Daaaaave

I can't be arsed working out the percentage wrongness of the hawks in both parties, tbh. As always and everywhere, the vast majority of them (Turks and Kurds) just want to be left the hell alone. </BLOCKQUOTE>

We're not talking about Turks vs Kurds, it's Turks vs PKK. Because the Turkish army aren't terrorists. </BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmmm </BLOCKQUOTE>

Doubt genocide is what's on their minds. </BLOCKQUOTE>

tell that to the armenians

DJ

Sorry, no. It was totally mis-aimed revenge 'we're coming mother****ers' for 9/11 after the invasion of Afghanistan proved too easy and not bloody enough.

And there was something about oil, too.

The issue of 'freedom' wasn't addressed until 2 weeks before the invasion, when the 'coalition of the willing' high brass started to find out that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever.

Sir Bert Preast

That was over 80 years back, and a different country and form of government tbf.

TheCranker

No, it was to gt rid of Saddam. But we thought a democracy was the fairest way to replace him. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Rubbish. The main idea was to install a govt sympathetic to our own interests. Only an idiot would think democracy would take hold in Iraq in the aftermath of the war.

Sir Bert Preast

Sorry, no. It was totally mis-aimed revenge 'we're coming mother****ers' for 9/11 after the invasion of Afghanistan proved too easy and not bloody enough.

And there was something about oil, too.

The issue of 'freedom' wasn't addressed until 2 weeks before the invasion, when the 'coalition of the willing' high brass started to find out that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahaha, we'd be talking about going to war with Iraq again since 1996.

Retro

Without getting to a point where I feel like dashing my own brains on the walls - I shall return to my original point.

A terrorist is only so if they fight for a cause that is not our own (or one we have sympathy with). Therefore labelling someone a terrorist is entirely from a perspective, and can never be otherwise.

Daaaaave

That was over 80 years back, and a different country and form of government tbf. </BLOCKQUOTE>

sounds like you have your argument all lined up. I eagerly await hearing the results of how many you manage to convince.

Sir Bert Preast

No, it was to gt rid of Saddam. But we thought a democracy was the fairest way to replace him. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Rubbish. The main idea was to install a govt sympathetic to our own interests. Only an idiot would think democracy would take hold in Iraq in the aftermath of the war. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Sympathetic to our own interests in one that doesn't threaten the neighbours, it's own people and support international terrorism, yes.

What's wrong with that?

Sir Bert Preast

That was over 80 years back, and a different country and form of government tbf. </BLOCKQUOTE>

sounds like you have your argument all lined up. I eagerly await hearing the results of how many you manage to convince. </BLOCKQUOTE>

We shall see. I'll be surprised if their intention is to kill Kurds, as they can do that without going to Iraq.

Sir Bert Preast

Of course. But the perspective can be the right one, or the wrong one.