Home » General Chat » Circular File » War on Iraq
| |
| Re: War on Iraq |
Fri, 28 March 2003 08:39   |
|
|
|
| freakyboy wrote on Thu, 27 March 2003 20:38 |
If we find "weapons of mass destruction" (WOMD from now on)
|
Or WMD....one less character 
| Quote: |
then hoorah!! We were right to do this, now who's next.... North Korea? China? etc... In other words once we've sorted these guys out... why not sort out everyone else too? IF WE DON'T find any WOMD then bugger.... we just went to war for no reason.
|
Well, N Korea does have to be sorted out for it's flagrant disregard for nuclear treaties.
| Quote: |
1. Iraq, or Saddam to be more exact, has broken many UN sanctions and regulations and should be stopped.
|
And also broken the terms of the ceasefire in 1991.
| Quote: |
2. Saddam has "harboured international terrorists".
|
Doubt he has been involved in Al-queda. Bin Laden and Saddam are not on friendly terms (at least before Saddam went mysteriously religous). Having said they might not like one another, but we know how they feel about America.
At the same time however, Iraq does harbour other international terrorist groups, some of which are linked with Bin Laden, so I suppose they have mutual friends....
There are more reasons of course.
| Quote: |
1. Israel has broken over 100. Why not stop them? The answer (I'm gonna get shot for this one I can feel it) is Jews.
|
Nazi!!!!! 
| Quote: |
Jewish people hold alot of sway in the US, there are many strong ties between Israeli Jews and the Jews that have helped presidents like Bush (jr) and Clinton into power.
|
True(ish).
| Quote: |
As such if the US stormed into Israel and threw some weight around.. they'd annoy alot of people.... people who have power and connections to people in the US... wave bye bye second term.
|
I think it is a neccessary step for the coalition to bring this "road map for peace" forward...nobody would complain in the UK or US (apart from the Jews of course) that America is throwing it's weight around....nobody would accuse America then. It may be a bitter pill for Dubbya politically, but what he loses in Jewish votes
...
[img]http://www.ukrockers.com/forum/attachments/si.gif[/img]Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Fri, 28 March 2003 12:01 |
|
|
|
N Korea does have to be "sorted out" - but war wont work. War will only make them disregard ALL nuclear treaties - hence why the US wouldn't dare attack them, no-one would. The whole point of nukes is to create a tic-tac-toe situation (watch Wargames) - no-one wins because everyone dies. So with N Korea we'd HAVE to look at alternate options.
I never mention Al-Queda in Iraq harbouring terrorists, but who knows, maybe they do have some members there now. Bin Laden ahs the money, resources and influence to hide just about anywhere he pleases.
On the point of Jews... A) I am not a Nazi B) Anyone who disagrees that Jews do not have power in Israel is clearly not paying attention. The middle east is not like the modern world - they still have tribal and religious segregation (and war). C) I am not blaming the Jews for anything, just stating that in a situation involving people with power and money in the US, the US wont storm in and start telling these people what to do because it's not in the interests of the US President.
It's not in anyone's interest to bite the hand that feeds.
It IS in Bush (jr)'s interest to assault Iraq to..
(A) Show the world that harbouring terrorists and developing WOMD will only get you beaten up by the bigger boys... thus preventing more situations like this arising (to Quote Lenin: If we don't shoot these few now, we may end up in a situation where we have to shoot 10,000).
(B) Gain better access to Iraqi Oil and tap the billions of $ worth of oil that is left untouched in Iraq.
(C) Get rid of Saddam and make Bush (snr) a happy chappy.
(D) To attain moral high ground and to stop further "humanitarian disasters" in Iraq and maybe more countries too (see point A).
(E) To strike the fear of god into Terrorists worldwide... they've trashed Afghanistan, now Iraq... who's gonna put their head on the chopping board next?
(F) Wide Variety of other reasons.
Most of these a poor reason... together they amount to a fairly large probelm... but j
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Fri, 28 March 2003 19:27 |
|
 zoid |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
Call me a nationalist, flag-waver, or a pollyanna if you want to, but -
I believe in President Bush and Prime Minister Blair as men of character, who show righteousness, courage, and political will long lacking in the political arena. No, I'm not Republican. Yes, I am an American, a proud American, proud of my president, and proud of my country.
I believe the opponents of Bush and Blair are often evil men who would sacrifice ANYTHING for political gain, and at best are woefully ignorant and morally bankrupt, brainwashed by years of liberal indoctrination. I'll confine that judgement to opponents of American origin. Obviously, I'm not a Democrat.
I believe there are no other reasons the coalition of the willing are attacking Iraq other than what has been publicly stated by Bush and Blair.
I believe we should worry less about collateral damage than the safety of coalition troops. If turning Baghdad into rubble is the best way to achieve that, I'm all for it. How many lives were saved by the bombing of Tokyo and Hiroshima in WWII? I think the answer is far more than those extinguished by the bombs.
I believe the United Nations is little more than a ring of anti-US / anti-Israeli, jealous underdog, inconsequential, dictator nations that think the UN is their vehicle to advance their anti-US / anti-Israeli agendas, and completely irrelevant. Bush should revoke the visas of all those foreign diplomats and send them packing, close down the UN building in New York, disband or withdraw from NATO (which has become full of countries who are not at all friendly to the US), and instead establish an alliance of like democracies. I do NOT believe all countries are on equivalent moral standing as the US, UK, and Israel. Yes, we ARE better.
I believe the US and the UK should have complete and total control over the events in a post-war Iraq. I scream at my radio whenever I hear the French prime minister opening his mouth about the subject. He is irrelevant, his country is irrelevant, and I fail to see what entit
...
[Updated on: Sun, 30 March 2003 04:56]
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math?  Ummm, sure!  I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Sat, 29 March 2003 02:54 |
|
|
|
Ok I gotta go to work in like 5 minutes so I'll keep this short... but I will reply in more detail later.
One thing about your post slapped me across the face... HARD.
"If turning Baghdad into rubble is the best way to achieve that, I'm all for it. How many lives were saved by the bombing of Tokyo and Hiroshima in WWII? I think the answer is far more than those extinguished by the bombs."
So you wanna nuke Iraq? You want to destroy everything. You don't care if we kill innocent civilians?
To nuke iraq would make the US/UK WORSE than Iraq itself. This whole thing started with the aim to remove WOMD and the facilities that make them. And instead you want to use OUR WOMD to just kill everyone.
To wipe out Baghdad would make the US/UK WORSE than a terrorist group!!! It would be punishing EVERYONE in the entire city for the ills of a few men in power. Read that website that I placed a link to, it might make you reconsider bombing the crap out of innocent people - because thats what they are: PEOPLE.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Sat, 29 March 2003 10:24 |
|
|
|
Japan we nuked because the place was fanatical, Iraqis don't even like Saddam. There is the largest difference in those countries thusly that you could ever imagine finding. The US might be justified in this war against a person repressing people and killing them for the humanitarian side, but than again thats only if we show willingness to attack non-valuable countries that do the same thing. (ones not containing huge oil reserves)
Email me as ----jeffimix@----yahoo.com----
(remove dashes)
The spamatron! run!!!Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Sat, 29 March 2003 13:17 |
|
| Marduk |
| Ensign |
Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
I have access to the Pinkerton's travel security information service, and see lots of interesting things that never make it to the normal news services. High-level members of Al-Queda spent a few weeks in Baghdad some months ago, though it is unclear what the result was or if there was any official support offered by the Iraqi government. The hunt for Bin-Ladin may not be making the news, but it is still the highest priority for our intelligence services.
The major reason given to the UN Security Council for starting the war when we did was that the CIA believed Hussein was only months away from developing atomic weapons. It is fact that Hussein had chemical weapons - the reason the UN inspections required an accounting for specific items is that both the US and France provided lists of the chemical weapons each gave to Iraq many years ago. The lists themselves aren't publicly available, but they are referred to in other documents.
I almost agree with Zoid on France. Perhaps some of you will remember when Israel blew up a Iraqi nuclear power plant? France built it for Hussein - after it was clear was sort of monster he is.
Zoid may be right about Blair being a man of character, since his support for the war costs him dearly, but I don't think I'll ever believe that of Bush. Don't forget he was to be brought up on criminal charges for his role in the S&L scandal (back when his father was president). I'm certain he was guilty, because normally whenever the process is stopped, an official (and public) apology is issued. No such apology was ever offered. Instead, Old Bush did a very costly industry bailout, and the matter was quietly dropped. When considering New Bush's character, also don't forget he's been arrested a number of times - five times between him and Chaney.
I do not like this war, because it should never have been necessary. One of the primary objectives of the first war was to remove Hussein from power. The decision on whether or not to push for that was left to then-genera
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Sat, 29 March 2003 18:41 |
|
| zoid |
| Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
| freakyboy wrote on Fri, 28 March 2003 23:54 |
One thing about your post slapped me across the face... HARD.
"If turning Baghdad into rubble is the best way to achieve that, I'm all for it. How many lives were saved by the bombing of Tokyo and Hiroshima in WWII? I think the answer is far more than those extinguished by the bombs."
So you wanna nuke Iraq? You want to destroy everything. You don't care if we kill innocent civilians?
|
Well, technically I said nothing about using nuclear weapons on Baghdad, and there are plenty of ways to rubble a city without nukes. But let me get to the main point.
I'm not for the wanton killing of Iraqi citizens, nor ignoring measures that could save innocent lives. I know the common citizens of Iraq are not the problem. But everything I'm hearing on the news is that Saddam Hussein is doing everything in his power to thwart our efforts to spare the citizenry. War in itself is an atrocity - always has been, and Saddam is doing his best to ensure that this war will be too. Despite our desire to fight a clean war, Saddam Hussein might force us into making one of several bad choices:
1) We continue placing first priority on sparing the lives of Iraqi citizens, to the extent that our soldiers cannot return fire and are dying by the hundreds and thousands because of it over a prolonged period of time. Even if I LOVE Iraqis, I love our soldiers infinitely more. I don't want them on a battlefield with their hands tied. It's not fair to send them in to do a such a fearsome task and then tie their hands. As a veteran tank crewmember in the US Army, my sympathy lies first with the soldiers, and this option is the worst as far as I'm concerned.
2) Make targetting the enemy first priority, and avoiding citizens a concern secondary to that. When taking fire, try not to hit citizens, but always return fire even if civilians may be hit. Allow soldiers discretion to do their job free of outside second-guessing. If the enemy is using human shields, that's too bad, and we can hat
...
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math? Ummm, sure! I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Sat, 29 March 2003 19:09 |
|
| zoid |
| Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
| Marduk wrote on Sat, 29 March 2003 10:17 |
One of the primary objectives of the first war was to remove Hussein from power. The decision on whether or not to push for that was left to then-general Colin Powell, who for some reason chose not to.
I do believe we need to kill Saddam, though - we put him in power, and hence are indirectly responsible for the things he's done.
|
I have a very big problem with these two statements. Removing Saddam from power was NEVER an objective of Desert Storm. Bush lead a coalition of nations to remove Saddam from Kuwait, and that was ALL the UN authorized. If Bush had wanted to remove Saddam from power then, he would have been going it alone, or at least inasmuch as Bush Jr is doing so now.
And we did not PUT Saddam in power. Saddam seized power thru his own ruthless endeavors. The United States role that you refer to in error, was supplying weapons (including chemical and biological) to prevent Iraq from being overrun by Iran in the 1980's after Saddam stupidly started a war with Iran that he couldn't win. The government of Iran was no friend of the US, and we didn't want them to have Iran and Iraq too. Was it a good idea? I dunno. Maybe then it was, and now it's not. Certainly it succeeded in preventing Iran from absorbing Iraq and becoming a bigger threat, possibly a much bigger threat than Iraq is today. I have no problem with government policy being good twenty-something years ago and not good now. You can't tell me what the weather is going to be like next year, so expecting an administration to make policy that can't turn bad 20 or 30 years later is just an unrealistic expectation. How was Reagan to know that Iraq would turn against the US and possibly give those same weapons to shadowy enemies accountable to no one?
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math? Ummm, sure! I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Sat, 29 March 2003 20:05 |
|
|
|
reponse to Jeffmix:
Japan was nuked because there wasn't another viable option. It's hard enough to fight a war where your enemy is willing ti die for their country... never mind fighting an enemy that is pro-actively trying to die for their country by taking as many people down with them.
You're right... it would be nice to see a situation where by the un/us/uk/whoever send in troopers etc... to fix an injustice that the single country cannot resolve by themselves (i.e. Iraq/Israel) where there is nothing to be gained by the un/us/uk/whoever. But it's much harder to motivate your army/leaders to fight for such a cause when there is nothing to gain and so much to lose. Hence unless (insert country name here) can gain from (insert another countries name here) unfortunate situation, that first country is going to leave them high and dry.
It's like communism - good in theory, bad in practise.
In response to Marduk:
You're right... the war isn't necessary. Slapping troops and tanks etc... on the border may have been enough to convince Saddam to yeild to the UN inspectors a little more. It's all fine and dandy saying "you have 1 week" but when you say it and you've got all that firepower on standby ready and able to start at the drop of a hat - it's a bit more "real".
Blair is a man of character, and of justice. He believes he is doing the right thing and is standing by his decision. He deserves credit for that because there is not a chance in hell that he's gonna win the next election. He wont win because of this and he knows this, or at least he should. I do hope he does know this and that he is aware that his career is over, but at least he thinks he did good. Thats enough for me. I'm proud of him, but not proud of what he's done.
Saddam lied to the UN inspectors, this is something that is in my eyes, unforgiveable. He's killed his own people, unforgiveable. But does he deserve to die? Tough choice. He deserves punishment... severe punishment, but death? In one sense death i
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Sat, 29 March 2003 23:53 |
|
| zoid |
| Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
| freakyboy wrote on Sat, 29 March 2003 17:05 |
You're right... the war isn't necessary. Slapping troops and tanks etc... on the border may have been enough to convince Saddam to yeild to the UN inspectors a little more. It's all fine and dandy saying "you have 1 week" but when you say it and you've got all that firepower on standby ready and able to start at the drop of a hat - it's a bit more "real".
|
That was done, and it didn't work. Saddam just continued to play his usual cat and mouse games, yielding minimal cooperation, buying time. The idea that a group of inspectors can find weapons hidden by a hostile tyranical government in such a large place despite offical interference and intimidation is such folly only a silly do-nothing organization like the UN could continue to support it one failed resolution after another. And let's face it; the inspectors weren't on our side. In Hans' last report he deliberately buried important information deep inside and omitted it in his briefing altogether.
| Quote: |
Blair is a man of character, and of justice. He believes he is doing the right thing and is standing by his decision. He deserves credit for that because there is not a chance in hell that he's gonna win the next election. He wont win because of this and he knows this, or at least he should. I do hope he does know this and that he is aware that his career is over, but at least he thinks he did good. Thats enough for me. I'm proud of him, but not proud of what he's done.
|
Send him to the US, we'll take him. I'd vote for him in any office he could hold here. I like a man who stands on principle, and follows his conscience despite the tyranny of the majority. I wouldn't assume that he should instead do what I think is the right decision when his sources of information are so much better than mine. I wouldn't assume that I was so intellectually superior that given the same information I would make a different and better choice. If he doesn't get re-elected, well, I believe it's the collective loss of the
...
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math? Ummm, sure! I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: War on Iraq |
Sun, 30 March 2003 04:30 |
|
| zoid |
| Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
| Steve1 wrote on Sat, 29 March 2003 21:49 |
You know I find it most annoying that you guys rave on about US/UK involvement in the war on Iraq but you never acknowledge Australia.
Granted Australia's role in the war is a minor one, but Australian troops are out there putting their lives on the line.
We've always honoured our part of the Anzus alliance (which New Zealand hasn't) and as far as I recall, we've supported the US in every war since and including Vietnam.
All I ask for is a little acknowledgement !
|
Hey, you've got it! Sorry about the oversight - I know there are lots of countries doing what they can; I just don't know all of them. I for one am appreciative of all the nations standing by the US/UK led coalition, especially those actually contributing troops like Australia, although I can't keep track of all of them. Arn't there 40-something countries in this to one degree or another?
| Wayne wrote |
On a personal note if I were to be recalled into the forces to go to Iraq I would go
|
I was recalled to active duty in Desert Storm, but I don't think the government can recall me now since my 8 year obligation has long been fulfilled. If things drag on and on and the US Army begins begging for volunteers, I might go see if they can use a 40-year-old tank crewman anyways. I'm not sure though. I have a wife and two girls that need me, and I have a happy life - I'm not going to go unless I'm sorely needed. And if we have to fight this war with our hands tied, I feel sorry for the troops who are there, but I'm not going to volunteer for THAT in any case. I want no part in a war where my role is to be a target that can't shoot back for fear of hurting the wrong person. That's why I speak so strongly against civilian lives being considered more than our own troops. That's no way to fight a war, and I don't want anybody there "fighting" that way, especially not me.
...
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math? Ummm, sure! I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Sun, 30 March 2003 06:39 |
|
|
|
Specifically regarding NZ.. 70% of the population doesn't want us in the war and I believe the govt should sway to such a majority. Even if they are only doing it to save thier (local)political asses - they normally just ignore us. As for the anzus treaty...it was effectively scrapped when we refused the entry of US nuclear powered ships in the 80's.
While we may not be supplying frontline soldiers we supply plenty of peacekeepers and humanitarian support personnel.
[Updated on: Sun, 30 March 2003 06:41] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Sun, 30 March 2003 07:08 |
|
| tprescott |
 | Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 38
Registered: December 2002
Location: ROK [GMT+9] | |
|
I'm certainly more of a lurker than a poster, but this thread has succeeded in drawing me out of the background.
First, I'd like to express my support to Zoid. I think he most eloquently expresses the viewpoint of most Americans - or at least those Americans who have volunteered to serve in her military forces.
Second, I abstained from voting in Freakyboy's original poll because of its antiwar bias. According to his poll, one can not recognize war as an option without coming across as a murderous fiend. When in fact, war is the mechanism (albeit a distasteful one) to further National / World interests after diplomacy fails. Certainly a war can be prosecuted without killing *everyone* - to let God sort them all out. Had there been an option that conveyed this sentiment, I would have participated in the poll by selecting it. I am therefore very pleased that Zoid and others in this discussion have so successfully brought this point to the forefront.
Third, I think our coalition in Iraq is doing a decent job of limiting collateral damage and protecting innocent civilians. However, war is dirty and distasteful. Accidents occur because soldiers are human and even precise weaponry has effects that can not be completely controlled. Civilians will get hurt and I accept that - while at the same time I support all measures to help ensure their safety. But, we do not live in a perfect world so we must accept the bad with the good. If in the end *some* civilians die because the coalition pursues a policy that brings the war to a swift conclusion, I will find this option infinitely superior to a policy that attempts (and ultimately fails anyway) to protect *all* civilians and drags on for months or years. I find it far more humane to end it quickly and accept some unfortunate and unintended mistakes.
Finally, my thanks and appreciation to Steve1 and your fellow countrymen. Australia is such a good friend that sometimes her participation and support are taken for granted. I, for one, regret that.
Tom
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Sun, 30 March 2003 07:14 |
|
|
|
Apologies to all the other countries involved. Forgiven my ignorance because I am a young soul who has based on all his opinions on the state of affairs from what he has read and been shown... which hasn't included a list of other countries involved. Maybe there should be greater show of these countries in recognition of their commitment to removing Saddam (Which i am all for, he's a bad bad man!!).
Yes I am a "peace-nik". I do not believe that anyone truely deserves to die. I don't believe Saddam should be locked in a cell to live out his days. I believe Saddam should endure the same (if not worse) treatment than the peoples of his country. Contrary to what you said Zoid you can kill a man more than once, stop his heart and then restart it (technically you don't STOP the heart, but thats a different discussion) - he would be technically dead for several seconds/minutes before he'd come back around. I'd start by strapping Saddam down in a gas chamber and filling it with knock-out gas. Imagine the fear he'd have only to wake up a few hours later. If we do capture Saddam I'd like to vote Zoid as the man in chargeof Saddams punishment... just don't kill him. I think Zoid has shown the level of hatred that Saddam deserves the wrath of.
The UN weapon inspectors were very much on the "side" of the US. They confirmed the location of many of the US weapon sites etc... - by confirmed I mean the CIA approached them saying "This is what we think they have and where. This is where and when we think Saddam is/was". And good news for the CIA was they were spot on the mark everytime. The "I" doesn't stand for idiot you know.
The reason why Blair won't get re-elected is nothing to do with standing by his values etc... It's more the fact that the majority were AGAINST the war without UN backing and the role of people like Bush and Blair is to represent the views of the majority. He didn't do that so he's lost alot of support from the opposers of war (without UN backing, I mention t
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Sun, 30 March 2003 09:01 |
|
| Steve1 |
 | Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 240
Registered: January 2003
Location: Australia | |
|
| Quote: |
Hey, you've got it! Sorry about the oversight - I know there are lots of countries doing what they can; I just don't know all of them. I for one am appreciative of all the nations standing by the US/UK led coalition, especially those actually contributing troops like Australia, although I can't keep track of all of them. Arn't there 40-something countries in this to one degree or another?
|
Yes there probably are a lot of countires involved to some degree or another but the US, UK and Australia are the only ones who have committed fighting troops to the area.
Others have troops involved but are there for humanitarian or other reasons only.
[Updated on: Sun, 30 March 2003 11:48] by Moderator
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: War on Iraq |
Sun, 30 March 2003 12:34 |
|
| BlueTurbit |
 | Lt. Commander
RIP
BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011 |
Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002
Location: Heart of Texas | |
|
With respect to the best way to fight the war and what to do with Saddam, I leave that up to the professionals, from the generals down to the boots on the ground. Franky speaking. Some of the advice given here about warfare is from those who cannot win a game yet. 
With respect to the justification of the war, what better reason is there than to rid a nation of people from the suffering caused by an evil regime over the last couple decades. Saddam's regime began his kingdom by executing 450 or so officers, followed by years of war with Iran at a devastating economic cost of tens of billions to his country, followed by the attack on Kuwait... with gassing, torturing and numerous other atrocities mixed in. What better reason to free the people of Iraq than for the sake of mercy and compassion and humanity? What has the UN done to stop their suffering all these years? Compound their misery with sanctions? Bah bah bad solution.
Truth is there are lots of evil regimes in this world that the other nations should at least make an attempt to clean up the mess just for the sake of humanity and right vs wrong. But that ain't gonna' happen. Too many nations and companies base their sole purpose of life on the almighty dollar or whatever currency they value in their region. It's sad, but true, for such is the history of mankind.
I thank God for my country and the servicemen who help to keep it free. We are far from perfect but we are a good example of what the world could be if all would strive for freedom and justice. Prosperity, peace and freedom is not free, as long as there are evil people, wether they be regimes or criminals in the neighborhood, it has to be fought for. At least that's how we got were we are.
This list is 10 days old and likely larger by now:
Note that many countries are former oppressed communist nations who understand the meaning of freedom and suppression more than most.
| Quote: |
March 20, 2003
Who are the current coalition members?
President Bush is assembling a Coalition that has alr |
...
[Updated on: Sun, 30 March 2003 12:37]
BlueTurbit Country/RockReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Mon, 31 March 2003 02:09 |
|
| zoid |
| Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
| freakyboy wrote on Sun, 30 March 2003 04:14 |
If we do capture Saddam I'd like to vote Zoid as the man in chargeof Saddams punishment... just don't kill him. I think Zoid has shown the level of hatred that Saddam deserves the wrath of.
|
I think maybe you've gotten the wrong idea about me. Although I think Saddam is as evil as they come, I'm not really into torture. If it were me I'd simply use a firing squad. As for hating him? *shrug* I don't think I hate him. I just recognize him as an icon of injustice, sadism, treachery and tyranny. I don't admire him (I don't even have any respect for him) and I think justice demands his death as a minimum. For everyone he has destroyed, it's just too bad death is all there is. Those who believe in hell may find comfort in the belief that he will be there. I have no such faith.
| Quote: |
. . . .the role of people like Bush and Blair is to represent the views of the majority. He didn't do that so he's lost alot of support from the opposers of war (without UN backing, I mention this because they majority wanted war but only with UN backing).
|
I'm sure you know a lot more about my country than I know about yours (or any other for that matter) so I can't comment on the nature of your government except to say I DOUBT that the UK is truly a democracy. I know the US isn't, and I remember my sociology professor years ago saying no true democracy exists. Most "democracies" to include the US are actually republics. In a true democracy the leaders duty is to represent the majority, but in a republic, that is not the case. The leader of a republic has a duty to do what he thinks is in the best interest of his country even if it goes against public opinion. The opinions of the voters are only represented by selecting the candidate that they feel most represents their own philosophies. The candidate, once elected has no obligation to consider the opinion of the electors. Of course, as you point out, if the peoples will is too often not reflected by the leaders actions, they will vote fo
...
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math? Ummm, sure! I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Mon, 31 March 2003 04:38 |
|
|
|
Great post Zoid, I agree with the majority of your points...
Just one observation made about the nature of democracy in the UK...
| Quote: |
. . . .the role of people like Bush and Blair is to represent the views of the majority.
|
Last poll I saw said 84% of people supported war in the UK. Figures vary, but I think now that we have got into the conflict, people are saying "Ok, I would prefer war not to happen, but if Bush and Blair think it has to be done, then it has to be done."
At any rate, I remember another gentleman having views that were initially unpopular in the 1930's, who happened to go on to be considered Britains greatest ever leader. Any guesses for his name? It ain't Chamberlain.
As for what the UK is (democracy or republic?). It is neither. It is a Consitutional monarchy, so potentially the elected Prime minister has to be approved by the MOnarch, and the Monarch could appoint anyone they wanted. That's in theory, at least. In practice the monarchy is little more than a ceremonial role.
As for democracy vs Republic - surely a republic is a better state or government than democracy, if only because the masses are not fully aware of the facts that the government can receive, and thus cannot make the correct decisions?
That's what I think is going on here - the anti-war protesters are simply uneducated about the factors involved. I've seen plenty spout material about the "motives" behind this war, but they fail to understand the opposing perspective.
[img]http://www.ukrockers.com/forum/attachments/si.gif[/img]Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Mon, 31 March 2003 19:14 |
|
| zoid |
| Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
| JamesWD wrote on Mon, 31 March 2003 01:38 |
I remember another gentleman having views that were initially unpopular in the 1930's, who happened to go on to be considered Britains greatest ever leader. Any guesses for his name? It ain't Chamberlain.
|
Sure, even a dummy like me knows of Winston Churchhill.
| Quote: |
As for what the UK is (democracy or republic?). It is neither. It is a Consitutional monarchy, so potentially the elected Prime minister has to be approved by the MOnarch, and the Monarch could appoint anyone they wanted. That's in theory, at least. In practice the monarchy is little more than a ceremonial role.
|
Interesting. Now I'm curious. Is it correct to say that the Prime Minister has an obligation to represent the wishes of the public? Or is it more like our republic in that regard?
| Quote: |
As for democracy vs Republic - surely a republic is a better state or government than democracy, if only because the masses are not fully aware of the facts that the government can receive, and thus cannot make the correct decisions?
|
I'd agree with that, but for more reasons than one. Not only does the general public not have access to all the information often needed to make an informed decision, but even if they have sufficient information the will of the majority does not necessarily constitute "the right thing to do". For instance, as one of my own heroes Dr. Walter Williams (well-known American Libertarian) says, two or more men and one woman in isolation might have a democratic vote on whether or not they should all have sex with the woman. If a simple majority in a democratic vote was always recognized as morally correct, a great injustice could occur. That's what he (and I) call "tyranny of the majority".
| Quote: |
That's what I think is going on here - the anti-war protesters are simply uneducated about the factors involved. I've seen plenty spout material about the "motives" behind this war, but they fail to understand the opposing perspective.
|
I agree, but unfortunately t
...
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math? Ummm, sure! I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: War on Iraq |
Tue, 01 April 2003 16:00 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Sure, even a dummy like me knows of Winston Churchhill.
|
I was trying to make a vague point. Chamberlain never gets mentioned in a positive light, even after all his attempts to appease Germany. It was a political "hawk" who rose to fame.
| Quote: |
Is it correct to say that the Prime Minister has an obligation to represent the wishes of the public? Or is it more like our republic in that regard?
|
Well, I suppose if the PM displeased our monarch, He would get the sack, so in theory he is answerable to the monarch. In practice, I suppose the PM is answerable to the House of commons, which in turn is answerable to the public, so I suppose indirectly the PM is answerable to the public, but there are a few layers between.
| Quote: |
I agree, but unfortunately there is a darker side as well. Some people really know better and are against the war for less honorable reasons than simple ignorance.
|
Yes, a minority, albeit a vocal one. We have the journalists (such as Robert Fisk, who are so Anti-Jew he could almost be called a Nazi) which portray an inaccurate perspective, we have political extremists who would oppose any decision the mainstream would make.
There is also a minority who protest simply for the sake of protesting. I know of one report where protesters attacked a police horse(?), another where a criminal damage was inflicted upon a private shop etc etc...
It's quite interesting that there have been children protesting in the UK - although can your average 13 year old honestly have an intelligent perspective on Iraq? Or is it being breast-fed propaganda from extremist sources?
But, in general, the majority of people are simply dumb.
...
[img]http://www.ukrockers.com/forum/attachments/si.gif[/img]Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 19 06:17:40 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
9 / 30%
confirmed that our
