|
Post by MrMoony on Mar 19, 2004 20:07:53 GMT
Did I saay to declare war on Russia, that would be suicide! The Russian's are the maker of the biggest atom bomb ever made and they would have made bigger ones if this one didn't scare them. BIG BOOM!!
Im saying that if Russia is the source of the weapons mabey we could reason with Russia? Oh who am I kidding, the Russains wouldn't listen to us. Oh well, grab a gun and strap yourself in as its not going to be an easy ride, Mind you the AK-47 (The weapon of choice of the somalis') is a shoddy gun, if you fire it you are alot less lightly to hit the target as with the guns we have. But the guns we have are not sutable for desert conditions and would get jammed and may even kill us. But we could try. We need all our big gun developers to make a desert sutable gun.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 19, 2004 20:52:06 GMT
Can I please remind everyone that this topic is for debate over THE IRAQ WAR! Not WW3. That is a topic currently in progress in the General Board. Please post things about WW3 there. Keep this debate to the legality of the Iraq war, who we are going to bomb next, etc. Thankyou.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 20, 2004 19:58:20 GMT
So, who does it look like we're going to bomb next if Blair and George can manage it? Iran? Syria? Maybe even North Korea? Who is the allegedly strongest supporter of terrorism?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 20, 2004 21:16:01 GMT
The coalition will bomb whoever Geogre Bush likes the least, that's how the war works. Someone has a remotest link to terrorism and they take them out. Same with Afghanistan. I read yet another article in the paper about disgruntled Iraqi's who would rather have Saddam back than the 'liberated' Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 21, 2004 9:32:17 GMT
They won't try to bomb anyone for ages. It would hurt the both too much in the polls. Bush is up for re-election soon, and currently it looks like he's going to be easily defeated. Although Blair is still well in the lead in the polls here, that could all change in favour of the LibDems and the tories if he was to bomb someone else. Remember the anti-war march in London?
I hear it a lot in the papers aswell about Iraqi's wanting Saddam back. Although he was a tyrant, he did impose some sort of order. There was no crime; no robbery, no muggings etc. Nowadays crime is rampant, and the coalition seems powerless to stop it.
|
|
|
Post by electronico1995 on Mar 21, 2004 11:31:30 GMT
If you want my opinion, I say we shouldn't bomb anyone else
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 21, 2004 20:02:46 GMT
Well if by a miracle then Bush is re-elected then the assaults will continue I think.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 22, 2004 11:41:29 GMT
I think that your opinion is shared by most of us here, Nick. We all wish that these attacks would stop, and this whole mess had never even started. I wish that I could could back and stop the planes from hitting the Towers. But we can't, and as a result we need to finish it now. If we don't then the problem will not go away, and the other September 11th's will be seen in every corner of the World. Can we allow that to happen?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 22, 2004 12:13:38 GMT
September the 11th was a tragic but well planned attack, with better security procedures and more training for these situations it can be avoided. The fact is what is there to finish? Some old man in a cave who has dialysis and occasional denounces the west? The terorists themselve were killed in the suicide bombing, though there are more ready to rise up then this can be easily modified and controlled. Rather than throwing away lives and resources at any country remotely linked to terrorism such as Afghanistan. This is not justified meaningful war against terrorism, we are accomplishing very little and unles a better plan is thought up then this will continue to be a useless illegal war!
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 22, 2004 13:36:47 GMT
The problem with the war on terrorism is that there is no 'specific' enemy, no country or powerhouse of the enemy to invade and destroy, like there was in WW2: Germany was the place to invade. We currently appear to be invading countries whose ideas allegedly are supporting those of terrorists.
The terrorists share an idea, which is virtually indestructable. All we can do is protect ourselves against them: ie. the effects of their ideas. We could have prevented 9/11 if the Americans had increased security on internal flights. Security was lax as the planes were on home territory, and they believed that nothing could happen on internal flights.
The idea that was the War on Terrorism is not the way the current war was being won. Saddam was not currently a threat to the world as Blair and Bush claimed. If the war on terror was being conducted correctly it would be attacking Al Qaeda not countries not accociated with them. Invading Afghanistan I think was right, because the Taliban openly supported Al Qaeda, and there were terrorist training camps there. That is an example of countries that should be invaded. The war started out as originally intended, but has strayed off course. Invading Iraq was a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 22, 2004 13:38:21 GMT
Ok, now who's laws are we breaking exactly. I have said this before, do you mean the UN? How can they expect us to stop if they won't do anything themselves? Would you prefer just to sit by and watch as the attacks keep on coming?
They were talking last night about of we were next. Yes, it will be here that the next blow falls, and our goverment is doing everything to protect againist that. It is easy to say that this war and everything to do with America's actions after 9/11. Are you simply following the general trend? Are you just siding with the majority, who care nothing for the world outside.
You say that America is to blame for all of this. No, they have suffered the most grievious hurt, and they have every right to want revenge and to stop something like that happening again. Those protesters, who filled the streets last week, said that Blair was wrong to support the War. It makes me sick to see how ignorent those people are. They would not be so critical if 9/11 had happened here. It would be them who wanted others to help.
Are you proposing that we stop now? Drop your views of peace and love, and wake up. The next step is going to be here. You say that this war is enthical. So were the attacks in Madrid and America. I don't see those protesters morning them, and called them uneithical, and barbaric. You are tghe sort who care nothing, but for yourselves. You have no idea of what is going on out there. I admire those brave men and women who can stand up and say to the crowd that, I disagree. If you want to be one of the faceless masses, then go ahead, have no identity.
I am by no means Bush and Blair's biggest fan, and I never will be. But I admire the fact that they were able to stand up the rest of the UN, and say that they believed that they were wrong. It is through actions like these that some of the greatest feats in History were accomplished. If the War is illegal, then it is time to ammend the Law.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 22, 2004 16:41:41 GMT
A fine statement Loremaster! You argued your point well.
I think we should change the wording of the whole issue. Whose laws are we allegedly breaking, as Mike clearly pointed out. I think what we mean is simply were we right to go to war? The word illegal is just a way of saying it. If we are breaking the laws of the UN it would be hard for me to care less about it.
The reason I am against the war is simply Iraq today. Look at it. Suicide bombings almost daily, on the brink of total anarchy, and a climbing death toll. I would be in full support of the war if Saddam was deposed and democracy installed with little or no hitches. The claim 'Iraq is now a democracy' is the understatement of the year.
However Loremaster, I strongly disagree with your claim that our governments are doing everything in their power to prevent terror attacks. Those of you who read newspapers will have heard that a load of anti-war protestors scaled Big Ben! And this country is supposed to be on a high terror alert! Blair's alleged tough security stance has about as much substance as the vacuum of space.
An attack in Britain is inevitable. If the strength of our security is like that around the Houses of Parliament we are sitting ducks.
The war on terror will almost certainly end if Kerry gains power in the US. According to a source of mine he is totally against the war and will end it if he comes to power. We will be unable to fight it on our own, and no-one will join us, so it will end there. Spain has already withdrawn their backing, Russia and France were always against it. I predict the war on terror will end soon.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 22, 2004 19:26:58 GMT
Our governments are making a pathetic effort to protect our country. Security has always been a joke, not just protesters scaling Big Ben but such easy access to important targets. Just days after Sept 11th then unchecked helicopters and smaller aircraft were flying around London without any restraint. They flew past Parliment, Buckingham Palace, Big Ben and Winsor Castle. If they'd been suicide bombers we could've lost any of those buildings. Does America really have this much right to revenge? For a handful of bombers and organisations then they declare themselves world judges and go around invading anyone they like. Does the average Iraqi know anything about suicide bombings? Did the Iraqi soldier losing his life do so because he supported terror or because Saddam made him? The current status of Iraq is terrible, and Afghanistan is not much better. If they want a war on terror they can clean their mess. Anymore invasions will be no use, they will show nothing apart from the fact no one can stop America in their relentless attacking of people they have a disliking of. They use 9/11 as an excuse to take down people like Iraq. I hope Kerry is elected and America can finally stand up and be respected again. Rather than listening to the gung-ho attitude of the Bush administration. The war on terror has had its time and now we need stability again.
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 23, 2004 13:38:44 GMT
Well Critique, thank you. I appreciate the compliment. I do feel very passionatly about this. There power behind the laws cannot enforce them, and so why should we not act upon it. I believe that the UN shoud be dismantled, and a better more efficent world force. RMR says that we should not let America and Britain 'police' the world. I think that is some senses he is right.
We need a worldwide force that can act as a 'policeman' for the world. We need a force that can provide better and faster reactions, in case of an inevitable war. But it should not be based on diner dates like the UN, it should have real power, and be able to help shape the world, into a place that is safe from terrorism. After all, United We Stand, Divided We Fall.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 23, 2004 16:20:13 GMT
I would support a 'world police force' so long as it is not controlled by a bureaucracy, like the UN is. It would need to be efficient, well trained, and respected.
I found out that UN forces were occupying the Suez canal during one of the Arab-Israel wars. The UN does not have troops, so whose troops were they? Which member state?
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 23, 2004 21:04:48 GMT
Yes, good question. Whose troops were they, is this some sort of conpiracy? Post views here.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 24, 2004 7:56:00 GMT
Yes but the world police force should NOT have George W Bush at the helm!
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 24, 2004 10:34:20 GMT
You are right. I believe that a leader should be chosen in a fair election, and not effected by country political power.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 24, 2004 10:49:03 GMT
So who should be this world power be? Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by loremastermiar on Mar 24, 2004 10:59:50 GMT
Prehaps a coucil of all the nations involved, but then again would that just be like the UN?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 24, 2004 19:38:16 GMT
The UN is clearly useless in what it does, we need a society that will do something and have REAL power not pointless meetings that no one listens to.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 24, 2004 20:08:46 GMT
On the topic if Iraq itself, I saw the front page of yesterdays Daily Mail. British forces are taking the force of arab hate in Iraq. Many have been injured by firebombs and other projectiles. Should we now pull the troops out of Iraq?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 25, 2004 19:33:50 GMT
Yes, then we should send money and methods to rebuild Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 27, 2004 12:27:41 GMT
How do we rebuild Iraq? Who do we send the money to? Won't all the new developments be easy targets for suicide bombers? We need to eradicate terrorism there first.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 27, 2004 20:44:52 GMT
This is one of the problems I am trying to highlight, we have not helped Iraq we have destroyed it! We cannot start rebuilding because of too many suicide bombers, the law isn't properly enforced so muggings, looting, beating and murders happen often. Sucides daily and so on. Throwing money at it WON'T make it better. With Saddam then the Iraqis knew where they stood, I don't agree with anything to do with Saddam but I think the Coalition have made an awful job of this.
|
|