WAR!

[RicheyJames]

might be a stupid question but i can't help wondering whether people here are for or against the imminent gulf war 2. and more interestingly, people's reasons for falling on whichever side they find gravity sucking them toward....

[paint it black]

for

because there's bugger all else on telly and it links nicely with the Sisters habit of doing their biggest tours in times of conflict

[Quiff Boy]

against.

war is never a way of achieving peace. never.

despite what bush jnr and daddy bush's henchmen would have you believe...

let us not forget that the war on terror was against al quaeda (sp?) not against iraq. the "war" on iraq is merely an extension of what bush snr failed to complete when he was in power... he's getting jnr to finish the job.

[RicheyJames]

against.

war is never a way of achieving peace. never.

but the second world war has given us almost sixty years of peace in europe

despite what bush jnr and daddy bush's henchmen would have you believe...

let us not forget that the war on terror was against al quaeda (sp?) not against iraq. the "war" on iraq is merely an extension of what bush snr failed to complete when he was in power... he's getting jnr to finish the job.

but just because daddy bush messed up by not getting rid of saddam when he had the chance is baby bush necessarily wrong in wanting to rid the world of what is clearly a deeply loathsome regime? might this me a watershed in us foreign policy and see them using their unique (following the demise of the soviet bloc) postion to actively police rogue states??

btw - can i have my title chnged to devil's advocate

[Quiff Boy]

LOL!

ok, so saddam is "deeply loathsome" - but the problem is that bush jnr isnt smart enough to want rid of him himself, he's merely acting on daddy's pals' orders. and they aren't being honest about their motives... its purely tactical - it sabout oil, its about the balance of power in the middle east and its about anything but the fact that saddam is a bastard of a ruler.

if it was about that then why arent they targetting israel too?

the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

its a small world and it smells very very funny: kind of like oil. maybe with a hint of printers ink from all the yankee dollars and english zlotys that have been funding this whole affair...

bush and his compadres before him are just as guilty of everything that they have accused saddam of. its purely a case of western capitalism having a larger "voice" and more followers, thus being deemed the "right" way.

war? my arse.

devils advocate? fair play

me? i'm pissed, so what do i know.. ant even feckin type in this state

[Quiff Boy]

but the second world war has given us almost sixty years of peace in europe

the embargo (if thats the right word) imposed on germany and japan after the second world war preventing them from building an army has merely strengthened their position as industrial nations...

[Lars Svensson]

war is never a way of achieving peace. never.

I have to absolutely disagree with Quiffy on the above point - and agree with Richey...

If there was one 'just' war, then WWII HAS to be it...

It achieved peace - in the end. It WAS only through millions of deaths on all sides and six years of hell for many places in the world ('cept for the US who didn't deign to join until December '41 - good timing chaps...thanx) BUT it did achieve what it set out to do - and for once, the goal of this war was justified...

The acid test (and yeah this sounds like an old argument) is: What would've happened if WWII hadn't been fought? What would've happened if Britain, the US (eventually) etc etc hadn't taken a stand?

The world,or at least Europe, would've been somewhat different (even if Hitler - with his well-known 'respect' for Britain - hadn't actually invaded [See Robert Harris's 'Fatherland' for just one take on this]). And it might've not been quite as 'nice' as it's turned out for many of us over the past half-century...

HOWEVER!

In answer to the bigger question I don't think one has to look much further than WWI to see the other side of the coin...

Now, THAT war was (though this is just my interpretation of this) the result of a number of countries/leaders building up their armies/navies over a period of time up until the point at which they basically 'had' to go to war - just to make the point that they COULD and WOULD kick the proverbial sh*t out of their so-called enemies if they 'had' to...

Clearly, this has got echoes today...

There've been a number of troops quoted in the 'papers/shown on the TV (both Brits and US I hasten to add) who have expressed their 'irritation' at not being able to just go and do their job...I hope they regret their comments, taking into account the fact that their 'job' includes exeterminating lives.

So...in summary, YES some wars are justified...just NOT the one looming in the next 24 hours...

A point probably badly made, but there u go...

[hallucienate]

against.

I think it's an arrogant oil grabbing ploy.

If it was about rogue states they should take out Mugabe, Sharon and maybe even Bush.

The idea of more Sisters activity is appealling, but they never make this far South anyway.

I'm very pleased with my government's anti-war stance, I just wish Winnie Mandela would act on her words and go be a human shield.

[paint it black]

..but doesn't the more moribund side of you have even the slightest curiosity as to what those babies can do?

I mean a smart bomb the size of a London bus, that can wipe out a whole brigade of troops and leave a non nuclear mushroom cloud type effect in its wake.

that's got to be worth the admission fee alone.

[hallucienate]

..but doesn't the more moribund side of you have even the slightest curiosity as to what those babies can do?

I mean a smart bomb the size of a London bus, that can wipe out a whole brigade of troops and leave a non nuclear mushroom cloud type effect in its wake.

that's got to be worth the admission fee alone.

oh don't get me wrong, I love a big bang as much as anyone else, and the times I've shot guns (.303, .222, .22, R1, R4, Shotguns) at inanimate objects I've thoroughly enjoyed it.

My problem is that those bus sized bombs are gonna be dropped on people, and however much of a bastard their leader is they probably don't deserve it.

Also I think that if they are going to blow the crap out of Iraq that they should drop bombs on other leaders that are equally deserving (and Winnie Mandela too).

If they could organize these bombings on deserted land and let spectators watch from a safe distance it would be another story.

[Mrs RicheyJames]

FOR,
This dickwad needs taking out!!!!!!!!!

[X]

FOR,
This dickwad needs taking out!!!!!!!!!

LMAO, As always S.G. Straight to the point!

[X]

How come if we send someone in to blow this guy away, just for sake of argument, an S.A.S. guy. that is a crime against humanity. but if we declare war and send loads of troops in and kill loads of innocent people along the way, and still not getting the guy we are after because we gave him enough warning to go hide, thats an OK thing to do?
Is it just me? Or is this logic Fu**ed up?

[Mrs RicheyJames]

Because it's against the law to kill the head of state, But it's not against the law to carry out a U.N mandate which is 1441, which authorises the use of any means to force complience with that mandate!!!! Plus he's a dick cheese!!!!!!! ok?

[Quiff Boy]

..but doesn't the more moribund side of you have even the slightest curiosity as to what those babies can do?

I mean a smart bomb the size of a London bus, that can wipe out a whole brigade of troops and leave a non nuclear mushroom cloud type effect in its wake.

that's got to be worth the admission fee alone.

oh don't get me wrong, I love a big bang as much as anyone else, and the times I've shot guns (.303, .222, .22, R1, R4, Shotguns) at inanimate objects I've thoroughly enjoyed it.

My problem is that those bus sized bombs are gonna be dropped on people, and however much of a bastard their leader is they probably don't deserve it.

Also I think that if they are going to blow the crap out of Iraq that they should drop bombs on other leaders that are equally deserving (and Winnie Mandela too).

If they could organize these bombings on deserted land and let spectators watch from a safe distance it would be another story.

yep. like wot he said.

[paint it black]

@Hal,

Take anything I write anywhere as firmly tongue in cheek. Just call it my black sense of humour

Life is far too serious at the best of times, so if we can't have a laugh in cyber-space, then where can we

@Quiffy

Unfortunately matey this isn't a phoney war, well at least not in the truest sense of the definition.

It is all too real and coming to a big screen near you soon.


Some random and all too rare serious thoughts

I have a friend who's brother was a human shield in the last conflict and my brother lost many friends through friendly fire
in the APC next to him even though they had a big blue cross painted on top of their desert camouflage. Go figure.

So maybe I've been closer to it than many here?

His memories of the American troops are of an ill prepared, "lets kick some butt" type of attitude. Burger vans in full war paint at the front line. Coca cola and McDonalds sponsored the ground forces in the last Gulf War, once again, Go figure.

Luckily, this time it looks like the troops at least are more prepared and more concerned about the prospect of human loss.

Incidentally don't expect any dead people. These will be replaced by acceptable losses and casualties of war.

-------

World peace, globalisation, economics

Well granted, around our neck of the woods, it has been a tank free zone, but world wide, I think not

...and yes, there is a certain irony in the fact that instead of investing the Yen into defence, Japan and Germany built their industries on technology developed to quash them during the War. From my perspective, the new renewable world leaders are the people who should now be respected.

..and at what cost to the Empire, the freedom associated with that? We survived the war, but in return, prostituted, and still are, prostituting ourselves to America for that freedom. so, can we really complain too vociferously now?

My gravest concern about this thing is that to get column inches, it isn't going to be fought in the streets of Baghdad, but in our streets. This is but a small skirmish in comparison to the Pandora's box that is about to be opened, and I'm afraid my daughters civil liberties are going to be further eroded in the name of peace

[Ganith]

Against, against, against!!!!

Why doesn't Aznar go with Bush alone, and leave the rest of the country in peace???

No war is a good war, and no killing is a good killing.
Now, if Saddam (and some others) would die nicely in their sleep, I'd be happy. But that's another story and shall be told another time.

Ganith

[hallucienate]

@Hal,

Take anything I write anywhere as firmly tongue in cheek. Just call it my black sense of humour

duh

[Quiff Boy]

i just had to post this here, as its one of the most concise comments i've read about this whole war thang so far....

We're about to attack a country that hasn't attacked us, with the excuse that they might do so in the future. They haven't attacked anything in 12 years since the Gulf War, so it's important to attack them quick so that they can stop not attacking us. Yeah.

I'm sure we'll be nice and surprised and shocked when some other country makes use of the "they were going to attack us" radical doctrine to excuse something they're up to.

Wars make a big mess, and tend to kill a lot of people. We're about to launch one on a country whose population is more than 50% under the age of 15.

Sadaam a monster? Maybe we shouldn't have given him the biological weapons in the first place, huh? Or the helicopters? Or any of the other stuff we gave our Man in Bagdad in the 80s.

Safety? The inspectors have trashed a hell of a lot more weapons in 12 years than the Gulf War ever did, and they didn't have to kill anyone to boot.

Free the Iraqi people? Who are we backing? The Shi'ite majority? The Sunnis? The Kurds? One of those butcher generals (our new "man in Bagdad?")? At whose request? We haven't the slightest shred of legitimacy here.

Terrorists? I count 15 Saudis on the planes on 9/11, and no Iraqis. Iran, Pakistan, and a host of other countries have a hell of a lot bigger connection to terror than Iraq.

Despite the rhetoric designed to confuse people into thinking that 9/11 and Iraq are linked, no proof has ever been found; naturally enough, since it makes no sense at all. Iraq remains a SECULAR state, and Bin Laden has called for Sadaam to be overthrown.
Of course, a new Gulf War should swell Al Qaeda's ranks nicely. That's why the CIA says that we'll be in greater danger of terror attacks if we do it, not less. Never mind the fun of:

Nuclear Proliferation: since we've shown that if you have nukes we turn a blind eye (Pakistan, N Korea), everyone else should be scrambling for nukes to keep us from declaring them next on the hit list.

Looks like we've trashed any remaining international good will towards the US to boot, and put a finger in the eye of some of our oldest allies.

The best part? We can kill all sorts of people, and put our own soldiers in harms way pointlessly, with all of these hideous effects, and it should only cost 100 billion for the war and several times that for the rebuilding of the country after we bomb it. We only paid 10% of the cost of the first Gulf War. We pick up the check for this one (and the multi-billion dollar bribes to our "coalition of the willing"). Well, I suppose my kids don't need an education anyhow.

Apart from that the war sounds like a fine idea. I can't see how anyone could have any rational objections to it.... Ahem.

[RicheyJames]

Because it's against the law to kill the head of state, But it's not against the law to carry out a U.N mandate which is 1441, which authorises the use of any means to force complience with that mandate!!!! Plus he's a dick cheese!!!!!!! ok?

except 1441 does not authorise the use of force. the key phrase in the resolution being "serious consequences" which is not an explicit threat of armed action. if that was the purpose of the resolution the diplomats would have used "any means necessary" as that's diplo-speak for war. but then they wouldn't have got the resolution through security council the same way the infamous second resolution curled up and died before even being put to the vote.

which leaves government lawyers scrabbling around for resolutions passed twelve years ago at the end of gulf war one to find some kind of legal justification for gulf war two.....

like i said quiffy - devil's advocate

[Carrie]

Against.

For all the reasons in Quiff Boy's post (don't know where you found that, but seldom heard it better said...).

&, if I'm honest, because the sight of a supposedly Labour Prime Minister with his tongue up an (unelected) US President's arse just makes me cross. OK, it's a knee jerk reaction, but I'm a child of the 80s...keep catching myself humming '51st State' by New Model Army...

[Andy TG]

In the early 60's - JFK "bought the bullit!"
In the Early 80's - Reagan ALMOST "Bought the Bullit!"
Its early 2000's - "Bush's " turn is fast approaching
IMHO !

Dont Forget - Bush is another name for ****!
(answers on a postcard please, to the usual address)

As for the imminent "War" - Due to "Dubya's" failure to capture "Bin Laden" he has to prove his "worth" to the *cough* American People!

BTW - Against! (the whole thing is a massive propaganda exercise! IMHO)

[Andy TG]

Thre above post was repeated here - Bloody Dial Up Bloody Playing Up!

[dead stars]

AGAINST

It's not me who needs to justify my option.

[dead stars]

FOR,
This dickwad needs taking out!!!!!!!!!

AGAINST, you mean

"This dickwad needs taking out!!!!!!!" Yeah, Bush.