Interesting thread

[bodhi]

Originally posted by Daffeh
havent bothered to read the posts here...

just out of interest, do you EVER contribute ANYTHING worthwhile to a thread Bodhi?

Step AWAY from the Post Reply button.

 

[Moving Target]

 

[nath]

Before anyone suggests anything, I'm kinda sitting on the fence on this issue. Neither pro nor anti war, but can see pros/cons to both aspect.

Saddam is an utter fuckwit, he should be removed from the planet - this is true. But has anyone considered the fact that going to war has the capacity for bringing about the end of the UN?

There's *no* way we're gunna get UN backing for this war, and at the very least, America are going to war. If they go to war without the UN, they're breaking international law. Who the fuck is gunna arrest them? No one. Why would any country follow the rules of the UN after USA show that they can do what they like without any sort of UN backing.

Regardless of what you think about Saddam, the end of the UN would be a bad thing.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Shocko
CND - There's no proof whatsoever that Iraq has an active Nuclear policy. Blix's latest report states that it has been dead for many years now. Just because Blair/Bush say that Saddam wants, doesn't mean that does, or that he is attempting to get them.

Blix is not there to discover weapons, he is there to inspect those laid out for him by Saddam, the fact he has not found any is no consequence because his job is not to look for them. Until the Iraqi nuclear scientists can be interviewed abroad we may never know the answer, something Saddam seems very keen for Blix not to do. However, the fact that there _are_ Iraqi nuclear scientists working for a militaristic government is good indication a nuke program is in place.

Originally posted by Shocko
Greenpeace - Whoever controls Iraq, is going to sell shit loads of oil... It also could be said, that there is some credability to the theory that the US is invading to gain access to Iraq's oil. If this is the case, and it could very well be, then it makes sense that Greenpeace would oppose the war.

America will never "control" Iraqi oil, simply because they can never own it, and any Iraqi government now or future is going to be a member of OPEC, who are in opposition to American oil. In any case, American imports of Iraqi oil are extremely low, even Britain supplies more oil to America than Iraq, so where is the "dependence" on Iraqi oil, clearly there isn't one.

Originally posted by Shocko
Cama, it amazes me that on the various times that the US, or even Israel, has been discussed here, that you've totally abandoned your usual logical thought proccess, and utter sense, in favour of US-Fanboism. I just don't get it...

Really ? Your assumption of "faulty logic" is a bit premature, I am happy to defend my assumptions as I have done above, the fact these have come to the wrong answer (in your opinion) makes no difference.

I don't particularly like American foreign policy, or Isreali either, in fact being slightly bias towards Europe I am far from being a "fanboi" of the USA. I certainly don't think America-bashing or Isreal-bashing is a valid sport, why don't you try a spot of Iraq-bashing for a change, perhaps if we'd done that years back this whole sorry situation may never have arisen.

Where the hypocrisy lies is the fact that Saddam and the Iraqi regime is a nightmare compared to America - who can seriously put their hand on their heart and declare that the Iraqi government should continue as is as it has done for the last 30 years of terror. If you can then basically you support totalitariaism, if you can't then the "anti-war" stance is a facade as it's really "delay-war", the argument is when and how to fight it, not war-war or jaw-jaw, that hasn't worked for 12 years and wont work now.

Sanctions don't work with Iraq either, Saddam is only ever interested in the middle third of his country, where all the Sunni live, the others, the Kurds and Shiites, can boil in hell. So when we allow him to sell enough oil to fund food and medicine for the entire popultion, he only buys enough for his third, and spends the rest on his golden palaces and illegal missiles.

Give me a valid alternative to war and I'll listen, logically.

 

[nath]

I can't think of an alternative to war. But as I said, I think it'd be very very bad to go without the UN. Also, is it such a pressing matter.. saddam should be eradicated but why do we have to rush in to war to do it, especially without the UN. There's no real rush to this, he's not about to attack us any time soon.

 

[kameleon]

Originally posted by bodhi
After having read that other thread, I'm embarassed to know some of you. However, kamelion is getting singled out for particular ridicule, mainly due to not only the complete arse-juice he was posting (Attacking Iraq will start World War 3 eh? Please tell me where the hell you got that one from.)
In other words....


Dude, shut the fuck up.

Just keep taking the drugs Bodhi I'm sure everything is nice and rosy in your weed induced little wonderland

 

[~YuckFou~]

I was in Bristol this morning, important appointment.
I can see the place I'm going to just up the road. The pedestrian crossing lights in front turn red, and 100ish fucking faggot gay bastard leeching students sit down in the middle of the road, anti war demo.
I was the second car in the queue, had I been first they would of moved.
Late for appointment, assholes.

 

[Private Dancer]

People shud go to free the weed demos... not anti war... coz if the whole world supported free the weed no one would be assed to go to war.......

.... just a thought......

 

[Furr]

I spotted a 'die of aids' bit on that forum, was that you bodhi

We may not like the Americans, But they pale in comparisson to the French

 

[xane]

Originally posted by nath
I can't think of an alternative to war. But as I said, I think it'd be very very bad to go without the UN. Also, is it such a pressing matter.. saddam should be eradicated but why do we have to rush in to war to do it, especially without the UN. There's no real rush to this, he's not about to attack us any time soon.

Rush ? We've waited 12 years !

Every year Saddam kills many of his own people, through execution, through persecution, through depriving of materials, medicines and food. The "no fly" zones where imposed by the US, UK and French after Gulf War I, they are not part of the UN resolutions, neither have they been endorsed by the UN, yet it is clear they have prevented him from launching attacks on the population and have saved a few lives.

Otherwise, the UN is quite content to let Saddam butcher his own people, and the sanctions imposed 12 years ago have achieved nothing but allow him to force more misery on those he persecuted before, the UN admits sanctions have not worked, we have lost count of the number of "ultimatums" so much that the word is meaningless now, the UN have admitted he still runs a brutal and violent regime, they document all the human rights abuses every year, yet they do nothing about it.

What do you propose, that the rest of the world turn their backs and allow him to rebuild his fiercesome war machine, to butcher his own people, to threaten and intimidate his neighbours, just like he did through the eighties.

Resolution 1441 was a message to disarm, so where did all these missiles come from, how did Saddam equate "disarm" with "build more weapons" ?

Has he shown an indication to change - certainly not.

What makes you think waiting will actually achieve anything, give me a ray of hope that if we wait a little longer things will turn out for the best ?

 

[Furr]

I feel guilty now, i just took out a frustrating day at the office by abusing that US forum...


felt good though

 

[nath]

I never said that Saddam was a fantastic bloke, and nor did I say that he will disarm all by himself. I, however, don't feel that the end justifies the means if it means going to war sans UN.

Get UN approval and lets go blow some shit up.

 

[Furr]

Just get rid of iraq, Although the world will be unsettled for a while, at least it will be over and done, FINNALY FFS

 

[nath]

fantastic idea!

 

[Tom]

Saddam isn't gonna shift. He's not about to give up power. Nobody in Iraq is gonna take it from him. Hes a ruthless, brutal dictator. Life in Iraq is miserable.

If the end of all this is the stated aim of the war, then how can that be a bad thing? Remember, Saddam places civilians at military targets - in breach of the Geneva convention.

Fucking camper. Kick him.

 

[nath]

Everyone seems to be missing the point. I think Saddam should die 2000 painful deaths, but war without UN backing could/would have very very serious repercusions, possibly worse than just leaving him in power.

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

Just a little point to add to the argument. Discuss, pls. Don't flame... argue perhaps?

=====

It's all well and fine using the excuse (which IS A perfectly valid one) that Saddam is a lunatic who slaughters his own populace, etc. but at the same time, then shouldn't you apply that logic to other countries within the world as well?

Take Zimbabwe for instance. FFS, the people there are being starved to death by Mugabe and his cronies because they want a democratic government. No-one is doing jack shit about that... not even for the British colonial ex-pats who have had to up and leave, fearing for they and their families' lives...

But no, Zimbabwe is inconsequential. It does not happen to be smack bang in the middle of the 'Middle East', it doesn't happen to be a threat to the world's oil, etc.

North Korea. Fucking mad government there too. Conform or be shot. Surely someone should try and disarm them with their nuclear capabilities?

Columbia. Since the 60/70's the USA has tried to stop the drug cartels which, pretty much make life a living hell for anyone living there. They've failed. They've tried all different kinds of shit, but eventually gave up. Why not put an end to the problem. Period?

I can't be arsed to write an essay on this, I'm tired, I've got 6,000 words to write by Sunday night, but surely my logic isn't totally 'high horsed hippy bullshit'?

I guess what I'm trying to say is you need more than just the reason that 'Iraq's people are suffering." Because from what I see, there are many people in the world in shit, but you don't see the USA going to save them do you?

 

[Ash!]

Originally posted by old.D0LLySh33p

I guess what I'm trying to say is you need more than just the reason that 'Iraq's people are suffering." Because from what I see, there are many people in the world in shit, but you don't see the USA going to save them do you?

That is one of the reasons why I dont support the war. America choose who to police in the world. The Guardians of their "free world " as they percieve it. A lot of people dont support the war because of the whole Hypocrisy of it all.

America were not alone in the 70's when they gave Iraq the technology and intelligence to build WoMD. That also lies at the door of Britan, Spain, Italy, France and Germany also. However as bush is on his worldwide democracy tour 2003, he along with the others refuse to acknowledge that the people of Iraq are suffering as a direct result of western policy and intervention in the 70's.

The Americans go on about Saddam breaking international law and flouting UN law re. WoMD. Moreover they go on about countries like France and Germany showing the moral fibre to stand up and agree to resolution 1441 that they signed up for in November 2002.

Along with Iraq, which was the last country to break UN Law re the development of WoMD. America. The development of new nuclear technology for weapons is agaisnt UN law. America decides it doesnt agree so it builds new kinds of weapons.

Re International law. It has been proven time and time again recently that any attack in Iraq would be against current international law. That could change if there is a second resolution. Yet America still keep wanting to go into Iraq

So America can break international law at will Saddam cant. America can develop WoMD but Saddam cant. Of course Saddam tortures and persecutes 2/3rd of his population. That is no different to America torturing and persecuting the Afro Carribean minority through the last 2 centuries until recently.


I agree that Saddam is undoubtedly a real nasty peice of work. The world would be a better place without him. I sometime feel that the world would be better without People like George Bush. For every argument that America has presented against Iraq recently they are also guilty of breaking the same laws.

I dont know the answer to whether we should goto war or not. Maybe its because I am scared of the outcome. Maybe its because I am scared for my 14 month old son. After all It s the legacy of our generation that he will have to live with.

 

[Wij]

Originally posted by blade07
Of course Saddam tortures and persecutes 2/3rd of his population. That is no different to America torturing and persecuting the Afro Carribean minority through the last 2 centuries until recently.

wtf has that got to do with now ?

I repeat. Iraqi people won't care why the USA is doing it.

The USA cannot police ALL the bad countries in the world. It has to prioritise. At the moment it is more worried about Iraq. If it can't sort out Zimbabwe and Colombia at the same time does theat make it OK to do nothing ?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by blade07
So America can break international law at will Saddam cant. America can develop WoMD but Saddam cant. Of course Saddam tortures and persecutes 2/3rd of his population. That is no different to America torturing and persecuting the Afro Carribean minority through the last 2 centuries until recently.

Thats a crock of shit tbh.

The reason the US won't attack other countries that have been listed, is that they don't represent a threat to their neighbours, and won't really affect the US's interests abroad (with the exception of N Korea). Call it self interest, but that's fine by me.

 

[charl8tan]

Originally posted by bodhi
I hope we go to war.It will irritate the living fuck out of the lowest class in our society - the "Not in my Name" unwashed hippies.

bodhi, that's such utter arse it's unreal. The lowest class in our society are not attending these protests etc, they're most likely robbing the houses of the middle class people who are tbh.
My current gf went to the London protest, me and her have totally different views on this, she's against it and is a 'tree hugger', but she is far from lower class, more like mid to upper as are most of the people I've met who would and have attended these protests.
I don't give a shit if the war happens or not tbh, I'll only care if I or someone I know dies and then only marginally.

 

[Wij]

I don't think he meant class in the same sense as you do.

 

[Xtro]

Originally posted by charl8tan
I'll only care if I or someone I know dies and then only marginally.

blimey - you sure you'd only "marginally" care if someone you know dies?

 

[charl8tan]

Well he shouldn't use the term class then should he. "Class in our society" means what it says, if he wasn't reffering to that should've just kept it to "those unwashed hippies" etc.

And yes, I do mean "marginally", I'm a bit of a heartless bastard as people who know me will testify to.

 

[Wij]

The word class can have many meanings. Read it in context

 

[charl8tan]

The word class can have many meaning, I totally agree. However when you refer to a class in society there is only one meaning. Arguing this point only furthers my belief of your stupidity.