Would you support another war?

dirtydog · 7 Nov 2006 at 18:39

AcidHell2 said:
where the hell did Bush say it was for oil? link please.,........ (or hace you been got by the propagands)

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17648916

Von Smallhausen · 7 Nov 2006 at 18:40

@if ®afiq said:
Please do not bring the dead of WWII into this. It is getting beyond tedious. Why is WWII always referred to when it comes to defending what soldiers are doing now?

The dead of WWII and the sacrifices they made are precisely why you are free to voice your opinions.

Learn some respect, or please keep quiet.

dirtydog · 7 Nov 2006 at 18:40

iPWN said:
I believe that one is called patriotism....

Patriotism is doing the right thing for your country, which doesn't necessarily mean supporting your government or your military in everything they do.

Von Smallhausen · 7 Nov 2006 at 18:46

dirtydog said:
Patriotism is doing the right thing for your country, which doesn't necessarily mean supporting your government or your military in everything they do.

What the military does, the Government tell them to do.

The difference is knowing who pulls the strings and also appreciating that despite reservations, the troops do the job. It is not right that they should be criticised and lambasted for the actions of the Government that they have no control over.

@if ®afiq · 7 Nov 2006 at 18:47

Von Smallhausen said:
When I see a Muslim, I do not label them all as suicide bombers or someone who will kill themselves and others. When I see a black man, I do not label them all off as crack dealing lowlife or muggers. When I see a British soldier on the streets of Iraq or Afghanistan, I do not see a robotic killing machine that indiscriminitely kills women, children or civilians in general and I also have the common sense to see that it is the government who send troops into theatres of war. The military is an executive arm of the Government to use as they see fit and if I disagree with wars that they fight, I levy my anger towards the Government and not the troops themselves.

In other words ... I do not generalise.

Maybe I've been misunderstood. I do not think that all soldiers will kill civilians, it's just the nature of war. Civilians, countless thousands, will get killed by soldiers.

This is where I disagree - the military is not the tool of the politicians, but the protector fo the people.

Von Smallhausen said:
Back at you ... why not ?

Beacuse if they are carrying out an illegal immoral act - they need to know that we the public do not wish them to do so.

I don't see how you can be opposed to a war, yet fully support the actions of the troops.

@if ®afiq · 7 Nov 2006 at 18:48

Hugogo said:
Hes run away . Wanted to see his come back!

Why would I run away? :confused:

I'm actually at work - will be stuck here till 10

@if ®afiq · 7 Nov 2006 at 18:51

Von Smallhausen said:
The dead of WWII and the sacrifices they made are precisely why you are free to voice your opinions.

Learn some respect, or please keep quiet.

I wasn't bening disrespectful. :confused:

Why are the acts of the soldiers in WWII use to justify what the military is doing today?

There has not and I don't think ever will be a war like WWII again so to compare those sacrifices with what we have today is, imo, direspectful to them!

Glaucus · 7 Nov 2006 at 18:56

dirtydog said:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17648916

He said he was worried at it was one of many reasons, not he invaded iraq just for oil. media propaganda twisting his words. I don't really care why we invaded, saddam needed to be removed and he has been. Wish we had more forces there and the goverment had a better plan on what to do after.

Von Smallhausen · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:01

@if ®afiq said:
Maybe I've been misunderstood. I do not think that all soldiers will kill civilians, it's just the nature of war. Civilians, countless thousands, will get killed by soldiers.

Fair point.

This is where I disagree - the military is not the tool of the politicians, but the protector fo the people.

But not at the peoples' beckon call.

Beacuse if they are carrying out an illegal immoral act - they need to know that we the public do not wish them to do so.

That is what the ballot box is for ? If you disagree with Givernment police then you have the democratic right to vote against them. Again, the people cannot and do not control the military.

I don't see how you can be opposed to a war, yet fully support the actions of the troops.

Because I know the difference between them and who pulls the strings or calls the shots.

@if ®afiq · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:01

AcidHell2 said:
Wish we had more forces there and the goverment had a better plan on what to do after.

Slightly OT, but it's funny you shoudl say that. I read an article a coupel of days ago that mentioned the fact the war games on conquering Iraq were carried out in 1998 and even then with 400,000 troops the generals said victory would not be achievible.

*edit* Here is the link

Von Smallhausen · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:03

@if ®afiq said:
I wasn't bening disrespectful.

It sounded that way, but I will give the benefit of the doubt.

Why are the acts of the soldiers in WWII use to justify what the military is doing today?

Not in my book.

There has not and I don't think ever will be a war like WWII again so to compare those sacrifices with what we have today is, imo, direspectful to them!

Thats is your opinion but I do not agree.

They made sacrifices in helping to defeat Nazism and the free speech we have is part of that sacrifice.

@if ®afiq · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:07

Von Smallhausen said:
That is what the ballot box is for ? If you disagree with Givernment police then you have the democratic right to vote against them. Again, the people cannot and do not control the military.

Slight problem with that - elections occur every four years, so it kind of limits us as to how effect our ballot protest is don't you think?

Von Smallhausen · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:09

@if ®afiq said:
Slight problem with that - elections occur every four years, so it kind of limits us as to how effect our ballot protest is don't you think?

Nature of the beast I'm afraid.

Stringy · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:11

@if ®afiq said:
Slight problem with that - elections occur every four years, so it kind of limits us as to how effect our ballot protest is don't you think?

oooo, I did a talk on this as part of my training
"How much ability do citizens of nations or states (that is, “the people”) have either to constrain or to unleash warfare?"

Pity I've gotten rid of the notes I made on the subject

Mass protest marches to get into media - raising international profile and gaining attention of international NGOs, lobbying MPs, and elections (missed a trick in the last one though eh?) are some ways I talked about for 'constraining' warfare. Surely they're not mightily effective, but in this 'democratic' society we live in it's the best we're going to get. Given the nature of our parliament, are truly democratic decisions ever possible anyway?

@if ®afiq · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:11

Von Smallhausen said:
It sounded that way, but I will give the benefit of the doubt.

Von Smallhausen said:
Thats is your opinion but I do not agree.

They made sacrifices in helping to defeat Nazism and the free speech we have is part of that sacrifice.

Yes they did - but what our soldiers are doing today can, in no way, be compared to what was done in WWII.

This current war against a defenseless country taht posed no threat to us is the exact thing the Nuremburg trials (the culmination of what those soldiers fought for) was all about. To put an end to aggressive imperiliast wars.

Glaucus · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:13

@if ®afiq said:
Slight problem with that - elections occur every four years, so it kind of limits us as to how effect our ballot protest is don't you think?

But that's where I think politics in England needs to change. We need a way of ousting a government.

@if ®afiq said:
Slightly OT, but it's funny you shoudl say that. I read an article a coupel of days ago that mentioned the fact the war games on conquering Iraq were carried out in 1998 and even then with 400,000 troops the generals said victory would not be achievible.

*edit* Here is the link

I'm not surprised, I think we had enough forces for the "war" itself but thats the easy bit, you need many times more forces to keep the peace once the government/infrastructure has been removed. Thats what the problem is and this is simply down to bad planning on bush/blairs part.

@if ®afiq · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:13

Von Smallhausen said:
Nature of the beast I'm afraid.

Kind of like a temporary dictatorship then...

Stringy · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:14

@if ®afiq said:
Kind of like a temporary dictatorship then...

Not at all, there is a parliament that needs to agree. However given the nature of party politics you could argue that true democracy is made more difficult than it already is.

cleanbluesky · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:16

@if ®afiq said:
Kind of like a temporary dictatorship then...

except for the shared power, voting, representative election, referendum and constitution... almost exactly the same, well spotted

Macro · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:20

@if ®afiq said:
There has not and I don't think ever will be a war like WWII again so to compare those sacrifices with what we have today is, imo, direspectful to them!

Isn't that what they said after WWI, known then as "The great war" or the "war to end all wars".

Not to mention the standing by of national governments in the 30's whilst the Nazis commited attrocity after attrocity to their own, and other peoples. The UK goverment at the time, and the people did not want another war, did not want to intervene despite the mounting evidence of what was going on with Crystal nacht and the"unification" with Austria, not to mention the invasion of the Saarland. Eventually a line had to be drawn, it was, and that's why the hand wringers today can pontificate about what out armed forces should and shouldn't do.

There's an awful lot of naive people around who have a very idealised view of the world where we should all be nice to each other and Saddam was actualy a nice, albeit slightly misguided chap, despite his attempts at genocide against the marsh arabs and kurds, a 10 year war against Iran and an invasion of Kuwait.

It's good that we have the luxury of debate and free speech, the alternative of a concentration camp had someone not had the balls to draw a line in the sand may not be quite so appealing....