Poll: War - yes/no?
- Thread starter [TW]Fox
- Start date
- Status
If this was Un sanctified, then we wouldnt be turning our backs on the rest of the EU, and effectively the world 
that then wouldnt be economic suicide, as it would mean it was supported by a good proportions of the UN nations.
that then wouldnt be economic suicide, as it would mean it was supported by a good proportions of the UN nations.Originally posted by manic_man
If this was Un sanctified, then we wouldnt be turning our backs on the rest of the EU, and effectively the world
Yes it disturbs me that we are making many enemies here.. we have many friends in the world which are dismayed by our blind support for the US over Iraq. Perhaps some of those countries which used to buy their arms from us, will in future buy them from France, Russia or China, for example. That's just one economic disbenefit which springs to mind immediately.
Custor
Custor
We could try Mori they're kinda respected for being representative and we don't really want to get into battle fo thw polls do we?
This Poll on OC is representative of people who vote on OC general forums. Thats it.
http://www.mori.com/polls/2003/iraq3.shtml
I'm off the pub. Tara.
Bet hes got hair in his ears and has to trim his nose though.
This Poll on OC is representative of people who vote on OC general forums. Thats it.
http://www.mori.com/polls/2003/iraq3.shtml
I'm off the pub. Tara.
Bet hes got hair in his ears and has to trim his nose though.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,206
- Location
- UK
I must say I couldn't be bothered reading your entire post as u blatantly are ignorant about certain issues. This is clear from the first point you try and make.
If it wasn't for the US ploughing billions probably trillions in todays money via the Marshal Plan after WW2 Europes economy would not be as affluent as it is today. For that matter let us also remember it was NATO and US troops in particular stationed in Europe that formed the bulk of the hardware and thus stale-mate against the Soviet Union
Its time countries like France and Germany live up to their defence obligations and stop relying on the US to protect them. The old saying "dont bite the hand that feeds you" seems very apt here.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,181
- Location
- South, Scotland
Lets get it over and done with and go Home.
the thing I find humerous.. is 44% of the country dont want war.. and in democracy those 44% are outweighed by the 56% of people who think that the 12 years of waiting is enough... tragic eh.. those saying were being undemocratic attacking iraq are actually somewhat incorrect.. democracy finally doing well 
Originally posted by Conanius
the thing I find humerous.. is 44% of the country dont want war.. and in democracy those 44% are outweighed by the 56% of people who think that the 12 years of waiting is enough... tragic eh.. those saying were being undemocratic attacking iraq are actually somewhat incorrect.. democracy finally doing well
I expect there is a majority for war. Although without a referendum nobody can say for sure.
But how many of the pro-war people base their view on incorrect information? I bet a few % think Saddam is behind 9/11. A few % think he is friends with Bin Laden. A few % think he has nukes. A few % think he is a serious threat to the UK. And so on...
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 309
- Location
- Suffolk, UK
This war is going to cause more trouble than its worth. By going to war, its only going to create more tension and hatred of America and the UK by Iraq and other Muslim countries. Therefore leading to more terrorist attacks.
I agree Saddam has to be stopped, but this is not the way.
I agree Saddam has to be stopped, but this is not the way.
well, thats not a very grown up attitude is it now toastedcheese? perhaps I had something to say towards the bottom of the post that ISNT (in your eyes) blatantly ignorant? Also, I would like to say i am NOT blatantly ignorant and I resent that statement!
(actually can i just take this opportunity to say, please be careful the way you word things on forums, so many ppl get banned for no reason becuase one word they put change the whole meaning of the post and a small personal war ensues)
back to the plot - fair enough, what you say does strike some truth. But need we continue to make mistakes? World politics isa very complicated and twisted web of affairs, and i dont pretend to know everything about everything (far from it, im just a youngster and so cant!)
however from waht i can remember from my A Level history course (last year....) the US did indeed take a VERY intravert policy STR8 after the second world war, and did something similar after the 1st as well. Now i KNOW there is a big difference between this situation and either of the WW's but the similarities in the polictical areas at least are very striking in parts. All im saying is that this war is war for wars sake. War is NEVER good but of course its never inevitable, in this case it most definately is, and the repercussions are going to echo into the future for both the US but more so for the UK (becuase we r so dependant on the US and the US ONLY now, whereas the US can satnd on its own two feet)
i hope you managed to get through all of THIS one
(actually can i just take this opportunity to say, please be careful the way you word things on forums, so many ppl get banned for no reason becuase one word they put change the whole meaning of the post and a small personal war ensues)
back to the plot - fair enough, what you say does strike some truth. But need we continue to make mistakes? World politics isa very complicated and twisted web of affairs, and i dont pretend to know everything about everything (far from it, im just a youngster and so cant!)
however from waht i can remember from my A Level history course (last year....) the US did indeed take a VERY intravert policy STR8 after the second world war, and did something similar after the 1st as well. Now i KNOW there is a big difference between this situation and either of the WW's but the similarities in the polictical areas at least are very striking in parts. All im saying is that this war is war for wars sake. War is NEVER good but of course its never inevitable, in this case it most definately is, and the repercussions are going to echo into the future for both the US but more so for the UK (becuase we r so dependant on the US and the US ONLY now, whereas the US can satnd on its own two feet)
i hope you managed to get through all of THIS one
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,206
- Location
- UK
Originally posted by manic_man
well, thats not a very grown up attitude is it now toastedcheese? perhaps I had something to say towards the bottom of the post that ISNT (in your eyes) blatantly ignorant? Also, I would like to say i am NOT blatantly ignorant and I resent that statement!
(actually can i just take this opportunity to say, please be careful the way you word things on forums, so many ppl get banned for no reason becuase one word they put change the whole meaning of the post and a small personal war ensues)
back to the plot - fair enough, what you say does strike some truth. But need we continue to make mistakes? World politics isa very complicated and twisted web of affairs, and i dont pretend to know everything about everything (far from it, im just a youngster and so cant!)
however from waht i can remember from my A Level history course (last year....) the US did indeed take a VERY intravert policy STR8 after the second world war, and did something similar after the 1st as well. Now i KNOW there is a big difference between this situation and either of the WW's but the similarities in the polictical areas at least are very striking in parts. All im saying is that this war is war for wars sake. War is NEVER good but of course its never inevitable, in this case it most definately is, and the repercussions are going to echo into the future for both the US but more so for the UK (becuase we r so dependant on the US and the US ONLY now, whereas the US can satnd on its own two feet)
i hope you managed to get through all of THIS one
Manic_Man - No offence intended from my first post...after re-read it does sound a bit harsh
When you refer to "VERY intravert policy" I assume you are hinting at the isolationism theory of the US staying out of international affairs. That is exactly what they are NOT doing by pursuing the 'war on terrorism'. An example of this is Afganistan whose new government have the military backing of coalition forces stationed there. They are there for the long haul, until stability is attained.
This example I believe will be followed in Iraq, the last thing the US (and world) wants is for Saddam to be replaced by one of his son's, cousins or even love-child (with Chirac's wife)!
Lets all hope that the new democracy of Iraq is a beacon in the Middle East....and a warning to any would-be dictators!
I vote yes simply because I think Saddam Hussain has killed enough members of the public and he needs to be shown exactly what other people are capable of, and shown that he isnt the most powerful person in the world.
If you know what I mean.
-Ross-
If you know what I mean.
-Ross-
unfortuantely a lot (most) of nething said BEFORE the event can only be described as speculation.
Yes I was referring to their isolationist policy... i kinda ended up reffering to it as an intravert policy, as my teacher liked the word (aint education gr8)... newho it would seem war is inevitable now, so theres not much any of us can do other than voice our opinions anyway
i must admit, i still feel we are almost playing UP to saddam and his regime as well. As he ahs shown many times before (and if we are applying the usual stereotype, a lot of the countries muslim countries surrounding Iraq) they are not afraid of dying, or using their own lives as a devestating weapon. We are fighting a dangerous war here (no opun intended
)
newho, keep the opinions coming peeps If nothign else, this is providing good (on the whole) stimulating conversation
Yes I was referring to their isolationist policy... i kinda ended up reffering to it as an intravert policy, as my teacher liked the word (aint education gr8)... newho it would seem war is inevitable now, so theres not much any of us can do other than voice our opinions anyway
i must admit, i still feel we are almost playing UP to saddam and his regime as well. As he ahs shown many times before (and if we are applying the usual stereotype, a lot of the countries muslim countries surrounding Iraq) they are not afraid of dying, or using their own lives as a devestating weapon. We are fighting a dangerous war here (no opun intended
)newho, keep the opinions coming peeps
If nothign else, this is providing good (on the whole) stimulating conversation I voted no not because I like saddam but because I hate Tony Blair.
Anyway its to late to back off now Tony has drag us into it, then waited till the last moment to ask if its OK. Tony and Bush have all but destroyed the UN in their lust for war. When the war is over Tony Blair must go!
Anyway its to late to back off now Tony has drag us into it, then waited till the last moment to ask if its OK. Tony and Bush have all but destroyed the UN in their lust for war. When the war is over Tony Blair must go!
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,206
- Location
- UK
Another example of why my amendment to UK voting policy should be adopted...See here The British Empire would return if...
- Status