Anti War Demo: Saturday ,London
16 February 2003, 10:37 PM
#92
Absolutley Sith,it's partly about oil,but it's in a big part about WofMD ,i can just imagime it now 2,3,5,10,years down the line nuke on major western Capital ,and the same people that were campaigning for less action to be taken (ie no war) will be asking why more wasn't done to stop it,war in Iraq is no guarantee of protection against terror etc but the people with the cia/nsa/mi5/etc/etc...info. think it is the best course of action given Saddams attitude,but of course you will know better because??why...answer that one, eh.
17 February 2003, 10:33 AM
#93
BANNED
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 9,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still no real explaination about why the west has helped/funded/ingnored other major Dictators/presidents etc who are just as bad a Sadam.
The west forgets things a bit to quick for their own benefit.
The west forgets things a bit to quick for their own benefit.
17 February 2003, 12:29 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah ha, it is a protestor.
17 February 2003, 06:42 PM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 1,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luke,
we allowed 1.5 hours to get food and walk less than 0.5 miles.
Thats more than adequate surely? Maybe I should have allowed a day or spent a fortnight on the pavement outside just to make sure eh?
My personal choice of food at 1pm on a saturday is something along the lines of a McD, Burger king or a KFC. Its my ****ing choice, its a free country unlike the one you are so fast to defend. Plus what my choice of food had to do with anything is beyond me, apart from the fact that it seems your struggling more and more to put a decent argument together so your resorting to childish my dads bigger than yours type comments. And just in case you are that worried, we were planning on going for a meal afterwards but due to being very pissed off we didn't.
As for your "no ones told me why people funded/sold arms to these countrys before" comments. Its VERY simple and you might understand if you try REALLY REALLY hard. When they were supplied they were the lesser of two evils AT THAT TIME.
Funding went to afghanistan when the USSR was in there trying to take it over by force, are you saying that we should have known that things would turn sour in 20 years and that country would start to harbour terrorists?
Iran was previsouly the country in that region that was deemed the biggest threat........
robski
p.s. think about this. If you were an Iraqi citizen would you prefer Saddam to be toppled or not? Maybe you can demostrate your massive intellect by giving us a pros and cons as to what they would be feeling......
we allowed 1.5 hours to get food and walk less than 0.5 miles.
Thats more than adequate surely? Maybe I should have allowed a day or spent a fortnight on the pavement outside just to make sure eh?
My personal choice of food at 1pm on a saturday is something along the lines of a McD, Burger king or a KFC. Its my ****ing choice, its a free country unlike the one you are so fast to defend. Plus what my choice of food had to do with anything is beyond me, apart from the fact that it seems your struggling more and more to put a decent argument together so your resorting to childish my dads bigger than yours type comments. And just in case you are that worried, we were planning on going for a meal afterwards but due to being very pissed off we didn't.
As for your "no ones told me why people funded/sold arms to these countrys before" comments. Its VERY simple and you might understand if you try REALLY REALLY hard. When they were supplied they were the lesser of two evils AT THAT TIME.
Funding went to afghanistan when the USSR was in there trying to take it over by force, are you saying that we should have known that things would turn sour in 20 years and that country would start to harbour terrorists?
Iran was previsouly the country in that region that was deemed the biggest threat........
robski
p.s. think about this. If you were an Iraqi citizen would you prefer Saddam to be toppled or not? Maybe you can demostrate your massive intellect by giving us a pros and cons as to what they would be feeling......
17 February 2003, 07:07 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luke knows best with his BA in tourism management!!!!
It is getting to the point where the tree huggers are demonising the west instead of demonising the real ******* - Saddham.
Shall we call him Saint Saddham!!
ffs get a grip!!!
It is getting to the point where the tree huggers are demonising the west instead of demonising the real ******* - Saddham.
Shall we call him Saint Saddham!!
ffs get a grip!!!
17 February 2003, 08:21 PM
#99
BANNED
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 9,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No ,Luke doesnt know best. But This idea that America can carpet bomb iraq for 6 days and force the iraqis to give up and that will be the end of it is stupid. This will cause terrorism to escalate in Uk and US.
There is no chance in hell that this war will be over soon... "thinking The immediate collapse of the iraqi army and the possible death of Sadam will be the end of it must be mad"...This "War" is not just against them
[Edited by Luke - 2/17/2003 8:41:01 PM]
There is no chance in hell that this war will be over soon... "thinking The immediate collapse of the iraqi army and the possible death of Sadam will be the end of it must be mad"...This "War" is not just against them
[Edited by Luke - 2/17/2003 8:41:01 PM]
17 February 2003, 08:43 PM
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I've said all I need to on this subject so I shall leave with this comment. 'If you can name another target, a military target then name the system. I grow tired of asking this - Where is the Iraqi base'.
17 February 2003, 11:36 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Blix said that the inspectors are NOT there to locate weapons of mass destruction. They are there to ensure that the iraqi's have adhered to un resolutions. Ie Iraq said yes we had x amount of shells we destroyed them and here is the proof.
Increasing the number of inspectors isn't going to solve this problem. Iraq has to get onside and prove it has or it will destroy those weapons unaccounted for.
Until that is done what option do we have but to threaten military action? In case you hadn't realised we are not at war yet. In order to put pressure on Iraq to comply with a document they signed 12 years ago we send troops. You cannot threaten someone from x thousand miles away can you.
The principals are sound, you send troops apply pressure and hope the bad guy backs down. If the bad guy doesn't you use those troops and make him.
Noone has acted without un consent so far. At the moment the un has control (bush / blair won't act at the moment without un support, they can push but no more) so the tactics are recognaised as legitimate. Modern gunboat diplomacy if you like.
Don't forget the people making these decisions for us we voted for BY US. They are also the BEST informed of all of us on the situation.
I suggest we let them get on with it. I suspect many of us would take the same decisions given the same information.
Increasing the number of inspectors isn't going to solve this problem. Iraq has to get onside and prove it has or it will destroy those weapons unaccounted for.
Until that is done what option do we have but to threaten military action? In case you hadn't realised we are not at war yet. In order to put pressure on Iraq to comply with a document they signed 12 years ago we send troops. You cannot threaten someone from x thousand miles away can you.
The principals are sound, you send troops apply pressure and hope the bad guy backs down. If the bad guy doesn't you use those troops and make him.
Noone has acted without un consent so far. At the moment the un has control (bush / blair won't act at the moment without un support, they can push but no more) so the tactics are recognaised as legitimate. Modern gunboat diplomacy if you like.
Don't forget the people making these decisions for us we voted for BY US. They are also the BEST informed of all of us on the situation.
I suggest we let them get on with it. I suspect many of us would take the same decisions given the same information.
02 March 2003, 05:37 PM
#102
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUSH'S AIM.....
Presidents Bush Objective is to destroy Iraq and take over the Fuel docks and improve israel security against Palestine.
If you think about it, has Britain ever been a victim of terrorism??...Who rattled Blair's cage???
By joining Bush, i can certaily say he's axed his own hand.
AMERICA IS AN ARROGANT SUPER POWER, FULL STOP,
Presidents Bush Objective is to destroy Iraq and take over the Fuel docks and improve israel security against Palestine.
If you think about it, has Britain ever been a victim of terrorism??...Who rattled Blair's cage???
By joining Bush, i can certaily say he's axed his own hand.
AMERICA IS AN ARROGANT SUPER POWER, FULL STOP,
02 March 2003, 05:43 PM
#103
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Plymouth
Posts: 3,079
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and improve israel security against Palestine.
02 March 2003, 06:29 PM
#104
Scooby Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US/UK air war against Serbs in Bosnia - No UN resolution. Why because the Russians would have vetoed it.
US/UK air war against serbs in Kosovo - No UN resolution. Ditto
1998 Missile attacks on Iraq (200+ cruise missiles etc) - No UN resolution
Sierra Leone - No UN Resolution
Ivory Coast - no UN Resolution
North Korea - A lesson in futility. Now they have Nukes because Clinton was too busy getting blown to worry about such things. Now 8 years later the solution to this one is going to cost many lives. And all the left can do is tell Bush he shouldn't have mentioned they were in the axis of evil. Seems to me he was exactly right.
Funny when the left want to behave "unilaterally" it is OK. didn't see too many hollywood types protesting that.
I have a Bosnian Muslim guy who works for me who was a Serbian POW during 1994-96 in Bosnia the stories he tells make Sadaam look like a pussycat.
When did that situation get fixed - When the US/UK took care of business as usual. While the EU and the UN argued.
US/UK air war against serbs in Kosovo - No UN resolution. Ditto
1998 Missile attacks on Iraq (200+ cruise missiles etc) - No UN resolution
Sierra Leone - No UN Resolution
Ivory Coast - no UN Resolution
North Korea - A lesson in futility. Now they have Nukes because Clinton was too busy getting blown to worry about such things. Now 8 years later the solution to this one is going to cost many lives. And all the left can do is tell Bush he shouldn't have mentioned they were in the axis of evil. Seems to me he was exactly right.
Funny when the left want to behave "unilaterally" it is OK. didn't see too many hollywood types protesting that.
I have a Bosnian Muslim guy who works for me who was a Serbian POW during 1994-96 in Bosnia the stories he tells make Sadaam look like a pussycat.
When did that situation get fixed - When the US/UK took care of business as usual. While the EU and the UN argued.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post