Posted by
Gary, 21:33, 3rd March 2002:
This post is taken from my website (
http://www.garyjb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk) -
"There's a rather annoying 'No To War On Iraq' campaign going on at University at the moment. Haven't these people got anything better to do with their time? Idiots. Do they think it's safe to leave that country as it is with its present leader in charge? I don't think so. The sooner the United States start dropping bombs the better."
What are your views?
Posted by
Sul, 22:24, 3rd March 2002:
Sort of on the same subject, I was walking through the west-end looking for a new modem (I didnt go into any shops I was just looking through bins etc). Anyway, I walked to trafagar square and there was hundereds of people there listening to this bloke raving about anti-war on Iraq. I was suprised to see it was an old WW2 war veteran doing the speaking, needless to say the rest of the people were students and pickpockets but I was suprised that it was this man speaking anti-war, normally they're all for war. But due to my ignorance and lack of interest in the subject I got bored and ended up looking for TV crews to bother.
Also, along the Strand, there was a sit down hunger strike for human rights in Zimbabwe, it only consisted of about 6 people though... I think they chose a bad day to protest on.
Oh and my views are to take out Hussain as soon as possible, then, if they get rowdy, bomb them! I think people are only pissed because we have an alliance with the US and as such have a combined military power that is so great that Iraq have no chance! Some people dont like an unfair fight I s'pose.
Posted by
ell, 03:53, 4th March 2002:
"Idiots. Do they think it's safe to leave that country as it is with its present leader in charge?"
Sorry,
which of the countries were they referring to?
Posted by
Gary, 11:05, 4th March 2002:
Ell, you've confused me - I'd have assumed my first sentence would have explained that? :P
They should have taken care of him when they had the chance a few years ago. It is neccessary I think.
I think ell was implying that it might be safer if george w was removed from power as opposed to saddam ...
sorry if I am putting words into your keyboard ell! ;-)
as for bombing iraq, I am not sure that destabilising an entire region to satisfy the bush dynasty blood lust is the appropriate way forward. If you really want to piss off the rest of the middle east, that's certainly the right way to go about it.
Posted by
Gary, 19:37, 4th March 2002:
Mikey: I didn't think Ell was implying that but thinking about it now, maybe he was! Personally, I think George W Bush has done a great job so far with regards to the War On Terror. These are dangerous times to be living in at the moment. I've always said the one bad thing to come out of the Gulf War was the fact that Saddam wasn't removed from power - he should have been! Right now, the US and the UK will never have a better chance to remove Saddam from power - I dearly hope they take it.
Posted by
cal, 08:00, 5th March 2002:
they have a good opertunity in that they're both ready to extend defense budgets into never-before-seen realms, and it'll help boost the uk army recruitment slump, but it's a bit retro-active deciding to suddenly get round to it now. now he's had a chance to restabalise and re-arm after the gulf. hmm
Posted by
ell, 09:17, 5th March 2002:
Mikey: Couldn't have said it better myself. :)
I'd hardly call that a
good opportunity... the defence budget has to come from somewhere, like NASA. I've yet to see a convincing argument WHY the defence budget for the USA or UK needs extended so dramatically... America especially (since they're the only one of the two actually using their explosives ATM) has stockpiles of weapons that haven't even been dented by the bombings on Afghanistan. The previous (peacetime) rate of arms production is more than enough to maintain stocks. Who exactly are going to attack us that we all need these doomsday arsenals at the ready?
At least if you sink a few billion into NASA, or industry, you know most of that is going to materialise as advancements or improvements in the field (even if some of it does go into developing better bombs), whereas 80% of weapons construction have a shelf life of 3 months or less.. if you don't hit someone with them, not only have you wasted all that investment, but you've got to pay MORE money to expensively dispose of them.
nb, I know arms production isn't the
only thing the defence budget is for, but it's by far the most significant. All the best inventions and discoveries have come from applications of research in other sciences anyway (with the possible exception of the Internet ;).
The "war on terrorism" is a godsend for Bush. If it wern't for Sept 11th and all the following, everyone would be paying more attention to how the American economy has been on a death spiral ever since it was announced he'd won the election.. the dollar droppen in value by
2% only an hour after the ballot (stuffing) results were announced. (Proving once and for all "It's not your vote that counts, it's how your vote is counted!" ;)
It's strange... IMHO, at the time of the elections, I was sure Gore would have been the best choice for president. He would have handled the economy better (i.e. at all) and done far better things for the advancement of the US.. but this 'war on terrorism' has given Bush a unique chance to outshine the competition at what he loves best. And noone saw it coming. Strange, how these things maybe work out for the best...
Posted by
Gary, 21:35, 6th March 2002:
Sure, extending defence budgets is going to mean less money going into some other area, but I can't help but feel it's a wise investment. Yes, weapons do indeed go out of date and yes, they are expensive to dispose of. It's a safe bet that the US probably does have the biggest stockpile of weapons but don't forget, Afghanistan isn't going to be the only country bombed in this War On Terror - Iraq is almost certainly next (and possibly some other countries too).
The US economy has took a battering (due in small part to the September 11th attacks too) and it is almost certain that this would have been the main issue for Bush at the moment if it wasn't for the War On Terror. Sure, people are taking notice, but it's just not the most important thing on Americans minds at the moment. I actually WANTED Gore to win the election to keep the "cosy" US-UK thing going strong (whether it's been affected by Bush winning is another thread altogether).
What worries me the most about Bush is what he does if it all gets out of hand and bombing Iraq and the other countries on his "Axis Of Evil" inadvertently triggers other neutral countries to attack the US and its Allies. What happens if bombing Iraq pisses Saddam off so bad he decided to fire off some missiles into Israel, a nuclear power, which has enough of its own problems at the moment? Israel has said it will defend itself by any means necessary...
Posted by
ell, 00:47, 8th March 2002:
I don't think Saddam
needs a reason throw a wobbly at the US or allies... :O
Hmm, the only country in the whole world I can think of that doesn't have
someone after their blood for whatever reason is Canada.. can anyone think of anywhere else?
Posted by
la, 01:48, 8th March 2002:
well Australia WAS ok before we started barring refugees and sending them back home...
Posted by
Gary, 15:00, 8th March 2002:
Yeah, good point there Ell. It's actually a very interesting point you make... I can't think of any country apart from Canada that isn't in someone’s firing line for one reason or another!
Posted by
ell, 00:45, 9th March 2002:
Solution: We should all move to Canada, and be safe from potential terrorist strikes. :)
On a lighter note, will I get accused of slander if I link to
this?
Posted by
DeSoto, 02:30, 9th March 2002:
Canada also has it fair share of problems/threats.
Granted, we don't make many waves on the international scene. However, because of our involvement with the war on terrorism (We actually have troops stationed in Afghanistan, and naval ships in the Indian ocean), I'm sure that certain people would not object to targeting Canadians, or any U.S ally for that matter.
Also, we recently hosted the President of Israel in Canada. While he was visiting, our foreign minister happened to make some comments at a dinner for the Israeli president and members of a Jewish lobby group. Our minister suggested that Israel couldn't hope to achieve a cease-fire if it invaded refugee camps and killed innocent civilians... Which drew heavy criticism from the crowd, and condemnation from Israel, which advised Canada not to judge their 'internal' policies...
Posted by
ell, 12:01, 9th March 2002:
Sorry, but for national embarressment, no country can beat the UK thanks to our champion
Prince Put-Yer-Foot-In-It Phillip. He could give even give 'ol Dubbya a run for his money... :O
Posted by
Gary, 18:41, 9th March 2002:
Ha! Ha! I don't think you'll get accused of slander, Ell! I'd like to visit Canada but being a broke student makes that somewhat impossible - I'll visit someday. Prince Phillip is indeed the greatest at causing national embarrassment - I think he's a national treasure and I'm sure he'd be a great laugh if you took him for a pint down the pub! I'd imagine Canada does have some involvement in Afghanistan but being here in the UK all we here about is UK, US and European involvement. Canada keeps itself pretty much to itself.
Posted by
cal, 10:18, 11th March 2002:
el - that bbc link is fantastic!
Posted by
chandler, 01:07, 18th March 2002:
...whatever reason is Canada.. can anyone think of anywhere else?
Switzerland? Talk about neutral. mine you there is that whole Natzi Gold thing. Nice place though. Fantastic transport network.
On the bombing of countries thing:
"War On Terror" You can't have a WAR on teerrorism. War can only be between one country and another. How do you win a "WAR" agaist terror, and what is "terror" anyway? America have missed with bombs in Afganistan and hit INOCCENT CIVILIANS. Now that is terror in my eyes, people flying over in planes and killing innocent people. Or is that OK cos they did it to us first? Plus what gave them the right to bomb a country to irradicate a few people? Don't see anyone flying over northern Ireland, bombing the crap out of people because they are "harbouring terrorists". America is using this whole thing to persue their personal vendetas against anyone who doesn't agree. And that isn't honourable, that is bullying. cos they know that no one is powerful enough to disagree with them.
Increasing american defense budgets? That would just be sick. The US already spends and obscene amount on "defense" or in this case "attack". Money that could be used to feed people, house people, give people a better quality of life. But no, they would rather spend 100 milliaon dollars every time they wish to test their missile defence system. It really is SICK.
And as for "I think people are only pissed because we have an alliance with the US and as such have a combined military power that is so great that Iraq have no chance!"
Combined military power my arse. If military power was defined using cars then the US would have a fleet of brand new top of the range BMW's and we would have a clapped out ford fiesta with no wheels and no windows. Its silly to kid yourself otherwise. I wish that Blair would get himself out of George Bush's behind, instead of sucking up to him at every opertunity.
Axis of Evil - A stupid Propaganda phrase and nothing more.
There is no excuse to kill people. And certainly not innocent civilians who are "unavoidable casualties of war" or as we call them "DEAD".
Posted by
la, 05:05, 18th March 2002:
You're exactly right.
There is no excuse to kill people, even if they are harbouring terrorists, or even if they do disagree with your religious beliefs.
It's wrong to say that the Afghan civilians are "unavoidable casualties of the war against terror", and then it's also wrong to say that the US civilians who died in the World Trade Center were "unavoidable casualties of a holy war".
It's so easy to get caught up in all this mess, and take sides, but really, I can't see that either side is doing the right thing, and I honestly can't make any suggestions for what I think should've been done.
We could spend days discussing whether the US's response was right or wrong...
but I don't think we'd come to any conclusions except for what we already know - that war is truly horrible, and confusing, and nothing seems to make sense to anyone...
until 50-100 years later, when history teachers will explain to their students that this country did this to that country, and it was justified because (etc etc)....
or maybe I'm just being optimistic and it'll never make sense.
...and I realise I'm rambling, so I'll leave it at that.
Posted by
ell, 20:27, 18th March 2002:
"History is written by the victors" - food for thought.
Posted by
chandler, 21:16, 18th March 2002:
indeed. although in war I don't think there are victors. Everyone loses
Posted by
Sul, 01:06, 19th March 2002:
Everyone does lose, its like Lisa said on Eastenders today, "its not about who wins, its about who looks the best". Whether you win or lose, someone will come out on top according to the percentage of people who think you win, that includes through fear, terror or completley adjusting the facts. A war will never be won as long as there are still people fighting for the cause. I dont know where I'm going with this so I'll just leave it as this:
Anyone who has been fortunate enough to see "wargames" will see the logic in the fact that war is a game of noughts and crosses (tic-tac-toe) play it enough and you are always going to end on a draw, no matter how much you play it. As long as there is a force of people, no matter how small, you will always be fighting a battle that consists of one team trying to outwit the other. In the end both teams lose because of the draw, and the only way to win would be to eliminate the the opposition so there can be no loss on your part, no matter what type of game you play.
Saddam is an insane man. He kills his own civilians as if they are human guinea pigs. A leader like that does not deserve to rule a nation much less a group of people. If we take him out I agree it will cause some chaos, but if we get rid of him now there is no worrying later.
Posted by
chandler, 00:07, 2nd April 2002:
"but if we get rid of him now there is no worrying later."
The same could be said for George "trigger happy" Bush
The man with the "Texas Governor record for most people put to death whilst in office"
Plus who would replace Saddam? What if they were worse (if that is possible)
Posted by
cal, 12:36, 2nd April 2002:
they should get warren to replace him. he'd be a good dictator
Posted by
chandler, 18:39, 3rd April 2002:
Yes, but he would make them all ride scooters, and wear 3/4 length girls jeans. and buy stupid things that they don't need. and the new formal greeting would be a camp hand guesture. and... and... stuff. So there. yeah. That showed them. ha. ahem.
Plus if warren became a dictator we would get rid of him! :)
Posted by
cal, 19:31, 3rd April 2002:
vote camp, vote warren!
