Use our English forums to learn English. The message boards are great for English questions and English answers. The more you contribute, the more all members can practice English!

War on Iraq ..........(God bless america .....!!!!!!!!!)

1 2 3 ... 9 1 through 10 of 90 Next >

08:43 AM Mar 21 2008 | Reply

redwana

Egypt

Although the war on IRAQ is not legal ,and nowadays voices from USA itself raise to support the American withdrawal from IRAQ .., still some peoples prejudice against the right of Iraqis to live freely in their land..and that prejudicing raises some questions …

w hat is the definition of the ''human rights'' in American's culture (is it mean the rights of Americans and westerns only as it is clear from the illegal invasion on IRAQ…

did USA achieve its goals and purify the region from the terrorism …and did Americans agree with that war…..and what about Americans victims ….is IRAQ war like VITNAM war?

i hope some one answer these questions adjectivally…and justify his/her answer…

but before we discuss i invite u to read some opinions …...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080320/wl_mideast_afp/iraqwar5yearsunnuclearblix

x-chief weapons inspector slams Iraq war as 'tragedy'

<!~~- BEGIN STORY BODY -~~>

<!~~- end storyhdr -~~>

LONDON (AFP) – Hans Blix, the former chief UN weapons inspector, slammed the Iraq war as a "tragedy" and blamed it on leaders ignoring the facts, in a comment piece published Thursday.

Writing in The Guardian on the five-year anniversary of the US-led Iraq, for the US, for the UN, for truth and human dignity."

In the sub-headline to the comment piece, Blix, who headed the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, wrote that responsibility for the war "must lie with those who ignored the facts five years ago".

At the time of the Iraq war, Blix accused the US and Britain of exaggerating the threat from Iraqi dictator weapons of mass destruction" - traces of which have never been found.

In his comment piece, he said the war was a "setback in the world's efforts to develop legal restraints on the use of armed force between states" and added that in 2003, "Iraq was not a real or imminent threat to anybody."

Blix wrote that had coalition troops not deposed Saddam, "he would, in all likelihood, have become another Kadhafi or Castro; an oppressor of his own people but no longer a threat to the world."

He said that one positive sign to emerge from the conflict was that "it may be that the spectacular failure of ensuring disarmament by force, and of introducing democracy by occupation, will work in favour of a greater use of diplomacy and 'soft power'."

<!~~- end storybody -~~> <!~~- END STORY BODY -~~> <!~~- BEGIN SIDEBAR -~~>Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, seen here in 2007, slammed the…

08:54 AM Mar 21 2008 \| Reply
redwana Egypt	nad you can see the whole statement in this link.. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/20/iraq.usa believe me it was a fake …a trick …a lie…. The elimination of weapons of mass destruction was the declared main aim of the war. It is improbable that the governments of the alliance could have sold the war to their parliaments on any other grounds. That they believed in the weapons' existence in the autumn of 2002 is understandable. Why had the Iraqis stopped UN inspectors during the 90s if they had nothing to hide? Responsibility for the war must rest, though, on what those launching it knew by March 2003. and some peoples say it will bring democracy to Iraq… give me the evidence… They could not succeed in eliminating WMDs because they did not exist. Nor could they succeed in the declared aim to eliminate al-Qaida operators, because they were not in Iraq. They came later, attracted by the occupants. A third declared aim was to bring democracy to Iraq, hopefully becoming an example for the region. Let us hope for the future; but five years of occupation has clearly brought more anarchy than democracy. what is the benefit …. In 2003, Iraq was not a real or imminent threat to anybody. Instead, the invasion reflects a claim made in the 2002 US national security strategy that the charter was too restrictive, and that the US was ready to use armed force to meet threats that were uncertain as to time and place – a doctrine of preventive war. read it and tell me your opinions….

08:54 AM Mar 21 2008 | Reply

redwana

Egypt

nad you can see the whole statement in this link..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/20/iraq.usa

believe me it was a fake …a trick …a lie….

The elimination of weapons of mass destruction was the declared main aim of the war. It is improbable that the governments of the alliance could have sold the war to their parliaments on any other grounds. That they believed in the weapons' existence in the autumn of 2002 is understandable. Why had the Iraqis stopped UN inspectors during the 90s if they had nothing to hide? Responsibility for the war must rest, though, on what those launching it knew by March 2003.

and some peoples say it will bring democracy to Iraq… give me the evidence…

They could not succeed in eliminating WMDs because they did not exist. Nor could they succeed in the declared aim to eliminate al-Qaida operators, because they were not in Iraq. They came later, attracted by the occupants. A third declared aim was to bring democracy to Iraq, hopefully becoming an example for the region. Let us hope for the future; but five years of occupation has clearly brought more anarchy than democracy.

what is the benefit ….

In 2003, Iraq was not a real or imminent threat to anybody. Instead, the invasion reflects a claim made in the 2002 US national security strategy that the charter was too restrictive, and that the US was ready to use armed force to meet threats that were uncertain as to time and place – a doctrine of preventive war.

read it and tell me your opinions….

10:30 PM Mar 22 2008 \| Reply
Nu Pogodi United States	Although the war on IRAQ is not legal Can you expand on this?

10:30 PM Mar 22 2008 | Reply

Nu Pogodi

United States

Although the war on IRAQ is not legal

Can you expand on this?

04:59 AM Mar 23 2008 \| Reply
redwana Egypt	that means u did not read the statement carefully…...no nuclear weapons…no relation with alqaeda…no..no…no…......tell me what make it legal

04:59 AM Mar 23 2008 | Reply

redwana

Egypt

that means u did not read the statement carefully…...no nuclear weapons…no relation with alqaeda…no..no…no…......tell me what make it legal

06:14 AM Mar 23 2008 \| Reply
hakimi Yemen	if Iraq had nuclear weapons,the war would be legal in your opinion . And Can America Invad of Iraq ? or could be America invasion Iraq if Iraq had got nuclear weapons ? Why doesn’t America invade Isreal?

06:14 AM Mar 23 2008 | Reply

hakimi

Yemen

if Iraq had nuclear weapons,the war would be legal in your opinion .
And Can America Invad of Iraq ? or could be America invasion Iraq if Iraq had got nuclear weapons ?
Why doesn’t America invade Isreal?

08:05 AM Mar 23 2008 \| Reply
redwana Egypt	thanks hakimi….i bet you that "silence is guaranteed"....because no answers my dear they know the reality but they act as blind and deaf …..

08:05 AM Mar 23 2008 | Reply

redwana

Egypt

thanks hakimi….i bet you that "silence is guaranteed"....because no answers my dear

they know the reality but they act as blind and deaf …..

11:03 AM Mar 23 2008 \| Reply
Hope's Belgium	I think who posted a forum about God bless America made a msitake,,,let us say EVIL BLESS AMERICA,absolutely right redwana….they are not brave to face the truth…they are talkative thats all what they know….just bla bla bla

11:03 AM Mar 23 2008 | Reply

Hope's

Belgium

I think who posted a forum about God bless America made a msitake,,,let us say EVIL BLESS AMERICA,absolutely right redwana….they are not brave to face the truth…they are talkative thats all what they know….just bla bla bla

11:57 AM Mar 23 2008 \| Reply
redwana Egypt	Hope's evil havent any bless to bless any one..but please dont prejudice against all american citizens because there are alot of good americans…u know any country have goods and bads …...any among americans there are alot who hate the war and protest against it.. although my heart is bleeding for what is going on iraq and palestine ….but we should do justice and dnt imitate those who prejudice aginst any nation …."as america alwayes prejudice against aaaaaaaaall muslims" thats why i want to be objective in my argument… thanks alot hope's there are some american protestants against the war "although alot of them grieved because the american victims only…..not because the right of freedom..the right for all the people to be free or because iraqis victims.."

11:57 AM Mar 23 2008 | Reply

redwana

Egypt

Hope's

evil havent any bless to bless any one..but please dont prejudice against all american citizens because there are alot of good americans…u know any country have goods and bads …...any among americans there are alot who hate the war and protest against it..

although my heart is bleeding for what is going on iraq and palestine ….but we should do justice and dnt imitate those who prejudice aginst any nation …."as america alwayes prejudice against aaaaaaaaall muslims" thats why i want to be objective in my argument…

thanks alot hope's

there are some american protestants against the war "although alot of them grieved because the american victims only…..not because the right of freedom..the right for all the people to be free or because iraqis victims.."

07:23 PM Mar 23 2008 \| Reply
MarkChina United Kingdom	Just waiting for you to answer Nu Pogodi's question and points that have been rised on similar threads. You insist that we answer your questions yet you hardly ever answer ours. Kinda makes real communication and debate difficult. Besides, you asked people to give their answers adjectively whilst I prefer to make mine objective. How much are Iraqis victims of America and how much are they victims of Islamic extremists? Oh, but of course, Islam is a peaceful religion, so no Muslim has ever committed an act of violence, right?

07:23 PM Mar 23 2008 | Reply

MarkChina

United Kingdom

Just waiting for you to answer Nu Pogodi's question and points that have been rised on similar threads. You insist that we answer your questions yet you hardly ever answer ours. Kinda makes real communication and debate difficult.

Besides, you asked people to give their answers adjectively whilst I prefer to make mine objective.

How much are Iraqis victims of America and how much are they victims of Islamic extremists? Oh, but of course, Islam is a peaceful religion, so no Muslim has ever committed an act of violence, right?

08:01 PM Mar 23 2008 \| Reply
nono_cute Iraq	looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

08:01 PM Mar 23 2008 | Reply

nono_cute

Iraq

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

08:05 PM Mar 23 2008 \| Reply
Nu Pogodi United States	that means u did not read the statement carefully…... Yes, dear. I did read the entire post. I am questioning the legality part of your post. Maybe you meant to use the word moral instead of legal. no nuclear weapons… That program was destroyed on June 7, 1981 by Israel. no relation with alqaeda…no..no…no…......tell me what make it legal I will but first who said it was illegal. How about Kofi Annan?

08:05 PM Mar 23 2008 | Reply

Nu Pogodi

United States

that means u did not read the statement carefully…...

Yes, dear. I did read the entire post. I am questioning the legality part of your post. Maybe you meant to use the word moral instead of legal.

no nuclear weapons…

That program was destroyed on June 7, 1981 by Israel.

no relation with alqaeda…no..no…no…......tell me what make it legal

I will but first who said it was illegal.

How about Kofi Annan?

1 2 3 ... 9 1 through 10 of 90 Next >