for the car bombs.

Let's face it this is illogical.U can't make a sensational claim that Bush massacred Iraqis by saying that he prepared the ground for it.Even your friend Afam was prepared to admit that most Iraqis up until this year thought the war was worth it.Does that make most Iraqis guilty of the masacres?

You have not in this thread for once condemned the people who conduct he car bombs or other suicide bombs.U seem satisfied simply indulging in anti-americanism

4 Play:

@U talked about Bush's massacre of Iraqis as if he ordered their mass killings like Saddam.But see how u justify your claim of Bush's massacresLet's face it this is illogical.U can't make a sensational claim that Bush massacred Iraqis by saying that he prepared the ground for it.Even your friend Afam was prepared to admit that most Iraqis up until this year thought the war was worth it.Does that make most Iraqis guilty of the masacres?

You have not in this thread for once condemned the people who conduct he car bombs or other suicide bombs.U seem satisfied simply indulging in anti-americanism

What is the difference between the person who prepared the grounds for something to happen but does not say it should happen and someone who says 'let it happen'? Bush did not say 'let there be massacres and chaos' but he goes ahead and prepares the ground for chaos and massacre.

If you were an Iraqi, you'd say initially that the invasion was worth it in the belief that these foreigners only came to help remove a despot but as soon as the other intentions of the foreigners become clear, you start developing hatred for them. Why is there a desperate desire to attack those of the moslem faith?

AGAIN, this thread is not about suicide bombers or Iraqis but about the illegality of Bush's action. Why do I need to keep reminding you?

@Easyy
U talked about Bush's massacres of Iraqis.But u now say he merely prepared the grounds for it.Does that mean that Nelson Mandela is responsible for the massacres that happened in the early 90s South Africa because by helping toppling the aparthied regime,he prepared the grounds for it.

There is a difference btw claiming that someone did something reprehensible on one hand and claiming on the other that someone did something whcih led to something reprehensible happening.In a court of law the former will be guilty of the act while in the later he will only be guilty if it can be established that he intended that consequence

So the question is whether President Bush intended for Iraq to enter into sectarian conflict.The simple anwer is no. Nobody except those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome(the suspension of logic in pursuance of Bush hatred) will beleive that.

If people were responsible for the bad consequences that they merely prepared the grounds for, that will turn the world upside down.A mother who takes her son to a medical treatment will be responsible if the son dies as a result of the treatment going wrong irrespective of whether she intended it.

The people who are responsible for the violence in Iraq are the militia groups and jihadists who are actually perprating the violence

@4Play,

I feel you my brother. The Bush Derangement Syndrome is a chronic disease that has spread like wildfire all over the place. The symptoms include hypocrisy, outright lies, blindness to obvious facts etc. I only hope it is not an incurable disease though every symptom is pointing in that direction.

I'm not one of the people suffering from BDS

But. . .

So the question is whether President Bush intended for Iraq to enter into sectarian conflict.

That is not the question on this thread and its really not a question that anyone should care about. Bush isn't a child, he is a full grown adult, so has to claim responsibility for his actions. What was he thinking (if he was thinking at all, or just wanting to show might)?

TayoD:

@4Play,

I feel you my brother. The Bush Derangement Syndrome is a chronic disease that has spread like wildfire all over the place. The symptoms include hypocrisy, outright lies, blindness to obvious facts etc. I only hope it is not an incurable disease though every symptom is pointing in that direction.

Bush apologists may be in a worse condition. I hope they have people to defend them when it's their turn to be savaged by the savage.

Those who keep quiet in the face of evil will have no defenders in their time of tribulation.

It's all too easy to slaughter muslims now if you are not one.

Pray you have some supporters when it's your turn to be persecuted because of your difference, especially when you are picked upon for being different to the white ruling class.

4 Play:

@Easyy
U talked about Bush's massacres of Iraqis.But u now say he merely prepared the grounds for it.Does that mean that Nelson Mandela is responsible for the massacres that happened in the early 90s South Africa because by helping toppling the aparthied regime,he prepared the grounds for it.

There is a difference between claiming that someone did something reprehensible on one hand and claiming on the other that someone did something whcih led to something reprehensible happening.In a court of law the former will be guilty of the act while in the later he will only be guilty if it can be established that he intended that consequence

So the question is whether President Bush intended for Iraq to enter into sectarian conflict.The simple anwer is no. Nobody except those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome(the suspension of logic in pursuance of Bush hatred) will beleive that.

If people were responsible for the bad consequences that they merely prepared the grounds for, that will turn the world upside down.A mother who takes her son to a medical treatment will be responsible if the son dies as a result of the treatment going wrong irrespective of whether she intended it.

The people who are responsible for the violence in Iraq are the militia groups and jihadists who are actually perprating the violence

You mean he did not expect a sectarian conflict?

Oh okay so he thought he'll just go there and he can do as he pleases because he thinks he's God. If he prepared the grounds for massacre, he is responsible for the massacre!!!

Easyy:

You mean he did not expect a sectarian conflict?

Oh okay so he thought he'll just go there and he can do as he pleases because he thinks he's God. If he prepared the grounds for massacre, he is responsible for the massacre!!!

want to know what i think? you keep repeating the same arguments over and over even when you know there's no logic to it. for God's sake, the iraq war has thrown up unforseen consequences such as this sectarian conflict, and event the fiercest opponents of the invasion didnt even conceive of such a scenario playing out.
as to your idea of 'preparing the grounds', making everyone responsible for tragic outcomes of decisions they make is an illogical path to follow. therefore we all should hold vehicle manufacturers responsible for any road accidents (if not for vehicles, there wouldnt be road accidents). if your brother is killed in millitant action in warri, blame the federal government and the oil companies, if you get robbed, blame the government for not creating jobs for the robbers etc.
the iraqi people had a chance to make post-war iraq a truly great country, after being freed from the yooke of a tyrannical dictator but they failed to do so. after all, they had a great opportunity. it's so easy to label saddam a 'dictator' without fully appreciating the extent of his tyranny. think abacha was a dictator? please read reports of what dictators like stalin and saddam did in power.

but the iraqis didnt take the chance given to them. instead of forging a bold new world, they decided to get even, settle ancient rivalries first. immediately after saddam was toppled iraq was relatively peaceful. what soured this? the iraqis themselves!
.

Easyy:

It's all too easy to slaughter muslims now if you are not one.

Pray you have some supporters when it's your turn to be persecuted because of your difference, especially when you are picked upon for being different to the white ruling class.

your attempts to bring race and religion into this is extremely unfortunate and does you a great disservice. the iraqis are killing them selves, yet they are fellow muslims and arabs. the americans aren't doing the killing. since the americans aren't doing the killings, your point is moot. it is at this point that i lose all respect for you as an intellectual of any kind. as i said, highly regrettable

Easyy:

Bush apologists may be in a worse condition. I hope they have people to defend them when it's their turn to be savaged by the savage.

were your point to be true, maybe we would be in trouble. but considering the fact that every man and his dog knows that Bush's administration is winding down, the man himself is focusing more on damage control than future millitary adventures and that more moderate Democrats will most likely secure the white house for the next couple of years, i think 'Bush apologists' have nothing to fear from the 'savage'.

Easyy:

Those who keep quiet in the face of evil will have no defenders in their time of tribulation.

Nice! Now since you haven't spoken out about the rapes and killings in darfur (which is the greatest evil happening in africa currently), the sack of a legally constituted government in somalia, the wars and the blood diamonds in sierra leone and the repression in zimbabwe shouldn't that line apply to you? should you expect defenders in YOUR time of tribulation? Or does the word 'evil' only have gravity when the US is involved?

Easyy:

You mean he did not expect a sectarian conflict?

Oh okay so he thought he'll just go there and he can do as he pleases because he thinks he's God. If he prepared the grounds for massacre, he is responsible for the massacre!!!

'because he thinks he's God?'? Your responses are becoming wild and you're flailing around trying to desperately sustain an invalid point. calm down and address issues logically.

I maintain over and over again that we should, as intellectuals, be able to discuss things here with maturity, try not to form a 'Me againt THEM' mentality and always be willing to learn something new.

@Afam

it's been long. i even thought you'd joined the exodus of people who have departed nairaland until i saw your post on theh PHP thread. glad to see you're still around!

@Texazzpete,

I dey jare. Exodus ke? I try to contribute on issues that catch my fancy and once I log off that's the end.

@4Play,

Sincerely, joining issues with you is a waste of time. I cannot send you any link because I hae stated erer that I see these polls n TV and I do not record tem on my machine to replay later or to point you to it.

You have been consistently wrong in the obvious lie that the UN mandated the US to illegally invade Iraq based on fabricated lies.

Well, thank God for the Americans that made a point with the results of the last mid term election, otherwise many here would have had us believe that tew majority of Americans are solidly behind Bush.

Even the leaked memo of Rumsfeld tends to support the position of the so called critics of the Bush administration and suggested that the US even dish out money to powerful Iraqi religious leaders like Saddam did, maybe Saddam knew how to mainatain law and order in Iraq more than the clueless Bush.

So, 4Play, stop jumping from one wrong statement to another and depending on google too much for information may have its disadvantages. Use search engines intelligently or you may end up being confused.

Afam:

@Texazzpete,

I dey jare. Exodus ke? I try to contribute on issues that catch my fancy and once I log off that's the end.

sadly, such topics have become few and far between. most of the topics seen here now are of the 'Should i marry my boyfriend?' or 'Regina Askia is dating Genevieve' or 'What if your friend is gay' variety. at this rate, i despair of ever reaching 1000 posts

despite all these sha, nairaland still remains an interesting place to visit occasionally.

@Afam
So u see  these polls on TV.it is kind of strange that only u see them.

your claim that the no-fly zones were not imposed as a result of post Gulf War massacres was blatantly false.Perhaps u saw that on TV all by yourself.

Whether the Iraq war is legal or not is a matter of opinion not fact.I can't say the same about your polls and and no-fly zones which only u know about

4 Play:

@Afam

your claim that the no-fly zones were not imposed as a result of post Gulf War massacres was blatantly false.Perhaps u saw that on TV all by yourself.

What do you expect when you argue with a confused human being?

It is ridiculous that Afam explained the reason for the impositin of the no fly zones after the first gulf war (operation desert storm) and yet you have a confused person turning arund after search google to state that I do not agree that the no fly znes were imposed after operation desert storm even when the specific time was stated by Afam.

4 Play, contribution no be by force, if you don't understand something, take time to learn about it and stop jumping from one wrong statement to another.

You are certainy on your own with your very wrong statement as quoted above.

@Afam
I am trying to lead u from the wilderness of confusion u have found urself in.U seem so lost that u now refer to urself in the 3rd person,perhaps a futile attempt to disassociate urself from ur past display of sheer disregard for facts and logic.

After refering to my claim that no-fly zones were imposed in the 90s as a result of Saddam massacres as "erroneous information", u now purport to agree with me.Good for u.

4Play,

I will not engage in an endless debate over well documented events.

The issue of no fly zone came after the 1st gulf war, after the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and the subsequent coalition of the willing that had the support of a lot of nations.

You may need to check your information and what you are referencing before talking about erronous information.

The problem with Kurds in the North and Shiites in the South as regards Sunnis started long since or even before Saddam became head of state.

The US never condemned any of the major atrocities commited by Saddam for the reasons earlier stated.

It might even interest you to know that a serving member of the Iraq government today stated that he was able to get to Washington to draw the attention of the crimes being commited by Saddam to those at the White house then and he was politely told that the US was not willing to jeopardise the good relationship they enjoyed with Saddam.

My last word on the issue of Saddam's crimes and the criminal silence that greeted them by the US when the going was good.

I have reproduced my response to your confused mindset about imposing no fly zones in the northern and southern part of Iraq. Shiite do not exist in the northern part of Iraq, the Kurds do, you may take time to learn why the no fly zones were imposed on the north and on the south.

Certainly one cannot split yur skull open to make you assimilate simple issues that are well documented. The only sad part of your incoherent and sometimes outrageus lies is that it may make one see the forum as a place for beer parlour discussions.

Representing myself in the 3rd person is my business and even though you may never understand why, it still has nothing to do with your ridiculous lies here. The correctness or otherwise of a foreign/borrowed language is not as serious as outright lies being manufactured and spread without shame.

Enjoy and continue in your folly and confused statements.

@Afam
May I plz know then what precisely was ur objection to my earlier post that the US and Britain helped impose a no-fly zone in response to the slaughter of Shia and Kurds post Gulf War 1