- Status
Soldato
Nice cheap shot mate
did I ever say aid agencies *were* free from the risk of being bombed? My point was that joining an aid agency would be/is the best way of helping the innocent Iraqis that could be killed, rather than some daft idea of sitting in whatever building Saddam says they should in the hope that the air force won't bomb it because theres some Guardian-reading CND blokey sitting in it....
Helping a Baghdad agency is not without risks, so it would fulfill the 'putting their lives on the line' aspect of which you are so keen to praise them for, yet might actually achieve something.
So thats what matters...who cares if it does nothing to help people, as long as they try? Well I'm going to try and bring about world peace, by drinking some orange juice. Laud me for my goal, but don't take into account the level of success I will have with it.
The level of success should be taken into account, because what use is a goal of saving lives if it achieves nothing?
Last edited:
Full marks to them for taking positive action to try to avert this monstrous idea of a war!
Jesus, why the hell do we want to go to war with a country admittedly run by a tyrant but in no real condition to fight back. That Saddam has even taken this approach smells of desparation to me.
You know, we've got enough problems here at home, perhaps Blair should concentrate on fulfilling his manifesto rather than falling over at Bush's feet once again. I suspect the majority of the population don't want a war, and don't believe it to be right.
I've not actually seen any firm evidence to suggest that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Has anyone? Just because his document specified he hasn't, who are the US to assume him to by lying. Why, if they're so determined to go to war, can't they come out and restore a little faith in such action by showing even the smallest amount of evidence. I don't believe they have anything solid, i think it's a matter of working on assumptions yet again. (The irony here of course is that i'm also working on an assumption
)
I still strongly believe that this whole fiasco is a mask for the fact that Bin Laden and his cronies are still on the run, still the main threat. Is this an attempt to throw the limelight in another direction? It certainly seems to be working if it is!
Of course, a war can do a few favours in the polls too, particularly if you're fighting opposition with nothing to give back. Bush is riding a wave at the moment, he certainly can't afford to fall back down to earth with a bang, the increased media attention can only be a good thing.
I'm so angered at Blair. Why can we not have a government that follows the wishes of it's electorate. This is a matter that effects all of us, once again it thrusts Britain to the forefront of world affairs, at a time when it couldn't be more dangerous to be so.
I really hope that common sense prevails.
Jesus, why the hell do we want to go to war with a country admittedly run by a tyrant but in no real condition to fight back. That Saddam has even taken this approach smells of desparation to me.
You know, we've got enough problems here at home, perhaps Blair should concentrate on fulfilling his manifesto rather than falling over at Bush's feet once again. I suspect the majority of the population don't want a war, and don't believe it to be right.
I've not actually seen any firm evidence to suggest that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Has anyone? Just because his document specified he hasn't, who are the US to assume him to by lying. Why, if they're so determined to go to war, can't they come out and restore a little faith in such action by showing even the smallest amount of evidence. I don't believe they have anything solid, i think it's a matter of working on assumptions yet again. (The irony here of course is that i'm also working on an assumption
)I still strongly believe that this whole fiasco is a mask for the fact that Bin Laden and his cronies are still on the run, still the main threat. Is this an attempt to throw the limelight in another direction? It certainly seems to be working if it is!
Of course, a war can do a few favours in the polls too, particularly if you're fighting opposition with nothing to give back. Bush is riding a wave at the moment, he certainly can't afford to fall back down to earth with a bang, the increased media attention can only be a good thing.
I'm so angered at Blair. Why can we not have a government that follows the wishes of it's electorate. This is a matter that effects all of us, once again it thrusts Britain to the forefront of world affairs, at a time when it couldn't be more dangerous to be so.
I really hope that common sense prevails.
but it will not make a damn bit of difference mate. The war will go ahead anyway. All they are going to achieve is to protect a number of locations of saddams choice...
Oh and nobody think that they will be treated well when the war starts. They may start off protecting what they want to protect but as soon as things turn nasty, they will be prisoners and they will be carted around to protect whatever Saddam wants.
Permabanned
Join the Club. Bush sure doesn't care about the will of the people. The US Congress doesn't either. I am becoming increasingly frustrated with living in a country that no matter how hard I try I seem not to be a part of its governance. I vote. I write my legislature. I volunteer. I demonstrate. I contribute to causes I believe in. And no matter how invloved I get I am still not represented. It causes me to think about moving to another country. But then I realize - from what I read on here and on other boards around the world - most other "democratic" countries don't listen to their people either
i really hope we don't go to war with iraq,
there is (imo) no point of the war,
if we left him alone i seriously doubt he would attack us,
i dislike the country that america is turning into, it's even worse that the bloke who a huge majority of this country voted in is following bush like an idiot,
he is putting the people who voted him in, in danger, yet he still continues,
and the stupid thing is that i bet he wins the next elections by a huge majority again
there is (imo) no point of the war,
if we left him alone i seriously doubt he would attack us,
i dislike the country that america is turning into, it's even worse that the bloke who a huge majority of this country voted in is following bush like an idiot,
he is putting the people who voted him in, in danger, yet he still continues,
and the stupid thing is that i bet he wins the next elections by a huge majority again
Actually, IIRC, he didn't have a huge majority. He has a huge majority of MP's but not the electorate.
Two points. Firstly, the turnout was the lowest in recent memory with (from memory) about 45% of electors not bothering to vote. So those that actually voted are not much more than half the electorate.
Even out of the remaining 55% (ish), other parties took a fair few votes. If, for example, the results in a given election were :
Labour 10,000
Cons 9,999
LibDem 9,999
that would be a Labour seat in the house despite the fact that 66% of the voters in that election voted for someone else. That could apply in every seat in the land, though clearly it didn't. The makeup of the House of Commons does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the people at all.
Labour got in with, IIRC, about 30% of the vote of qualified voters, partly because a lot of people didn't vote and partly because of the nature of the system.
They have a mandate from the people, but only because the system doesn't actually reflect the will of the people.
Caveats to the above comments :-
1) The figures given are from memory and are approximate. They illustrate the point but if anyone cares to do the research, there will no doubt be inaccuracies.
2) The will of the people who DIDN'T vote may well have been to support Blair, so the fact that they didn't vote cannot be taken as opposition to Blair - simply that we don't know how they would have voted.
I have no sympathy at all for anyone who chooses to go to Iraq and sit on top of a strategic target. Were the decision to launch an attack or not mine to make, that would not factor into the decision in any way whatsoever.
What is a strategic target though? Given the nature of the reaction to a US bomb hitting a hospital or school, if I were Saddam and were trying to hide a Communications centre, or an arms dump, or maybe even WoMD, where would I choose to put them? A school or a hospital, perhaps???
Maybe thats where the weapons inspectors should be looking, instead of the places where the weapons were years ago. I mean, if you were running the Iraqi weapons program, and you knew your life was on the line if you screwed up, would you choose to continue building or storing weapons in places that you KNEW the inspectors were aware of because they checked those places last time, or might you move the factories and stores elsewhere? Underground, maybe? Or broken into smaller amounts and stored in private houses throughout the nation, maybe? OR hospital cellars, maybe.
What is a strategic target though? Given the nature of the reaction to a US bomb hitting a hospital or school, if I were Saddam and were trying to hide a Communications centre, or an arms dump, or maybe even WoMD, where would I choose to put them? A school or a hospital, perhaps???
Maybe thats where the weapons inspectors should be looking, instead of the places where the weapons were years ago. I mean, if you were running the Iraqi weapons program, and you knew your life was on the line if you screwed up, would you choose to continue building or storing weapons in places that you KNEW the inspectors were aware of because they checked those places last time, or might you move the factories and stores elsewhere? Underground, maybe? Or broken into smaller amounts and stored in private houses throughout the nation, maybe? OR hospital cellars, maybe.
I applaud them for making a stand, it's not necessarily the right choice, but i respect the fact that they've found it within them to at least stand up for what they believe to be right.
I just wish that back home our own government would listen to the will of the people. But then, as a nation, we don't do enough to put our opinions across to whitehall.
Originally posted by Will
Nice cheap shot mate
The level of success should be taken into account, because what use is a goal of saving lives if it achieves nothing?
Ok, "goal" should have read "effort"....and shouldn`t aid agencies be free from being bombed? - or are they guilty for not descriminating between Saddam`s supporters and "good" Iraqis.
Baldie - still think it was a poorly worded and indefensible statement. What criteria have you for support? Voting for Saddam? Hanging his picture in the house? Carrying out his orders? Are these really indicative of support? You brought up Germany - how difficult was it to sort that out (even still)!
Soldato
Of course I agree that aid agencies should be free from being bombed! What kind of fascist pig do you take me for?
It was you who brought up the bombing of aid agencies in the first place with your jibe about the yanks bombing them, of course this shouldn't happen and they should never be bombed, but there is always the unavoidable risk of an accident in war. At least these days its less likely than in previous wars I suppose, but the risk is there.But the risk can be avoided, just don't declare war on a country for no reason other than wanting to steal their oil.
And I disagree that the best way to help Iraqi civilians is to join an aid agency. The best way to help would be to stop the war.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Associate
Originally posted by MrCrispy
Because they oppose the war they are the enemy?
No, because they deliberately place themselves in the line of fire, the loss of there lives should not weigh upon the minds of our military.
Associate
WTF has that got to do with human shields?
- Status