War Who supports it and Whos Against
Discussion
We need a change in regime, not just a change in leader over there.
Same goes for Iraq..
Edited to add - basically against the war, but I'm guessing I don't know all the facts.. If someone from across the pond that can speakify the Queens English can explain it to me, then I'll surely listen. We seem to have caused an awful lot of civilian casualties in the last 10 years there, how many more if we go to war? Looks to me that it will have to be a good deal nastier than last time as stopping short didn't seem to achieve much 10 years ago.
>> Edited by Psychobert on Monday 27th January 12:33
Same goes for Iraq..
Edited to add - basically against the war, but I'm guessing I don't know all the facts.. If someone from across the pond that can speakify the Queens English can explain it to me, then I'll surely listen. We seem to have caused an awful lot of civilian casualties in the last 10 years there, how many more if we go to war? Looks to me that it will have to be a good deal nastier than last time as stopping short didn't seem to achieve much 10 years ago.
>> Edited by Psychobert on Monday 27th January 12:33
I'm totally against the proposed war that the US seems to be hell bent in engaging in. Having said that, there is a need to prevent Saddam allowing terrorist groups access to any chemical/biological weapons that he may have. He therefore needs to be removed.
Therefore, the only equitable solution is for a surgical assassination of Saddam and his 'cabinet' - PROVIDED the Iraqui people themselves are allowed to subsequently elect the replacement Government, with no interference from the West, apart from observers to ensure 'free and fair' elections.
Therefore, the only equitable solution is for a surgical assassination of Saddam and his 'cabinet' - PROVIDED the Iraqui people themselves are allowed to subsequently elect the replacement Government, with no interference from the West, apart from observers to ensure 'free and fair' elections.
At the moment I'm not in favour of a war. I'm still waiting for the evidence of Saddam's "Weapons of mass Destruction" (WOMD) to be produced. Iraq is in a bit of a bind over this. If no WOMD evidence is found - then the US will accuse Saddam of hiding the evidence and will attack. If WOMD or evidence thereof IS found - then the US will say "We told you so" - and attack.
To be honest, my main fear is the repurcussions that will surely follow an attack on Iraq. Even though Islamic fundamentalists have no great love for Saddam or his regime, the loss of Iraqi civillian life will provide them with so much ammunition and recruits for even greater attacks on Western society that the world will become an even less safe place than it is now.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 27th January 12:37
To be honest, my main fear is the repurcussions that will surely follow an attack on Iraq. Even though Islamic fundamentalists have no great love for Saddam or his regime, the loss of Iraqi civillian life will provide them with so much ammunition and recruits for even greater attacks on Western society that the world will become an even less safe place than it is now.
>> Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 27th January 12:37
I'm against the war on Irag, as the problem is not Iraq but Saddam Hussein and his folk, to use a Dubya phrase.
I agree with a regime change, but not by assassination as no civilised society can condone such acts.
Given the subsequent remaining choices are very few, it seems war is the inevitable option.
Although i hope it is not the "6 months bombing the hell out the I-raki's" type of war but a short incisive strike on the leadership and ruling structures.
I agree with a regime change, but not by assassination as no civilised society can condone such acts.
Given the subsequent remaining choices are very few, it seems war is the inevitable option.
Although i hope it is not the "6 months bombing the hell out the I-raki's" type of war but a short incisive strike on the leadership and ruling structures.
To my mind it comes down to one thing and one thing only. Does Saddam pose a threat to us?
As much as Laurel and Hardy (Bush and Blair) would like you to believe that Saddam has a willing army of Orcs carrying suitcases full of small pox and anthrax into Western nations airports and train stations the fact of the matter is that he probably doesnt.
If he does harm the UK, or its outlying territories in any way shape or form then fine, be my guest, daisy cutter the entire country but until that time why should we bankroll an economically motivated attack out of which we will gain nothing (look at that steel fiasco of last year!).
It comes down to two things, Oil and finishing daddies war. No one appointed us saviour of the Iraqi people so what the bloody hell are we doing over there?
Leave 'em to it, we've got crack dealers doing a cuckoo with someone else gaff in Lambeth and generally speaking we have a bit of a domestic nightmare on our hands, so, Tone, if you're listening, sort us out first mate before handing out aid left right and centre to every other fcuker.
Matt.
As much as Laurel and Hardy (Bush and Blair) would like you to believe that Saddam has a willing army of Orcs carrying suitcases full of small pox and anthrax into Western nations airports and train stations the fact of the matter is that he probably doesnt.
If he does harm the UK, or its outlying territories in any way shape or form then fine, be my guest, daisy cutter the entire country but until that time why should we bankroll an economically motivated attack out of which we will gain nothing (look at that steel fiasco of last year!).
It comes down to two things, Oil and finishing daddies war. No one appointed us saviour of the Iraqi people so what the bloody hell are we doing over there?
Leave 'em to it, we've got crack dealers doing a cuckoo with someone else gaff in Lambeth and generally speaking we have a bit of a domestic nightmare on our hands, so, Tone, if you're listening, sort us out first mate before handing out aid left right and centre to every other fcuker.
Matt.
I am for a regime change, and if, as looks likely, the only way to achieve this is through military action, then so be it.
War is never a good thing in itself, but if a stable and democratic regime is put in place in Iraq then all for the better.
I too, however am concerned about the repercussions that may occur - eg: increased tension, terrorism and the "who's next?" potential.
Dubya's axis of evil needs to be looked at carefully, Iraq isn't scary (unless you're one of the unfortunates fighting there) N.Korea, to me is VERY scary and if Dubya wants to move there as well....?
Where's my bunker?
War is never a good thing in itself, but if a stable and democratic regime is put in place in Iraq then all for the better.
I too, however am concerned about the repercussions that may occur - eg: increased tension, terrorism and the "who's next?" potential.
Dubya's axis of evil needs to be looked at carefully, Iraq isn't scary (unless you're one of the unfortunates fighting there) N.Korea, to me is VERY scary and if Dubya wants to move there as well....?
Where's my bunker?
Bodo said:
deltaf said: I support action to remove Madman insane.
Which one of them? Bush or Hussein?
Both I am afraid. I am against war also and I get the overriding impression that there are an awful lot of people like this (but wont say if it is the majority or not cos I simply dont know). However, I would say that a move against Saddam would be daft. He cant loose and thats the problem.
USA invades - he wins cos he says that the imperialist west have invaded a sovereign nation with no cause (currently no "smoking guns").
USA doesnt invade - he wins cos he says that the imperialist west were trying to pin something on him that he hasnt got (weapons of mass destruction).
The only problem is that Bush is "crusin' for a brusin'" and has committed his troops to war. You dont sent 65,000 people around the world just for the sake of a little training in desert warfare. He wants to finish what Daddy started and if he drags the world economy with it, he doesnt care.
The only thing that I can see is that we let the UN do their bit. Its largely ineffectual and proves nothing, but at least it has a certain amount of transparency. We need to win over the Arab world and invading a sovereign nation on the basis of hearsay, conjecture or information-too-secret-to-tell-the-public gains very few supporters. Arabs in general dont like Saddam, but lets be honest if your loyalty is in the Middle East, who would you believe at the moment? Saddam or Bush? Saddam might not be helping the UN inspectors, but at least he isnt making things up or gearing up to invade another country..... common political ploy, but at the moment it works for an awful lot of people....
Rather confusing and worrying time really. But to get back to the original question - I dont want to see body bags of British soliders....
Cheers,
Paul
Good prog on Beeb 2 yesterday eve re. Sadd's removal.
No answer, ultimately, even Mossad were hopeless on this one.
My verdict is uncharacteristically 'anti' this time because -
(a) I'm sure the man will be assassinated or be 'persauded' to bugger off by the good ol' Saudis soon anyway;
(b) The stance of bombing the hell out of what would otherwise be a pro-Western state (i.e. they were our mates against fundamentalism 1980-88) is staggeringly AGAINST our interests (I totally expect the UK to be world terrorist target No2 and just because the toe rag at No.10 could not give Dubya a metaphorical Maggie style slap round the chops);
(c) Quite frankly, the fight is with Bin Laden's loony brigade and fundamentalism generally rather than a secular dictator who JUST HAPPENS to be in a country with a large Islamic poulation who I'm sure are p1ssed off 'in extremis' with the whole situation, but for which sufferance the erstwhile idiological enemy aforementioned (i.e. Bin Laden) will seek some bogus Islamic brotherhood and thus prevent any more nice little jollies for yours truly to Dubia, etc.
(d) By all means keep up the military pressure just don't pull the trigger, would be my response. I sense there is enough will to get rid within the region but for Gawd's sake let them do it themselves.
So although not completely damning US policy, I'd say hold back.
But if they were to find a sh1t load of Hugo Drax grade pesticides in a Sadd bunker then by all means: pork away Dubya!
(Still, the easiest way of deciding on an international policy is usually quite simple and I can maybe see where Bliar's coming from: just do the exact opposite to the French and it usually works out fine.
)
No answer, ultimately, even Mossad were hopeless on this one.
My verdict is uncharacteristically 'anti' this time because -
(a) I'm sure the man will be assassinated or be 'persauded' to bugger off by the good ol' Saudis soon anyway;
(b) The stance of bombing the hell out of what would otherwise be a pro-Western state (i.e. they were our mates against fundamentalism 1980-88) is staggeringly AGAINST our interests (I totally expect the UK to be world terrorist target No2 and just because the toe rag at No.10 could not give Dubya a metaphorical Maggie style slap round the chops);
(c) Quite frankly, the fight is with Bin Laden's loony brigade and fundamentalism generally rather than a secular dictator who JUST HAPPENS to be in a country with a large Islamic poulation who I'm sure are p1ssed off 'in extremis' with the whole situation, but for which sufferance the erstwhile idiological enemy aforementioned (i.e. Bin Laden) will seek some bogus Islamic brotherhood and thus prevent any more nice little jollies for yours truly to Dubia, etc.
(d) By all means keep up the military pressure just don't pull the trigger, would be my response. I sense there is enough will to get rid within the region but for Gawd's sake let them do it themselves.
So although not completely damning US policy, I'd say hold back.
But if they were to find a sh1t load of Hugo Drax grade pesticides in a Sadd bunker then by all means: pork away Dubya!
(Still, the easiest way of deciding on an international policy is usually quite simple and I can maybe see where Bliar's coming from: just do the exact opposite to the French and it usually works out fine.
)Iraq has been like an open sore ever since the end of the first gulf war. The current heightened tension has not come out of a vacuum. We can not maintain a defective sanctions regime forever, and we can't go on enforcing no-fly zones forever, and we can't allow the Iraqi regime to ignore UN security council resolutions forever. If anyone can think of a way of getting ourselves out of this position without threatening war, then shout it out.
The UN inspectors are not going to find WOMD in Iraq, because there almost certainly aren't any. If there were WOMD, it would be too late to contemplate the kind of offensive we're threatening. Given the chance would Iraq like to develop or buy such weapons? Almost certainly. Given time, would they achieve this? Probably. Is that a good enough reason for us to attack them now? Well, unless anyone can think of a better strategy, then I'd say yes.
We can only hope that by piling on the pressure now we can crack the Iraqi leadership. If it doesn't crack of its own accord, it will have to be broken by force.
I think the comparissons between Iraq and North Korea are vaulable, if only to highlight the marked differences between the two situations. North Korea is insular and completely paranoid. They are scared shitless of a US attack across their borders. They are not setting out to try to control the region. Contrast with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, wars with Iran and constant pro pan-arabism rhetoric casting SH as its natural leader.
North Korea almost certainly has a much more sophisticated arsenal of weapons than Iraq. The cost of a war with NK would therefore be much greater.
Iraq is fairly geographically isolated. They can just about hit Tel Aviv with a missile if they're lucky. Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is a mere 30km from the border with the north.
Just because NK and Iraq treat their own people extremely badly and risk spreading unpleasant weapons around the world soesn't mean it makes sense to tackle them in the same way.
The UN inspectors are not going to find WOMD in Iraq, because there almost certainly aren't any. If there were WOMD, it would be too late to contemplate the kind of offensive we're threatening. Given the chance would Iraq like to develop or buy such weapons? Almost certainly. Given time, would they achieve this? Probably. Is that a good enough reason for us to attack them now? Well, unless anyone can think of a better strategy, then I'd say yes.
We can only hope that by piling on the pressure now we can crack the Iraqi leadership. If it doesn't crack of its own accord, it will have to be broken by force.
I think the comparissons between Iraq and North Korea are vaulable, if only to highlight the marked differences between the two situations. North Korea is insular and completely paranoid. They are scared shitless of a US attack across their borders. They are not setting out to try to control the region. Contrast with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, wars with Iran and constant pro pan-arabism rhetoric casting SH as its natural leader.
North Korea almost certainly has a much more sophisticated arsenal of weapons than Iraq. The cost of a war with NK would therefore be much greater.
Iraq is fairly geographically isolated. They can just about hit Tel Aviv with a missile if they're lucky. Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is a mere 30km from the border with the north.
Just because NK and Iraq treat their own people extremely badly and risk spreading unpleasant weapons around the world soesn't mean it makes sense to tackle them in the same way.
I've got a fair bit of knowledge about this one and basically come out with the view of yes we do need to do something about the regime in Iraq because to do nothing in the face of evil is to make you as guilty as those conducting the evil. If this involves the use of military force so be it.
That is not to say that I agree with GeorgeW and TonyB I basically believe the pair of them are clunts who should be up against the wall along with the one with the dodgy moustach.
The Government in this country have demonstrated themselves to be the worst kind of cowards. We have had massive amounts of truth and information withheld from us by these tossers because of the fear of creating "hysteria" and "panic" amongst the general public this is basically bollox and if they had the balls to come clean I think the weight of public opinion would swing in favour of having to do something, however the tossers insist on censoring and adding "spin" onto everything before consumption by Joe Public, who contry to the belief of this Government are generally fairly intelligent and if presented with the truth would probably agree that something needs to be done.
Equally so these cowards are now committing a under strength, poorly equiped, and ill trained military (for dessert combat force to ride along side the Americans for purely political reasons, they are basically going to get british soldiers killed for political gain. It is a fact that the UK force being sent will have virtually no tactical influence but great political effect, there is no doubt the Americans could do this alone but we need to be seen to be there for the "spin". The regiments being sent are badly under strength for even peace time levels, this in itself is not unusual and indeed the same as last time the difference is that last time the defence chiefs pillaged UK regiments and remfs to bring the combat squadrons upto strength.......can't do that this time because some tosser again hasn't had the balls to break the firemans strike and 20,000 badly needed bodies are comitted covering another bunch of tossers who get paid twice what they do.
The bottom line is British troops are being deployed to late to be effective, they have got no backing from back home, and the Americans have now asked that they be used on the "peace keeping" work after the conflict. The americans want to steam in smash the place in 8 days and piss off quick, our Muppet Blair goes along with the bollox of "gee you brits are so much better and experienced at peace keeping than us" exactly... Mr clever cookie knows that using all his high tech weapons to smash a country deprived and strangled by UN sanctions for 12 years will be a walk in the park, the poor sods left picking up the pieces will be at the greatest risk from mangy, half starved arab kids with AK47's when walking the streets of Baghdad in 6 months time.
Will our Squaddies do a good job ? Bloody right they will they will overcome all the strangulation being put on them Whithall and cope with what they've got, but some of them will get killed and one man only will have their blood on his hands, and he doesn't live in a Palace in the sand.
That is not to say that I agree with GeorgeW and TonyB I basically believe the pair of them are clunts who should be up against the wall along with the one with the dodgy moustach.
The Government in this country have demonstrated themselves to be the worst kind of cowards. We have had massive amounts of truth and information withheld from us by these tossers because of the fear of creating "hysteria" and "panic" amongst the general public this is basically bollox and if they had the balls to come clean I think the weight of public opinion would swing in favour of having to do something, however the tossers insist on censoring and adding "spin" onto everything before consumption by Joe Public, who contry to the belief of this Government are generally fairly intelligent and if presented with the truth would probably agree that something needs to be done.
Equally so these cowards are now committing a under strength, poorly equiped, and ill trained military (for dessert combat force to ride along side the Americans for purely political reasons, they are basically going to get british soldiers killed for political gain. It is a fact that the UK force being sent will have virtually no tactical influence but great political effect, there is no doubt the Americans could do this alone but we need to be seen to be there for the "spin". The regiments being sent are badly under strength for even peace time levels, this in itself is not unusual and indeed the same as last time the difference is that last time the defence chiefs pillaged UK regiments and remfs to bring the combat squadrons upto strength.......can't do that this time because some tosser again hasn't had the balls to break the firemans strike and 20,000 badly needed bodies are comitted covering another bunch of tossers who get paid twice what they do.
The bottom line is British troops are being deployed to late to be effective, they have got no backing from back home, and the Americans have now asked that they be used on the "peace keeping" work after the conflict. The americans want to steam in smash the place in 8 days and piss off quick, our Muppet Blair goes along with the bollox of "gee you brits are so much better and experienced at peace keeping than us" exactly... Mr clever cookie knows that using all his high tech weapons to smash a country deprived and strangled by UN sanctions for 12 years will be a walk in the park, the poor sods left picking up the pieces will be at the greatest risk from mangy, half starved arab kids with AK47's when walking the streets of Baghdad in 6 months time.
Will our Squaddies do a good job ? Bloody right they will they will overcome all the strangulation being put on them Whithall and cope with what they've got, but some of them will get killed and one man only will have their blood on his hands, and he doesn't live in a Palace in the sand.
I saw some of the programme last night - a bit tongue in cheek though.
The unfortunate thing is that if Saddam is "removed" who will his replacement be? The notion that some kind of even-handed democracy takes over is naive. What will end up in place will be a puppet regime similar to the one that held sway in South Vietnam for years. No doubt funamentalism will grow in Iraq followed by an Iranian style revolution follwed by more war.
There are times in history when a war is the only solution - this is not one of those times.
The unfortunate thing is that if Saddam is "removed" who will his replacement be? The notion that some kind of even-handed democracy takes over is naive. What will end up in place will be a puppet regime similar to the one that held sway in South Vietnam for years. No doubt funamentalism will grow in Iraq followed by an Iranian style revolution follwed by more war.
There are times in history when a war is the only solution - this is not one of those times.
I to honest are for the war on Iraq to get Sadam out of power, he to my knowledge has been given several opertunites to provide details of his weapons programs but hasnt.
But the government has to provide us with the facts not just the spin
Now he is distracting from the point as he always does saying we the west are going to war for oil (if we wanted oil we would have taken it in the 1990's. he is so good to distract and cause diversions, He only let the weapons inspectors in at the last minute not when we were going through diplomatic means to get them back in......
It was proven in the last conflict that he was developing weapons, these weapons could reach turkey/cyprus etc so it does not take a genius to scale the rockets up to reach central europe. Yes he is a threat as are the north Koreas but the NK are flexing there muscles to get financial aid from the US.
if we dont disarm this dictator now in a few years time when he know he has to give up power to his successor he my just push the button and War with break out then, no one can tell what this man is capable of. Then people will tuurn round and say why didnt the government do anything to prevent this.
Also when South Africa and other countries were asked to disarm they did so, with no resistance...
>> Edited by stc_bennett on Monday 27th January 13:44
But the government has to provide us with the facts not just the spin
Now he is distracting from the point as he always does saying we the west are going to war for oil (if we wanted oil we would have taken it in the 1990's. he is so good to distract and cause diversions, He only let the weapons inspectors in at the last minute not when we were going through diplomatic means to get them back in......
It was proven in the last conflict that he was developing weapons, these weapons could reach turkey/cyprus etc so it does not take a genius to scale the rockets up to reach central europe. Yes he is a threat as are the north Koreas but the NK are flexing there muscles to get financial aid from the US.
if we dont disarm this dictator now in a few years time when he know he has to give up power to his successor he my just push the button and War with break out then, no one can tell what this man is capable of. Then people will tuurn round and say why didnt the government do anything to prevent this.
Also when South Africa and other countries were asked to disarm they did so, with no resistance...
>> Edited by stc_bennett on Monday 27th January 13:44
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff