Would you support another war?

Von Smallhausen · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:20

@if ®afiq said:
Yes they did - but what our soldiers are doing today can, in no way, be compared to what was done in WWII.

True. Different war and a different cause.

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.

Iraq is an imperialist war ?

Firegod · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:21

Roduga said:
I certainly would. Nothing beats getting up, pouring out cereal and watching airstrikes on TV.

Actually, I love watching it as well. Always make the noises of bombs and stuff like a little kid.

"ssssschhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh BOMB!"

awesome.

But on a more serious note, i'd support another war as long as it was justified like Iraq was. I think that these high ranking people that have stopped supporting our troops at the moment need a kick up the backside. That's no way to act and should be supporting our boys/gals! One thing, that slightly is off topic but get's my goat is when someone is killed and the parents come on TV and blame the government. I'm like "HOLD ON, they joined the forces, they knew the risks and now that the very horrible but true reality has hit home you want to blame the government!" :mad:

What do they think the army or any service is, running around throwing flowers at people! GRR! If you don't like it why join up!!!

Sorry, rant over!

@if ®afiq · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:24

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

This government took the country to war against the wishes of it's people and even the militray/secret services - yet they are still in power. How's that for democracy? It is democratic in all but name!

As has been said, there must be a way for the people to decide if a government is still fit to be in power.

@if ®afiq · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:32

Von Smallhausen said:
Iraq is an imperialist war ?

imo, there is no doubt. America is an empire and this is a war for control.

Von Smallhausen · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:34

@if ®afiq said:
imo, there is no doubt. America is an empire and this is a war for control.

Hmmm, I don't see it that way.

While Britain has an imperialist past, it still retains small sovereign lands across the globe. I do not see Britain as imperialist anymore though.

Control of what though ? Iraq ? The Middle East ?

@if ®afiq · 7 Nov 2006 at 19:57

Von Smallhausen said:
Control of what though ? Iraq ? The Middle East ?

Control of the greatest material asset.

Control of Iraq gives control over the entire region, which will ensure that the US remains the only superpower. This is even more important now that China is rising to power so quickly.

Iraq is extremly strategically located - there was an excellent quote that Anarchist posted about WWII and the Nazi drive to Iraq and the subsequent threat this posed to the UK.

[DOD]Asprilla · 7 Nov 2006 at 20:04

@if ®afiq said:
As has been said, there must be a way for the people to decide if a government is still fit to be in power.

Unfortunately, if people were able to do that at any time they wished then government would be paralysed and based entirely upon populist principles. Every decision would be cause for a change of government and nothing would every be accomplished.

Our democratic process isn't great but it's a lot better than most places.

starscream · 7 Nov 2006 at 20:05

@if ®afiq said:
Iraq is extremly strategically located - there was an excellent quote that Anarchist posted about WWII and the Nazi drive to Iraq and the subsequent threat this posed to the UK.

It goes further than that. Have a watch of this when you have an hour to kill

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967

Skunkworks · 7 Nov 2006 at 20:28

starscream said:
It goes further than that. Have a watch of this when you have an hour to kill

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967

That's you that is.

Glaucus · 7 Nov 2006 at 20:28

[DOD]Asprilla said:
Unfortunately, if people were able to do that at any time they wished then government would be paralysed and based entirely upon populist principles. Every decision would be cause for a change of government and nothing would every be accomplished.

Our democratic process isn't great but it's a lot better than most places.

I don't agree, I think there could be something to oust a government. But not easy to do. Therefore the government could still run.

And yes I do think we have one of the best or the best system in the world.

Stringy · 7 Nov 2006 at 20:40

@if ®afiq said:
This government took the country to war against the wishes of it's people and even the militray/secret services - yet they are still in power. How's that for democracy? It is democratic in all but name!

As has been said, there must be a way for the people to decide if a government is still fit to be in power.

I seem to remember that there has been an election since the invasion of Iraq.

And shouldn't that be "It is undemocratic in all but name!"?

squiffy · 7 Nov 2006 at 20:43

In all likelyhood what exactly can the general public, and indeed the rest of the Goverment do if the PM flies off the rails? Can the Lords remove him from office? Doesn't TB continually refuse to do what the Lords decide/debate on? (ID cards, Iraq War)

So really ARE we in a democracy? Yes we vote, but if the elected goverment does whatever it likes then is it?

Von Smallhausen · 7 Nov 2006 at 20:45

@if ®afiq said:
Control of Iraq gives control over the entire region, which will ensure that the US remains the only superpower. This is even more important now that China is rising to power so quickly.

How. Does it mean that the United States has control over Iran or Syria ? I don't think so. Nothing that the US does in the middle east will affect China as a developing nation or it's undoubted future status as a superpower.

Iraq is extremly strategically located - there was an excellent quote that Anarchist posted about WWII and the Nazi drive to Iraq and the subsequent threat this posed to the UK.

As is Israel and the United States has an almost unlimited scope for intel gathering there in conjunction with the Israelis'.

TBirdUK · 7 Nov 2006 at 20:55

We vote and put our trust in the elected officials - sometimes they may not do what we want, but at least we had a choice (no vote - then no voice). Its better than in a lot of countries, they get killed for having a voice.

Would I support another war, doesnt really matter, if I dont like it I will vote for someone else next time (but with Iraq then yes - I've seen the state of what was happening by the regime and covered up! - at least someone is trying to change for good)

ps - OCdt Stringy

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

pop on the intranet and you will find the lecture notes of the KCL

@if ®afiq · 7 Nov 2006 at 20:58

Von Smallhausen said:
How. Does it mean that the United States has control over Iran or Syria ? I don't think so. Nothing that the US does in the middle east will affect China as a developing nation or it's undoubted future status as a superpower.

You don't think controlling a country with the third largest oil reserves has any benefits? How about when this country is in between the country with the first and second??? largest reserves? Not to mention the rest of the Arab states like Syria.

At a time when Peak Oil has or at the very least is just over the horizon. At a time when your biggest threat needs to guzzle as much oil as it can to ensure it's growth? When your old adversary is regaining it's strength?

Why do you think the US is willing to spend up to $2 trillion dollars on this war?

Von Smallhausen said:
As is Israel and the United States has an almost unlimited scope for intel gathering there in conjunction with the Israelis'.

How is Israel strategically located?

Stringy · 7 Nov 2006 at 21:00

TBirdUK said:
ps - OCdt Stringy

pop on the intranet and you will find the lecture notes of the KCL

Hahaha, I had to present a question in a syndicate room discussion and I went into some depth about how much we could influence going to war, it's those notes I've lost

Ex/Current Cranwellian?

TBirdUK · 7 Nov 2006 at 21:03

Both, but not on your Sqn

Von Smallhausen · 7 Nov 2006 at 21:31

@if ®afiq said:
You don't think controlling a country with the third largest oil reserves has any benefits? How about when this country is in between the country with the first and second??? largest reserves? Not to mention the rest of the Arab states like Syria.

You seriously expect an invasion by the United States from Iraq into Iran and others ?

At a time when Peak Oil has or at the very least is just over the horizon. At a time when your biggest threat needs to guzzle as much oil as it can to ensure it's growth? When your old adversary is regaining it's strength?

Again, I disagree.

Why do you think the US is willing to spend up to $2 trillion dollars on this war?

Are they ? On the basis of that article ?

How is Israel strategically located?

It is strategically placed in the middle east for intel gathering and sharing and also, if needs be, troops or hardware to be stationed.

@if ®afiq · 7 Nov 2006 at 21:52

Von Smallhausen said:
You seriously expect an invasion by the United States from Iraq into Iran and others ?

I didn't mention invasion, but as it happens - the majority of Irans oil is located on the border next to Iraq - and the same for Saudi Arabia.

Von Smallhausen said:
Again, I disagree.

Why?

Von Smallhausen said:
Are they ? On the basis of that article ?

And the previous one that they wrote. Why do you dismiss it so off-hand?

"Joseph Stiglitz, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors and chief economist at the World Bank, teaches at Columbia University. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001."

vincent1989 · 7 Nov 2006 at 22:34

Skyfire said:
What is the most extreme action you would support in the war against terror and/or to secure natural resouces if the majority supported it? And could a nuclear option ever be considered?

yes i would consider a nuclear option, but only if it were used to utterly annihilate George Bush, if only so the rest of the world could help themselves to all the basic/natural resources America has...or just to kill Bush