Discussion
My thoughts this morning are with our service men and women who are out in the gulf now preparing to do their duty.
They need to know that everyone is behind them and supports what they are being asked to do.
Watching the news last night several squaddies said words to the effect that "we hope once it starts the people back home will come around and support us".
It makes me fcuking furious that because of the "anti war" protesters and wnakers like Robin Cook these brave people are going to war seemingly unsure of whether or not they are supported at home. They are by me.
They need to know that everyone is behind them and supports what they are being asked to do.
Watching the news last night several squaddies said words to the effect that "we hope once it starts the people back home will come around and support us".
It makes me fcuking furious that because of the "anti war" protesters and wnakers like Robin Cook these brave people are going to war seemingly unsure of whether or not they are supported at home. They are by me.
paul-b said: My thoughts this morning are with our service men and women who are out in the gulf now preparing to do their duty.
They need to know that everyone is behind them and supports what they are being asked to do.
Watching the news last night several squaddies said words to the effect that "we hope once it starts the people back home will come around and support us".
It makes me fcuking furious that because of the "anti war" protesters and wnakers like Robin Cook these brave people are going to war seemingly unsure of whether or not they are supported at home. They are by me.
couldn't agree more mate. people here in this country 1000's of miles away are scared, think what those poor soldiers in the front-line are feeling. especially when they've just had possible chemical weapons fired at them.
for god sake no body wants war but its either a few of them now or god knows how many of us later when Sadam finally manages to make long-range missiles.
i hope that now its begun the anti-war lobby piss-off back to smoking their weed.
>> Edited by p_green_soup on Thursday 20th March 09:51
Richard92c2 said: May the Lord bless and protect all our men and women in the gulf!!! May he also protect the innocent in Iraq!!!
Nicely put sir.
Not absolutley sure why mr Bushes son is after saddam right now, and so soon after not really dealing with mr bin laden - who still has a few videos of daft speaches left. And why he needs to put so many other people at risk.. maybe it's cause he's a bad guy, but then there are so many other bad guys - in his own state - why doesn't he deal with them... oh sorry, he does..
I didn't fight in two world wars (I admit) but went half way accross the atlantic during the falklands soap opera - there's nothing more to be said than good luck lads (and lasses), all of you..
Paul-b said
___________________________________________________
It makes me fcuking furious that because of the "anti war" protesters and wnakers like Robin Cook these brave people are going to war seemingly unsure of whether or not they are supported at home. They are by me.
____________________________________________________
It is perfectly possible to support the armed forces of this country yet be against this madness. A good friend of mine is in the Navy, I fully support him and all others in the armed forces, they are after all only doing a job, they are not the ones who decide who to attack or when.
As such, it makes me fcucking furious when people pidgeon hole you because you are against this lunacy that can only lead to death, suffering and misery for the masses in Iraq. I'm not a fan of this government at all, but at least a wnaker like Robin Cook did the decent thing and stepped down because he didnt believe in what was being done.
Saddam Hussien is not a nice guy, he is a liar, but a threat to the region and the world? I'm not convinced. Neither is Hans Blix or the UN, and thyere not tree hugging hippies either.
neilr said:
____________________________________________________
As such, it makes me fcucking furious when people pidgeon hole you because you are against this lunacy that can only lead to death, suffering and misery for the masses in Iraq. I'm not a fan of this government at all, but at least a wnaker like Robin Cook did the decent thing and stepped down because he didnt believe in what was being done.
Saddam Hussien is not a nice guy, he is a liar, but a threat to the region and the world? I'm not convinced. Neither is Hans Blix or the UN, and thyere not tree hugging hippies either.
I was talking about the perception that the troops obviously have that they are not being supported at home.
If Saddam has chemical weapons (everyone, Blix included says he does) then yes he is a threat to all of us. Or shall we wait until he sells some anthrax to a terrorist and they use it on the London Underground? Bit late to act then.
>> Edited by paul-b on Thursday 20th March 10:58
Blair to brief war cabinet
Tony Blair is to brief the War Cabinet on the start of long-awaited military action against Iraq.
The Prime Minister is chairing a morning meeting of Cabinet ministers most closely concerned with the Iraqi crisis.
They include John Prescott, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, Clare Short and David Blunkett.
I somehow don't seem to be feeling much confidence knowing that this bunch of clowns is in the lead decision making position for the UK.
Apparently the Iraqis have fired up to four Scud missiles at Kuwait. One was intercepted by a Patriot anti-missile missile and the others did no damage. The question is, were these not the types of missiles that Iraq was explicitly told to destroy by the UN twelve years ago? I think it proves beyond doubt that Saddam was leading Hans Blix and his team by the nose for the past few months. All that hoo-ha about the destruction of the much shorter range Al Samud missiles was just so much tosh. Obviously, the threat of the Scuds is back with a vengeance and Saddam may be more tempted to fit them out with chemical or biological warheads this time.
My hunch is that, if and when the allied forces enter Iraq, they will find loads of evidence of Iraq's weapoms programmes that was forever beyond the reach of the UN weapons inspectors.
My hunch is that, if and when the allied forces enter Iraq, they will find loads of evidence of Iraq's weapoms programmes that was forever beyond the reach of the UN weapons inspectors.
minimax said: can't help but wonder whether the french will send troops if (when) NBC weapons are used - they said they would but I dunno - interesting
:nottryingtobashthefrench:
Since when did the presence of the French make the slightest difference?
(That maginot line was a good idea wasn't it).
:french=cantfightwontfightappeasetillwereinvadedthencryhelp:
eric mc said: Apparently the Iraqis have fired up to four Scud missiles at Kuwait. One was intercepted by a Patriot anti-missile missile and the others did no damage. The question is, were these not the types of missiles that Iraq was explicitly told to destroy by the UN twelve years ago? .
dunno eric, I thought the missiles that were illegal were ones with a long range capability
It's the Al Samud missiles that the Iraqis were required to destroy, not the Scuds.
I agree that it's perfectly possible to hope the troops are able quickly to win and to support them as individuals, without being certain that going to war is appropriate in the circumstances.
IMHO the argument that SH is going to pass WMD to terrorists (especially Al Qaeda) is facetious. Why would a secular, military regime want to support a terrorist group that wants to install an Islamic oligarchy in the Middle East ? It would only serve to support the fundamentalist Shia opposition to his own rule.
The war's about oil revenue and demonstrating America's position of all platform military dominance over the rest of the world. This may not be a bad thing, but if America and its lapdog are the only countries supporting the war you can bet that it's America's economic interests driving action, rather than the safety of the whole world.
I agree that it's perfectly possible to hope the troops are able quickly to win and to support them as individuals, without being certain that going to war is appropriate in the circumstances.
IMHO the argument that SH is going to pass WMD to terrorists (especially Al Qaeda) is facetious. Why would a secular, military regime want to support a terrorist group that wants to install an Islamic oligarchy in the Middle East ? It would only serve to support the fundamentalist Shia opposition to his own rule.
The war's about oil revenue and demonstrating America's position of all platform military dominance over the rest of the world. This may not be a bad thing, but if America and its lapdog are the only countries supporting the war you can bet that it's America's economic interests driving action, rather than the safety of the whole world.
mrsd said:The war's about oil revenue and demonstrating America's position of all platform military dominance over the rest of the world. This may not be a bad thing, but if America and its lapdog are the only countries supporting the war you can bet that it's America's economic interests driving action, rather than the safety of the whole world.
Do the Americans NEED to demonstrate anything, i would have thought that is beyond doubt.
And the cost to America of this campaign is of course, little more than the cost of a Big Mac and fries, extralarged of course.
I trust your armchair is comfortable.
>> Edited by swilly on Thursday 20th March 12:05
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff