You seem to be missing the point of this thread, that it's not about supporting or disagreeing with the government of the day, or their policy, but to show some support, or at the very least, some respect for the men and women of the armed forces.
The armed forces.
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
You seem to be missing the point of this thread, that it's not about supporting or disagreeing with the government of the day, or their policy, but to show some support, or at the very least, some respect for the men and women of the armed forces.
you're a complete muppet tbh...
the soldiers are there under a UN mandate and at the request of a democratically elected Iraqi govt
they are not 'occupying' the country nor does anyone have a right to kill them - go and read a newspaper or two before you make such a completely retarded comment on something you clearly know absolutely nothing about
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F4B9AA07-FA1E-4F65-BB25-8813B65325D2.htm
They actually want the British back. The Iraqis in Basra are very unhappy about the lack of security since the departure of British Forces. This only shows what a sterling job our forces did.
They actually want the British back. The Iraqis in Basra are very unhappy about the lack of security since the departure of British Forces. This only shows what a sterling job our forces did.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,498
i doubt a government which wasnt pro-US would be allowed to be "democratically elected".
Last edited:
lol The UN think otherwise
If the US pulls out now it'll go revert back to civil war- and most likely go back to a dictictorshop, so having the current occupation forces is the lesser of two evils. Could have been avoided altogether though by not invading the the first place.
Until the US clears out of Iraq, any elected goverment and there agenda has to be scrutinized.
Sorry but you're wrong. The war was illegal from the outset. Until every single soldier clears out of Iraq, it's being occupied. I'm still waiting for US troops to clear out of Cuba..
Wrong again, I believe under the charter of war, foreign solders occupying a country are a valid target. Any Iraqi attacking US/UK troops should not be seen as "terrorists" As stated by another politican in the limelight. Any pro occupation statements from the "iraqi goverment" has to be taken with a grain of salt.
I believe this was the desirted outcome of the GWB administration...to divide Iraq, cause havoc from the beginning. Thus a reason for continued presence. If you think that's a "conspiricy theory" then you're even more naive...
Hoax. This story originated in the USA during 2003. The fact that it's now being touted as a UK story in 2008 (and still without any references or evidence after 5 years) proves that it's false.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/lapelpin.asp
I doubt you'll find much agreement with your point of view here but hopefully that last post will put an end to the cheap shots (aimed at you) about naivety and limited intellectual ability.
erm no they don't - try reading a newspaper once in a while it will save you from looking completely clueless - there are clear security council resolutions for the current presence of coalition forces in iraq
http://www.usip.org/library/pa/iraq/adddoc/iraq_unsc1546.html
complete balls do you know anything about the major parties in power over there?
the coalition forces stayed well out of the way of the Iraqi elections.
not it isn't being occupied - see previous link from the UN itself i'll even quote it for you:
as for the invasion being 'illegal' it was certainly dubious but no court has as of yet ruled it illegal - so again you're not correct to call it 'illegal'
again you're sounding clueless please explain - what is the 'charter of war'? some BS you've just made up I presume??
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 273
The problem the soldiers are facing are the idiots that plague current day society. I've been out in the past and met up with a soldier who was in uniform, and I watched the guy become a target for people out looking for a fight. The uniform was like an 'I'm tougher than you' badge, and these people took that as a challenge. Obviously they were also all drunk and staggering out of a nightclub.
The soldiers do a great job, they deserve respect, but the typical hoodie looking for a fight doesn't even understand the meaning of the word.
The soldiers do a great job, they deserve respect, but the typical hoodie looking for a fight doesn't even understand the meaning of the word.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,498
the US + other coalition forces invaded a sovereign nation with an internationally recognised legit government without security council permission (afaik the UN resolution which is keeping them there "legally" was made after the invasion). thats illegal.
also its a pre-emptive war due to the fact the last time iraq attacked another nation was in 1991 (Kuwait), and if you go back even further , saddam was sponsored by the west in the iraq-iran war, and even further back, the US got him into power!
Last edited:
Which is post war. Which is meaningless.
General rules of engagement which every solder must follow. Even if it conflicts with his orders...I believe they were created after WW II.
Probably because the US blocks any court to judge the US administration...no court would class GWB as a war criminal.
Last edited:
its a security council resolution, it isn't meaningless and it legitimises the presence of coalition troops in that country
the only thing that is meaningless is you're previous statement that Iraqis would be in any way justified in killing coalition troops - which they aren't as firstly there is no longer a 'war' and secondly there is a legal basis fro there presence.
try sticking to facts rather than beliefs
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
If people aren't happy with this country they can run for there local council/parliament.
Alternatively, they can aire there views at the poles by voting for the Liberals.
Failing the Liberals getting into Number 10, I suggest any muslim or haters in generals to move back to where they came from or simply immigrate if they were born here.
I only highlight muslims as the story which this thread is based on is about some muslims in Peterborough getting offended. Well I'm sorry if you dont like it leave! or stand for election, and or vote at the poles!
Our Armed Forces do a remarkable job and should be supported. We as a nation should be proud to see them grace our streets.
This is why multicultralism should never have been allowed.
I don't wish to offend anyone but that's how I feel.
Alternatively, they can aire there views at the poles by voting for the Liberals.
Failing the Liberals getting into Number 10, I suggest any muslim or haters in generals to move back to where they came from or simply immigrate if they were born here.
I only highlight muslims as the story which this thread is based on is about some muslims in Peterborough getting offended. Well I'm sorry if you dont like it leave! or stand for election, and or vote at the poles!
Our Armed Forces do a remarkable job and should be supported. We as a nation should be proud to see them grace our streets.
This is why multicultralism should never have been allowed.
I don't wish to offend anyone but that's how I feel.
And you know for sure there isn't a ruling that every soldier must abide to? I hope someone will post some evidence, as I'm not sure of the exact details. But I do know there is something laid out...for example the rules of surrender...you don't gun them down once they surrender. Same for not killing unarmed civvies.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
Your not supposed to but soldiers have done in the past and no doubt do so in other parts of the world currently.
jeez u not seen private ryan?
the security council resolution created after the invasion was perfectly legal
the Iraqi govt headed by Saddam - despite being 'recognized' can hardly be labeled 'legit'
the invasion, as yet, as not been found to be illegal - Iraq was invaded on ambiguous grounds using previous UN resolutions that may or may not (depending on whether you agree with the UK/US or the Russian/Chinese/French Pov's constitute grounds for an invasion) The phrase 'serious consequences' is the part in question.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
I live local to that story, it was a few muslims in the press
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,498
the resolution made AFTER the invasion was legal but invading WITHOUT the resoltuion was illegal.
how where they not "legit"? some other middle eastern countries/some african countries have governments way worse than saddam. saddam was a murderous dictator but iraq was more stable under him than it is now, AND the the US got him into power!
it wont be "found as illegal" because the authorities which would decide that arent stupid enough to charge the US president or the UK ex-pm.