|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 5, 2004 15:53:49 GMT
Was the war legal? Should Blair resign? Post your opinions here.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 7, 2004 17:30:32 GMT
Saddam Hussein was a tryrant who needed to be brought down, no question. However, why it was not finished at a different time? Why when the call for oil is needed do we suddenly attack Iraq? The answer is blatantly obvious. Blair and the Labour government will not admit to being fully wrong and will not resign, enquires like the Hutton Report make it less likely for them to do so. They are merely trying to excuse themselves and I would like to say that it will cost them the next election but I don't think there are strong enough opposition to bring him down, the Tory party is in a poor state and the Lib Dems are my favourites.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 8, 2004 8:35:14 GMT
I agree. Very good point ringmaster. They should not have stopped fighting Saddam in the first Gulf war. They could have easily entered the country and removed Saddam. As it is, they started an uprising and Saddam used his poisonous gas rockets to supress it. Thats why they refused to uprise again.
This, in the end, comes down to the EU. The EU resolution only gave them permission to liberate Kuwait. It should have been to liberate Kuwait and Iraq.
As the papers are saying, it is likely that if Blair wins the next election he will hand over control to Brown. Blair will not resign any time soon - he likes power. Most people now think Hutton was a joke and the Butler enquiry will be another whitewash, as i said in my most recent article.
The Conservatives need to be totally radical and have clear and effective policies to win the next election. There is no other way. Also, they mist not appear to be 'Thatcherite' as Blair has accused them of being. Realistically, I think Blair will only just win the next election, but his overwhelming majority will be cut.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 8, 2004 12:32:58 GMT
The Iraq War was shown to the public to be a war for the freedom of the West, but the main reason behind this was to gain the vital oil reserves of Iraq and gain access to Kuwait's. But as for Saddam Hussein, he is an evil man who belongs in the deepest darkest prisons in the world. It is my belief that while we may have gone to war for the benefit of America's economy, and for ours, but in the long run the people of Iraq have earned the rights that we all should have. Free speak, the right to an education, the right to live in a country, not governed by a dictator. This, for me is what needs to be done, we need to stand up to the terrorists of this world, and show them that they cannot get away with international campaigns of terror. If we do not keep fighting, then scenes like September 11th will be seen in every cornor of the world. Whether for the right or wrong reasons, th Iraq War has helped us to take another step towards freeing this world from the tyrants and dictators that cause havoc and destruction on a limb. It warmed my heart to see the people of Iraq free, able to celebrate their new world, a world that we so often take foregranted, a world of peace, and free speak. But we still have much work to do if we are to keep what we have already gained. I for one look forward to the day when we shall win, and the last of the evil from this world will be gone. Until then I hope and pray that together, humanity will unite and stamp out this threat. And some day that day will come. Until then I wait for it with a hopeful heart and the firm belief that there is light at the end of the tunnel. All be it a long way of.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 8, 2004 12:41:53 GMT
Good points made there loremaster, but you don't seem to have considered the fact that Iraq still really isn't free: it is only free officially. There are so many suicide bombs now that we don't take an intrest in them when they're announced on the news.
I hope for the sake of the Iraqi people that Al Quida will be eradicated and a proper system of democracy installed. Bush and Blair should do this for the sake of the polls. The attacks reveal the true nature ofthe evil that is Al Quida. They bomb innocent civilians in the hope of stirring up a civil war. The Iraqi people should turn their hate on Osama Bin Laden.
WE SHOULD keep fighting global terrosism for the reasons you stated, loremaster. Hopefully, on the Afghan-Pakistan border Osama Bin Laden will be captured and executed.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 8, 2004 13:35:46 GMT
too true Critique, Iraq is not free at all. Supporters of Saddam's Ba-ath party still organise suidcides, murders and such things in Iraq. Most of the Iraqi people are in a worse state now than before the war, the power was out, the waste disposal was ruined and the looting caused so much trouble and all the civilians caught up and killed in it all. Iraqi's need more help than this. We made a mess and we should do a better job to clean it up.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 9, 2004 19:48:57 GMT
Both excellent points, and I have taken them on board. But I don't think that you are right, people have paid too much attention to Iraq, this is all a ploy. If all the world's eyes are on Iraq, then we will not be focusing elsewhere. This gives the terroirsts time to plot their next move, and they will not have as much hinderence. Also, they want America and Britain to send in more soliders, they want to kill as many as they can. The more attacks, the more troops are sent in, the more are killed, the happier the terrorist. They want us to leave Iraq, that is true, but they also want to stretch our resources thinly, so when they do attack, we cannot cope. That way, we pull out, so does the US, Iraq is theirs, a new leader is chosen, and this whole war starts all over again. If you think that by capturing Bin Laden, this will all end? No. Another will rise in his place, and another, so we have to stomp this out. Bin Laden and Saddam, were just faces of a huge network apposed to peace, and to the West. As I said before, we have freed Iraq, but the bombs are there as a distraction. You say that they are not free, they have a good education, they can celebrate their relegion freely. There is no tyrant, no fear, they now rule themselves. That is freedom.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 10, 2004 7:41:09 GMT
Ah but that is not as true as America will have you believe, I found out some information about this and read several articles. Not everyone can openly celebrate their freedom, many of them have had their homes and families destroyed by the war. Ba-ath party members still execute people in secret and suicide bombers come from all corners. They are still living in fear except a slightly different fear from before.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 10, 2004 13:18:30 GMT
Yes, but the Ba-ath party are no longer running the country. It is only a short space of time before these men are found and their plans stomped out.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 10, 2004 13:20:02 GMT
I'm not so sure, Bin Laden and Al-Quida have not been found and wiped out, but Afghanistan was set 'free' a long time ago. The recent capture of Saddam bought a lot of attention, naturally but Saddam is only the leader of many men equally as dubious as himself.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 10, 2004 13:41:42 GMT
Capturing Osama Bin Laden and virtually stamping Al-Quida out of existance will not totally remove the risk of terrorism. Although it would be a severe blow, and the risk from terrorist attacks would distinctively lower. The terrorists belong to an Ideology, and idea residing in people's minds, and therefore it cannot be destroyed. Terrorist attacks would still comtine, even if on a minor scale, if all terrorist groups were eradicated. That is because people would still believe in the terrorist cause.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 10, 2004 15:06:18 GMT
The capture of Saddam and him being found in a pathetic state in a filthy underground hole has seriously damaged the morale of many terrorists. The idea of terroists and suicide bomber becoming matyrs can be stopped by captures like Saddam's and a fair trial ending in some form of none execution. Execution only turns people into a matyr in the eyes of a terrorist
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 11, 2004 15:56:58 GMT
Indeed, very good point. Saddam painted a picture of himself as a great martyr. I think the fact that he wasn't even brave enough to take his own life shows basically that he is a chicken. If, in the public eye, supposedly great anti-west figures are seen to be cowards terrorists morale will fall as they are trying to get a message across.
Read admin announcements
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 12, 2004 7:51:00 GMT
Was that a subtle hint at the end?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 12, 2004 13:25:09 GMT
Indeed it was. Not many people are reading them, and theres some interesting stuff there everyone needs to hear. You've read it and therefore you're informed about it, and you've probably read everything there.
|
|
|
Post by MrMoony on Mar 12, 2004 17:51:44 GMT
It is said that the on-going battle to save Iraq from a very doomed fate is not and easy one. I believe that if Iraq could get rid of the rebels and so, and grow some farms or something it may have a chance.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 12, 2004 19:41:40 GMT
An interesting point, but maybe not entirly true.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 12, 2004 20:41:23 GMT
Iraq is clearly suffering at the hands of Al Quida. The suicide blasts are existant for one purpose: to intensify anger against the coalition. Currently they are succeeding. I can't really think of anything we can do about it. Post your suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 12, 2004 21:16:42 GMT
Sadly nothing short of a time machine can prevent the mistakes which have been allowed to happen to Iraq over the last 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 12, 2004 22:08:32 GMT
I agree. Britain and the US have got themselves into an inescapable trap. Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorism, more of our loyal troops die each day, and unless we pull out and give Al Quida a base again, we can't stop the bloodshed.
The only thing that would stop it is the total destruction of Al Quida. It's every living member exterminated, it's entire existance eradicated. (yes, that saying is from reloaded). If Al Quida was destroyed everywhere other than Iraq, the morale and confidence of the terrorists would crumble and the war on terror would be won. But that is a very unlikely possibility in many other possible scenarios.
A time machine would solve problems aswell, but I predict that one of them will not be invented in our lifetimes.
|
|
|
Post by electronico1995 on Mar 13, 2004 20:09:39 GMT
I say that the war was legal but so many people got abliterated and so that made me think that we shouldn't have gone to war because of the great amount of deaths.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 13, 2004 20:17:42 GMT
Wars will always bring casualties, but the Iraq war was needless death. Military incompetance coupled with plain stupidity caused many, many deaths even after the main fighting was over. Friendly fire, civilians shot in mistaken identity, no body armour. The whole war was poorly thought out and badly executed.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 14, 2004 8:59:30 GMT
The war was badly executed (not literally) as you said, thanks mostly to the MOD and Geoff Hoon. Major shortages of body armour and amunition. Poor operations causing friendly fire incidents that were widely reported on the news.
And now Iraq is in turmoil. A breeding ground for terrorism and civil war. Should we have been willing to pay such a heavy price just for the removal of a dictator?
|
|
Gamgee
Member of Parliament
Posts: 20
|
Post by Gamgee on Mar 14, 2004 10:02:48 GMT
Guess who sold Mr Saddam his weapons...
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 14, 2004 10:52:16 GMT
Yes we all know that we did, Iraq is all American's fault.
|
|