|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 14, 2004 11:49:31 GMT
Unless I am mistaken, America supported Saddam because at the time he was against Iran. They just chose to ignore the way he treated the civilians. It is likely that they gave him loads of weapons, and powerful ones too.
Extremely glad you've signed up Sam. Will be a pleasure to hear some plans for World Domination, and how Blair and Bush intend to do it.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 14, 2004 11:58:13 GMT
As long as you don't rant on too much eh?
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 15, 2004 11:38:06 GMT
I believe that Gamgee has the right to rant, isn't that what debate is about? The right to express yourself, if ranting is involved then well, I think that it shows passion for what you believe in. But RMR, you said that you thought that the war was 'poorly thought out.' I think that you are wrong. We have been planning this offensive on Saddam for over a decade. We just needed a good reason to carry it out. In war there will always be mistakes made, it is just that the media plays them up, and the families of the victems jump right in at the deep end and blame the goverment. It is true that there were several incidents of friendly fire, copters crashing and artillary explding. However this is war, and mistakes will be made, by all sides. Our men, and the Americans were briefed fully, and they knew the risks, they knew mistakes would be made. That is part of their jobs, they are the ones who go out there and do the jobs. Our politicians may be many things, but they are not barbariens, they would not send good honest men and women into battle halfprepared. I have been accused of listoning to the propoganda. I think that you have been listoning too much to those anti-war hippies, whp pretend to care for the world, but they only do it so they themselves can be on the TV. They called us and the Americans 'terrorists,' am I to be compared to the likes of Bin Laden, just because I believe in getting off I disagree, and doing something about this problem. When al-Quedi, attack here, then they will change their tune. It is us 'terrorists' that keep the UK safe. The war was justified, people are entitled to their opinions, but you cannot go around saying that WE are the ones spreading evil, the terrorists are evil. WE are the ones who need our way of life safe, it is up to us. If WE stood back and did nothing, then evil would find us anyway. We have done this for a world as a whole, we are not just thinking about Britain or the US. Bush and Blair are thinking to the future. Some may agrue that the coalition has no right to police to world, but I say that everyone needs someone to look out for them, it is not a case of appointing someone to do it. Sometimes people just to it out of the kindness of thier hearts, or for the benefit of everyone.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 15, 2004 17:07:39 GMT
My personal view is that the war was well planned TACTICALLY. ie. battle plans. But when it comes to lack of body armour and amunition, that is poorly planned on terms of providing our troops with the equipment they need to do their job efficiently and safely. The Army is supposed to be an efficient killing machine, but due to shortages its efficiency was comprimised.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 15, 2004 21:59:30 GMT
Very true, and an excellent point Critique!
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 16, 2004 8:25:49 GMT
Thanks. A view formed through watching the news and reading the paper.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 16, 2004 8:49:18 GMT
Through reading the Telegraph and watching BBC news These are the two greatest British news sources.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 16, 2004 13:41:32 GMT
Today on BBC news, the results of a vote; Were we right to go to war? Yes= 38% No= 33% Was the war legal? Legal= 41% Illegal= 49%
Differing opinions here!
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 16, 2004 18:39:53 GMT
Seems a bit of a contradiction. War illegal, but we were right to do it!
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 17, 2004 7:59:02 GMT
It was the right thing to do to remove Saddam etc but we did it in an illegal manner I think is the general gist.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 17, 2004 10:51:01 GMT
The UN does make the international law, but they do not do anything to enforce it. If they had really wanted to stop the coalition going to war, then they could have done something about it. The UN has no real power, expcept to prehaps to disagree with decisions. In Israel, their peacekeeping forces did a very poor job. Their presence there only served to inflame the conflict. In Iraq, they were content to search for weapons of mass destruction, which are probably destroyed, while Saddam continued his region of terror. The war may have been illegal, by their law, but it did accomplice something.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 17, 2004 11:02:41 GMT
Perhaps, but was it worth the cost?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 17, 2004 11:03:05 GMT
They accomplised the destruction of the Ba'ath Party, but they also achieved a failure in the attempt to restore law and order to the country.
As for the UN, I think they're a bunch of squabbling delegates.
|
|
|
Post by Incubus on Mar 17, 2004 18:27:26 GMT
Hear, Hear!
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 17, 2004 20:00:34 GMT
The UN are pointless, they never step in when asked and have made tons of mistakes, their powers are used so little that leaders have free reign without listening to them.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 18, 2004 13:39:31 GMT
Well RMR, that is a slight contridiction of your earlier comment. How could the war have been illegal, if the UN would do nothing to stop it. You are right the UN has no power, and if no one is there to enforce their resolutions, then they are pointless. If you look at it logically then we did Iraq a favour. Critique is right, the Ba'ath party are no longer in control, so that is one less dictatorship. One less problem. If you want to side with France and the others, then your way wold have resultted in endless inspections. Nothing else would have been done. OUR way something was done, and it was worth every little sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 18, 2004 16:44:30 GMT
I agree with your above comments Loremaster. Despite my opposition to the war due to the present day Iraq, if the Americans and Britain didn't do something about it no-one would. The EU is a bureaucracy, and nothing is solved. They have no power because all they do is bicker: nations take the situations into their own hands.
It is less one tyrant in power, but before we have a war with anyone else, maybe we should focus on the threat of global terrorism. That includes sorting out Iraq, as it is now a breeding ground for it.
I pity the fool who decides to take on responsibility for sorting out Iraq. God help him!
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 18, 2004 20:14:36 GMT
After these wars then the coalition needs to clean up their mess before they make a new one. They have to sort out Iraq and make sure it's safe and rebuilt before they bugger off to assault random country no.3
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 19, 2004 11:02:42 GMT
Have you not been watching the news? They are not invading random countries, the coalition is cracking down on world wide terrorism. But now we hear that Bin Laden's right hand man is cornored. Again more progress. I disapprove of the Lib Dem's stance on this conflict. If Charles Kennedy were in power then, Saddam would also have been. If we had no gotten involved the Un would still be running pointless inspections. They say that actions speak loulder than words, and this one showed the terrorists that we will not tolertate their actions againist modern society.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 19, 2004 13:07:31 GMT
I am pleased with the Spaniards with their marches on terrorism. They have shown that it will not be tolerated, and therefore Jose Maria Anwar was ousted. Now Spanish troops are being withdrawn from Iraq.
I can't say I support the move because it leaves Iraq's troubles to Britain and the US, and leaves Iraq less chance of returning to some kind of democratic order.
That isn't true what you said though: If the LibDems were in power we wouldn't be in the war but the Americans would have still have invaded and ousted Saddam and his dictatorship.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 19, 2004 13:40:26 GMT
The coalition is doing whatever George Bush says, you can believe their shite about cracking down on terrorism but it hasn't stemmed the flow on terrorism at all.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 19, 2004 17:09:07 GMT
Too true. American and British forces across the world may have struck severe blows against some terrorist groups, for example Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, but due to recent atrocities, it appears they haven't done anything to hinder them. Al Qaeda are still operational and will contine to strike blows against democracy.
The reason Bush claims to be winning the war on terrorism is a simple case of publicity. Americans will love to hear that their supposedly great nation is winning another war, and Bush is desperate to get re-elected in the face of tough competition. Kerry is set to beat him by miles. If Bush said they were losing he would have signed his own political death warrant.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 19, 2004 19:37:36 GMT
Excellent point Critique, but RMR, you are wrong. We are cracking down on terrorism, but as I have said before we still have a long way to go. As for what you say about 'shite' yes, you have both answered that. We are being told that we are winning the war, but the Al-Quidia, are being told the same thing. It is what politicians do. As the Critique says, if Bush said that he was losing the war, then it would cause pandemonium. All politicians say things like this, look at Saddam, he said to his men, we will win, they were out numbered more than 10 to 1 (please notes odds are only estimates), for the sake of moral we have to be told things are being done out of this.
|
|
|
Post by MrMoony on Mar 19, 2004 19:49:39 GMT
Bird Poop Loremaster, We are not cracking down on Terrorism at all, we carn't, its getting a bit out of hand wouldnt you say. But who do you think is supplying for all the weapons. I look on Russia, they have a large supply of AK-47's as they make them. Weapons are falling into the wrong hands and Americans and English are dieing. What happens in the future is up to wits and training in my thought.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 19, 2004 19:59:07 GMT
Well a very good response. My answer to this is that if we were to declare war on Russia, then it would be WW3, but I believe that to be invevitable. Even our politicians aren't mad enough to start a World War. But I think that it will come to that eventually.
|
|