A new phase in the Iraq propoganda war

[AlfredJPruffock]

No but they certainly rewarded the members of the UN and a few others.

So maybe you could explain how exactly Saddam Hussein should have been dealt with. Or would you also argue that Neville Chamberlain had it right with Hitler in WW2?

The best suggestion that I recall as to how to deal with Saddam Hussien was the following suggestion sent from Tehran to the UN a month before the War.

1) To organise UN supervised democractic election in Iraq

2) If the Baathists had interfered or failed to hold the elections - this would result in UN Security Council endorsing a legitimate Security Council approved War

Given the above scenario Saddams options would have been to resign as the Sunnis were a minority group in Iraq - to tamper with the elections would have resulted in his removal of power by the UN millitary action.

However the US administration balked at the above concept given that the Shias would gain political dominance in Iraq - and that has been the flaw in their entire policy towards Iraq and explains why Saddam was not removed from power after the first Gulf War and why US and UK troops stood by whilst Iraqi troops massacered Shias in the South during their uprising of 1991.

[Mailman]

The best suggestion that I recall as to how to deal with Saddam Hussien was the following suggestion sent from Tehran to the UN a month before the War.

1) To organise UN supervised democractic election in Iraq

2) If the Baathists had interfered or failed to hold the elections - this would result in UN Security Council endorsing a legitimate Security Council approved War

And maybe you should be standing in front of a microphone waiving a white French made Spanish surrender tissue going on about peace for our time while you are at it

Considering the staggering size of the oil for food corruption scandal and the complete lack of ability for the UN to do anything other than to serve its own purposes you tell me...what chance was there that the UN could exercise its collective will to push through the above 2 resolutions in any security council meeting?

Ill give you a clue...its about the same chance as intelligent life being found in your brain

Mailman

[Mailman]

BTW Alfred, shouldnt you be out waving your French made Spanish surrender tissues at some pro-chavez love in?

Mailman

[Mailman]

Put me back on your ignore list!

Im afraid exposing you to my musings will raise your intelligence levels and then you will see what a numbnuts you are!

Mailman

[Mailman]

Not too big a jump, eh?

Huge leap, no where did he say it was illegal to invade Iraq.

You and all the other surrender monkey traitors are drawing more from it than is really there

Mailman

[Old Greg]

Huge leap, no where did he say it was illegal to invade Iraq.

You and all the other surrender monkey traitors are drawing more from it than is really there

Mailman

It's called an inference - if you think it's an incorrect inference, then tell us why. I take it surrender monkey is a term for anyone who disgrees with the latest war from Commander Cuckoo-Bananas?

[AlfredJPruffock]

And maybe you should be standing in front of a microphone waiving a white French made Spanish surrender tissue going on about peace for our time while you are at it

Considering the staggering size of the oil for food corruption scandal and the complete lack of ability for the UN to do anything other than to serve its own purposes you tell me...what chance was there that the UN could exercise its collective will to push through the above 2 resolutions in any security council meeting?

Ill give you a clue...its about the same chance as intelligent life being found in your brain

Mailman

Keep them coming Mailman - you are the best laugh of this board !

As for the UN lacking collective will - it didnt stop them booting Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991 - did it ?

And guess what Mailman - what country used their Security council veto to stop a UN resolution to halt Iraq's invasion of Iran back in 1980 - yep - you gottit !

And this country went on to sell Saddam loads of millitary goodies - chemical weapons too (aka WMD's)- but to be fair they sold them to Iran as well - thats only fair.

But God was - and is - on their side.

Thats what the President said - he launched the Iraq war - Because God told him to .

So it must be right .

Just kidding MM - just like you .

By the way Bush did say God told him to launch the War- maybe you didnt know that.

It was the US who torpedoed the Iranian suggestion as to how to end Saddam's regeime (least we forget he started his career as a CIA agent - just like Osama!) - of course you who had advocated the war all along still think it was a good thing - well that really speaks for itself.

But maybe you think making Iran the regional superpower is a good thing .

Because - like it or not - that's what has happened.

[Clippy]

Mailman is Donald Rumsfeld and makes about as much sense as him.

HTH.

[wendigo100]

Compared with Mailman, even Genghis Khan is a pinko liberal.

Psst! (whispers) Oh great green one, haven't you got any cunning plans specifically for thick-as-pig-shit antipodeans?

[Pondlife]

Psst! (whispers) Oh great green one, haven't you got any cunning plans specifically for thick-as-pig-shit antipodeans?

Who will serve the beer if he eats them all?