The most talked about and debated WAR in history?
27 February 2003, 11:07 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
If, as seems likely, we go to war with Iraq - I would hazard a guess that it is the most talked about and discussed war in human history.
I am so pi55ed off with every view being aired over and over again that we should just get in and do the job!!
Pete
I am so pi55ed off with every view being aired over and over again that we should just get in and do the job!!
Pete
27 February 2003, 11:42 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iv not realy been thinking about it much, but if it does kick off i'll be talking about all the time.
Ray
ps. got a reply from ya work place the other day but im no use to you guys (over 2 months to reply me) anyway i quit my temp job 2day to look for work full time. hopfully get a job b4 the next batch of grads come out. tanx
Ray
ps. got a reply from ya work place the other day but im no use to you guys (over 2 months to reply me) anyway i quit my temp job 2day to look for work full time. hopfully get a job b4 the next batch of grads come out. tanx
28 February 2003, 08:40 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Carnetix, Adams and Nitosport
Posts: 12,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay a few points:
- It hasn't happened yet so it is the build up that is begin debated.
- It is unlikely to be a war, more likely to be a conflict. Declaring war on a country is actually a big deal. America never declared war on North Vietnam for example.
- It is unlikely to have been debated more than either World War I and World War II. Both of which have happened and were actually declared wars.
I agree the media coverage is currently intense but it is actually quite important at the moment. It could have a massive effect on the world or it could just be a damp squib.
Maybe you should consider what you type and the effect it could have on the family members of people that are out there and really don't know what is going on.
Sometimes you make the most stupid and badly thought out comments.
[Edited by MATTeL - 2/28/2003 8:43:04 AM]
- It hasn't happened yet so it is the build up that is begin debated.
- It is unlikely to be a war, more likely to be a conflict. Declaring war on a country is actually a big deal. America never declared war on North Vietnam for example.
- It is unlikely to have been debated more than either World War I and World War II. Both of which have happened and were actually declared wars.
I agree the media coverage is currently intense but it is actually quite important at the moment. It could have a massive effect on the world or it could just be a damp squib.
Maybe you should consider what you type and the effect it could have on the family members of people that are out there and really don't know what is going on.
Sometimes you make the most stupid and badly thought out comments.
[Edited by MATTeL - 2/28/2003 8:43:04 AM]
Trending Topics
01 March 2003, 12:28 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Matt is giving an opinion - it doesnt make it right, its just different to mine!
Maybe I am just a lot more intelligent than you Leslie if you cant see that all the talk is going over old ground again and again - maybe you need it to be spelled out to you many times before it sinks in??
- we (most) are under the impression that talk is meaningless in this case as the USA have decided that Saddam is going ....................... so lets get in and do the job.
All in my opinion of course!! doesnt mean I am right ( but I ALWAYS am!!)
Pete
Maybe I am just a lot more intelligent than you Leslie if you cant see that all the talk is going over old ground again and again - maybe you need it to be spelled out to you many times before it sinks in??
- we (most) are under the impression that talk is meaningless in this case as the USA have decided that Saddam is going ....................... so lets get in and do the job.All in my opinion of course!! doesnt mean I am right ( but I ALWAYS am!!)
Pete
03 March 2003, 01:33 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete
I also am entitled to give my opinion on the matter, and it is that what Matt said is right and I agree with his opinion. I know that you will be intelligent enough to understand that statement.
Of course it is "old ground" that is being quoted. There has been precious little new ground to discuss. In particular, there is no perceivable real evidence to justify bombing Iraq and killing so many innocent people including the risk to our own Servicemen. We have only seen meaningless pictures and a student's thesis from twelve years ago being passed off as being current proof by our leaders. Not very confidence inspiring stuff! We all know the sort of people Saddam and his close supporters are and we also suspect that the French, Russian and German are motivated for the reasons of lucrative trade with Iraq. It all goes to show the duplicity of World politics. However, I dont believe that all this and your lack of patience with the situation justifies starting this Armaggedon without at least the strength of a second resolution from the UN. The tales today of extra and unusual bombings attacks in the "No Fly" zones suggest that things are proceeding with indecent haste.
Dont accuse me of being what seems to be called a "Tree Hugger". I spent nearly 38 years in the Services and was ready to defend this country from attack at any time. You and I are old enough to remember all the wars from the second world war to date, and therefore should understand at least as well as anyone how obscene war really is. It is truly awful to think of the destruction of people and their property and I think is something to be avoided if possible. Our Armed Services are poised at the moment to attack a weak country in terms of defences, not to defend ourselves from immediate attack. I think therefore that we should be shown hard evidence of the need to do that or at least the backing of the UN.
Your reasoning that Bush is going to do it anyway and that we should therefore do it straight away is specious and I think immoral.
Please try to avoid weakening your argument by insulting my intelligence next time.
Les
I also am entitled to give my opinion on the matter, and it is that what Matt said is right and I agree with his opinion. I know that you will be intelligent enough to understand that statement.
Of course it is "old ground" that is being quoted. There has been precious little new ground to discuss. In particular, there is no perceivable real evidence to justify bombing Iraq and killing so many innocent people including the risk to our own Servicemen. We have only seen meaningless pictures and a student's thesis from twelve years ago being passed off as being current proof by our leaders. Not very confidence inspiring stuff! We all know the sort of people Saddam and his close supporters are and we also suspect that the French, Russian and German are motivated for the reasons of lucrative trade with Iraq. It all goes to show the duplicity of World politics. However, I dont believe that all this and your lack of patience with the situation justifies starting this Armaggedon without at least the strength of a second resolution from the UN. The tales today of extra and unusual bombings attacks in the "No Fly" zones suggest that things are proceeding with indecent haste.
Dont accuse me of being what seems to be called a "Tree Hugger". I spent nearly 38 years in the Services and was ready to defend this country from attack at any time. You and I are old enough to remember all the wars from the second world war to date, and therefore should understand at least as well as anyone how obscene war really is. It is truly awful to think of the destruction of people and their property and I think is something to be avoided if possible. Our Armed Services are poised at the moment to attack a weak country in terms of defences, not to defend ourselves from immediate attack. I think therefore that we should be shown hard evidence of the need to do that or at least the backing of the UN.
Your reasoning that Bush is going to do it anyway and that we should therefore do it straight away is specious and I think immoral.
Please try to avoid weakening your argument by insulting my intelligence next time.
Les
03 March 2003, 05:01 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Leslie my little mukka - what you said was that Matt was ABSOLUTELY right ........... which is a statement of fact NOT an opinion!!
NOW that you have said its your opinion thats ok - its cleared up. You and Matt are wrong and I am right in my opinion
War is terrible, its not pleasant at all - most people who fight a war do not want to fight another so it proves its really bad!
HOWEVER
We all know that all this talk is just that TALK - won't change one single thing!!
Interesting hearing the Iraqi people talking about a few 100 to die in an attack is FAR better than Saddam killing 1000's EVERY single year!! The want him out!! Indeed the war will be over in 2 weeks and the people of IRAQ will welcome the US and UK troops into Bagdad once the fear of Saddam and his melisha have been defeated.
So, I say again, lets get in and do the bl00dy job!!
Pete
NOW that you have said its your opinion thats ok - its cleared up. You and Matt are wrong and I am right in my opinion
War is terrible, its not pleasant at all - most people who fight a war do not want to fight another so it proves its really bad!
HOWEVER
We all know that all this talk is just that TALK - won't change one single thing!!
Interesting hearing the Iraqi people talking about a few 100 to die in an attack is FAR better than Saddam killing 1000's EVERY single year!! The want him out!! Indeed the war will be over in 2 weeks and the people of IRAQ will welcome the US and UK troops into Bagdad once the fear of Saddam and his melisha have been defeated.
So, I say again, lets get in and do the bl00dy job!!
Pete
03 March 2003, 05:32 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the delay is because there is a lot going on behind the scenes.
As Pete says,America are going in,there's no doubt WHATSOEVER about that.BUT they can either
1.go it alone or
2.try to go in with as much support as they can get.
I think the delay is because they are going for option 2.
03 March 2003, 07:45 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Look at todays news, finally they have had to admit that the no-fly zones are a little bit more than no-fly zones. Bombing is not limited to air defences and any amourment that opens fire on the Allies. Bombing is targeting a host of weaponry Saddam has at his disposal. They are, and have been for ages, making sure that ground forces will have minimal resistance.
I am all for this war as I believe the region will be a better a place without Saddam and his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons. However dirty tactics such as pretending they are not currently at war and only enforcing the no-fly zone are to me doing the US/UK Governments more harm than good in terms of public and International support.
Its time to admit its already started, its just an air war currently, but its still attacking Iraq beyond what was agreed by the UN resolution and the protection of the no-fly zone.
Its time to get on with the job, and I believe it will be within the next 10-14 days now the B52's have landed in Gloucestershire.
I am all for this war as I believe the region will be a better a place without Saddam and his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons. However dirty tactics such as pretending they are not currently at war and only enforcing the no-fly zone are to me doing the US/UK Governments more harm than good in terms of public and International support.
Its time to admit its already started, its just an air war currently, but its still attacking Iraq beyond what was agreed by the UN resolution and the protection of the no-fly zone.
Its time to get on with the job, and I believe it will be within the next 10-14 days now the B52's have landed in Gloucestershire.
04 March 2003, 11:48 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete, there is no way you can say I am your little mucker!
I still say that what Mattel said was right if you wish to persue the semantics. I did not say that the war could not be justified, but that it has not yet been proved to be the right thing to do-particularly unilaterally. Therefore I feel it is wrong to rush into it and wreak havoc without proper evidence or a second resolution from the UN. Nevertheless, if I was still in the Services I would do what was required by Queen and country. That is why I joined up.
Were the Iraqis who said that exiles I wonder?
We should agree to disagree which is fair enough and I would still buy you a beer if we ever meet.
Les
I still say that what Mattel said was right if you wish to persue the semantics. I did not say that the war could not be justified, but that it has not yet been proved to be the right thing to do-particularly unilaterally. Therefore I feel it is wrong to rush into it and wreak havoc without proper evidence or a second resolution from the UN. Nevertheless, if I was still in the Services I would do what was required by Queen and country. That is why I joined up.
Were the Iraqis who said that exiles I wonder?
We should agree to disagree which is fair enough and I would still buy you a beer if we ever meet.
Les
04 March 2003, 05:23 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Leslie, a pint????? NOW we are talking the same language, especially as you are offering!! 
Then will you let me call you 'My Little Mukka'??
Pete
Then will you let me call you 'My Little Mukka'??
Pete
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post