say u woz faced wiv a psychopath wielding a knife/gun. Would you let him/her kill u OR would you try and reason with a mind which has no regard for your well-being and is intent on harming you OR would you kill them if it was the only way to avoid being killed/allowing others to be killed ?

 

It's that simple. Many wars should never come about between civilised nations (jaw,jaw is better than war,war), but facing a psychopathic dictator is another story.

 

u (lot) 'avin' that ?!:D

You 'avin a slow day at work Nelson, or wot?

Originally posted by Cos

You 'avin a slow day at work Nelson, or wot?

 

nahh:D jus bein' lazy man ;)

 

u avin' that ?!:cool:

Afternoon Nelson :D

 

...and it's not even Friday!

 

Tim

Originally posted by TT Tim

Afternoon Nelson :D

 

...and it's not even Friday!

 

Tim

 

u wanna start summit ?:D eh ?;)

 

well do ya feel lucky punk ??:cool:

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella

u wanna start summit ?:D eh ?;)

 

well do ya feel luck punk ??:cool:

 

Now did I fire 6 or 5?

 

Tim

being COMPLETELY opposed to violence, i would let him/her kill me. far better than killing another IMO :)

what the fcuk is that fake shit black accent all about Nelly?

Originally posted by Paul C

being COMPLETELY opposed to violence, i would let him/her kill me. far better than killing another IMO :)

 

That is why Sadam killed a whole town of over 5000 in 1994 with chemical bombs because they helped the allied forces in 1991. And for all these protesters, there where families, women and children who where poisoned to death, slowly!

 

That is why Sadams army is killing its own people, women childrean and man, with mortor bombs at the moment, as the people are starting to feel relieved that there repession is nearly over.

 

That is why Sadams Son's favourate past time is raping teenage girls, who orders schools to send them.

 

That is Iraqi soilders are abusing the little trust armies have for eachother by pretending to surender with white flags and then opening fire when they get close.

 

That is people of Bagdad are being poisioned to dead, by plumes of smoke from burning oil which they set alight.

 

That is why Iraqi Soilders are firing on thier own men who want to surrender. Dont forget there a government will be needed to be made after all of this and the people who want it to happen are being shot.

 

Do you want me to go on?

 

I agree with Nelson. How many times can you tell a person stop doing what they are doing. Yet he continues to keep people starving dispite being one of the richest countries in the Middle East, and yet has had money to spend on building hundreds of HUGE palaces, (which the building of is contracted to the French!)

 

I said on another post its not too much different from MAC's job as a door man. When people are misbehaving, you tell them to stop. When they continue, you warn them. When still carry on, they are asked to leave, when refuse to leave they are forced to leave. If they fight back or struggle, they often end up getting hurt.

 

Dont forget that Sadam has been flounting legislations for over 25 years, in which time he has created weapons that he has been told he shouldnt have, kill his own people with weapons he says he doesnt have and he has try to invade a country. How much more time should we give him?

Answer: He has had too long already. And that is why he is being removed, and just killing him is not enough as his child raping son will take over.

 

No one wants a war, but its the only language that he understands and we are shouting in his hear.

 

Keep the peace.

 

Stuart

 

(If you want peace you must prepair for war)

Originally posted by SRRAE

 

I said on another post its not too much different from MAC's job as a door man. When people are misbehaving, you tell them to stop. When they continue, you warn them. When still carry on, they are asked to leave, when refuse to leave they are forced to leave. If they fight back or struggle, they often end up getting hurt.

 

 

That's right Stu apart from often end up getting hurt.

 

 

By the time you are at this point THEY WILL GET HURT! Sorry to offend all the peace lovers,but it is real life in the real world!

'ere 'ere

 

 

 

"We are but children in grown up bodies and a good telling off helps to keep us in line."

 

 

ok, ok - I'll get me' coat...........

Originally posted by Paul C

being COMPLETELY opposed to violence, i would let him/her kill me. far better than killing another IMO :)

 

I was, of course, taking the piss! :rolleyes:

You're spot-on Stu, this war is a 'necesarry evil'. In my opinion, we let the Iraqi people down back in '91- we should have continued all the way to Baghdad and got rid of Saddam.

You only have to hear these reports about his henchmen firing on their own countrymen to realise what kind of a person we are dealing with.

I just hope that the allied forces can support this uprising in Basra, which will help the Iraqi people free themselves from the 'shackles of oppression' (to coin an over-used phrase!).

But it'd be even better if this conflict was terminated by a BGM109 Tomahawk up Saddam's arse though :D

Dave

Originally posted by Paul C

I was, of course, taking the piss! :rolleyes:

LMAO :D:D so i wasent the only who one saw that as being pretty OBvious :D

And they eat babies.

Yeah, Saddam Hussein is by all accounts a malignant c#nt.

 

but... it was less than a hundred years ago that british soldiers were shot by their own for desertion. [http://www.shotatdawn.org.uk/nuj.htm]

 

Secondly I feel that a military attack is the wrong way to go about fixing this problem - indeed this is enshrined in International law. I quote Article 2 of the UN Charter: The Organization and its members, in pursuit of the purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following principles ... all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations

 

[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DJ09Ak02.html]

 

I'd also point out some startling hypocrisies and inconsitencies:

 

1. The UN sat back and watched when Saddam gassed his people in 1988.[http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2003/02/000294.html]

 

2. No-one attacked Rwanda when Hutu militia committed considerably more barbarous acts of genocide there (800,000 people murdered over 100 days) [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/]

 

3. Ceausescu was successfully overthrown by his country (Romania), DESPITE U.S. backing for his dictatorial and oppressive regime. The reason Iraqis can't do this at present is because sanctions are forcing them to rely on the Ba'ath regime (as well as a general and well-placed distrust of coalition forces).

[http://www.ceausescu.org/]

 

4. North Korea has *admitted* to developing weapons of mass destruction contrary to the UN, and has demonstrated it's capacity to attack Japan with ballistic missiles. It is still unknown at this time whether Saddam Hussein has *any* WMD, let alone nuclear weapons. But Iraq is attacked.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2564241.stm]

 

5. The stated aim of the U.K. was to disarm Iraq from Weapons of Mass Destruction. As we've gone on, the reasons have evolved to suit the purposes of the coalition (now it's to free the people). The powers that be have gone ahead with this despite U.N., E.U or NATO authority. Even the church (pick a religion - any religion) thinks it's morally wrong. The weapons inspectors that were sent in by the U.N. think more time is needed. Any sane person would question this action, wouldn't they?

 

 

So I reckon force IS sometimes necessary, but not in this case, and not in this way. OK - I've said enough. A couple of disclaimers:

 

1. I'm NOT anti-war at any cost.

2. I'm mainly interested in the 300ZX - like you.

3. I'd love to see Saddam Hussein deposed - almost as much as Robert Mugabe.

4. I support British and American soldiers in Iraq 100%. I just don't think they should have been asked to do what they're doing.

5. I love you all.

 

Peace, man!

Russ.

Past crimes do not justofy present day ones. as I've said b4, we in the West have moved on from the past.

 

I agree we should have intervened in those other atrocities.

 

I watched a program last night where Kurds were saying that if the allied forces killed half of the Iraqi population to get Saddam, it would be worth it. They can't understand our peace protestors over here.

 

A friend watched a program about how there's a strong case for the war being primarily about getting the oil (thus preventing Saddam from becoming more powerful should a predicted oil shortage come about).

 

So while the motives my be selfish and even gready, the outcome is likely to be better for everyone (except Saddam). Also note that even acts of kindness are selfish if you analyse things. Totally selfish acts are those which disadvantage others - if everyone beneifts then it's surely for the good.

 

Do you think we should never intervene when other countries commit atrocities ? Good job we did when Hitler was around.

 

The French have put a lot of money into Iraq, that is why they are against the War - not because they are against military action per say (?)

Hm, good points, well made. To be honest I'm just a layman with my own fuzzy views. Still, in answer to your points:

 

SELFISH MOTIVES

I think this is a question of short term versus long term considerations. I think that these actions will have very destructive implications for international relations. I guess the biggest worry is that these actions - if universally condoned - require that International law is changed to more of a "might is right" approach. It suggests that international boundaries and sovereign nations no longer have a right to UN protection within bounds, but are subject to invasion based on whether some more powerful nations think it's right. The other implication of course is the effect that this has on perceived oppression and therefore terrorism. I personally think that this "war" is MORE likely to result in terrorist attacks on the west than a solution that demonstrated both International solidarity and greater restraint from the use of force. Just my point of view though. I have to agree that in the short term (at least assuming the casualties don't get much worse and there's no guerilla situation a la Chechnya) the result of this war will be good for all. Long term I very much doubt it. Whaddaya reckon?

 

 

ATROCITY INTERVENTION

A difficult one. Many people cite Kosovo as a "just" intervention to stop ethnic cleansing. This was after a UN resolution calling for a ceasefire while internal war was raging, and NATO agreed to step in. So the situation was very different - I hope you agree. My thinking is woolly on this one - I don't pretend to have all the answers. Still, I think that this Iraq "war" isn't an intervention in anything like the same way. What I'd ask for is that such intervention is performed with international agreement and in extreme cases. For instance I would agree that Iraq should be stopped from invading Kuwait as they were in 1991, but the Rwanda debacle demonstrates the extent to which this is governed by self-preservation on behalf of the "policing" powers of the world (france included!).

 

 

HITLER

A completely different situation, I think. Easy to criticise with hindsight but a bit of a simplistic argument. Tony Blair used a similar approach discussing Neville Chamberlain and his "I have in my hand..." appeasement. I have two answers to this:

 

1. Chamberlain acted entirely reasonably given what was known then. Pre-emptive attacks are in my view completely unreasonable in almost all cases. Seems to run contrary to basic human rights, doesn't it? If Kennedy had decided on a preemptive attack in the Cuban Missile Crisis none of us would be having this discussion. There're always two sides (at least!)

 

2. Blair may do well to consider another British Prime Minister: Anthony Eden. I'll leave you to check out what happened in the Suez Crisis with Eden (assuming you don't already know).

 

 

 

THE FRENCH

...are as duplicitous and sneaky as the UK or the US. You're absolutely right that their fundamental reasons are not noble (at least in my view). Still, it's a happy coincidence for Chirac that a side-effect is that he's acting democratically - reflecting the will of his electorate. C'est la vie!

 

 

Er, I'm acutely aware that I seem to be the only person on the forum with these views. At least in the UK I *can* have and express them without risk of torture or death (unless MAC gets his hands on me). I don't really want to preach or spend all day rebuking these very tricky questions! Maybe it's a colour-psychology thing: Anyone else with a grey zed that feels this way? ;)

 

Russ.

I think that the world should be rid of all dictators. That would go a long way to making a peaceful world for us all to live in.

 

The fact that most countries have sold arms to Iraq makes this war somewhat hypocritical and that really angers me. :mad:

 

At the end of the day, everyone dances to the tune of the dollar.

That's a very sad fact that will never change no matter how civilised we like to think we are! :(

Originally posted by shaunmac

I think that the world should be rid of all dictators. That would go a long way to making a peaceful world for us all to live in.

 

The fact that most countries have sold arms to Iraq makes this war somewhat hypocritical and that really angers me. :mad:

 

At the end of the day, everyone dances to the tune of the dollar.

That's a very sad fact that will never change no matter how civilised we like to think we are! :(

 

Imagine if they never rescued you lot in WW2,lol youd all be dancing to the deutschmark :D people forget far to easy, and thats a problem with all of this.

 

What happend 10 years ago (ie selling arms ) was a result of those times and the politicle agenda, it has nothing to do with what is happening now, Hind sight is a wonderfull thing. id prefer to prevent it now and not have to worry about it later.

I'm not opposed to the war, I just think that there is some hypocracy. Obviously, something had to be done.

 

> What happend 10 years ago (ie selling > arms ) was a result of those times and > the politicle agenda, it has nothing to

> do with what is happening now, Hind

> sight is a wonderfull thing. id prefer to > prevent it now and not have to worry

> about it later.

 

They'll do it again though, if there's enough money to be made from it. Morality goes out of the window when money is at stake and that'll never change :(

Originally posted by russtic

Hm, good points, well made. To be honest I'm just a layman with my own fuzzy views.

 

 

Thanks. I'm much the same. I agree with a lot of what you've said, but it's all very complicated.

 

1 point worth making though (I think) is that ppl here tend to think that Iraq is a fundamental part of the Middle East, and that this war could turn all Arab nations against the West. Most Iraqis and neighbouring nations are fed up of Saddam and would like him ousting. Perhaps it's only the religious fundamentalists who you cannot please (unless you commit suicide because you are an infidel !:D ), and they are only a minority ?

 

But then again, if the US are taking the oil, that will annoy the Iraqis etc. There are so many different sides to this thing but I still think we need to do it.

Truth is that world leaders and their organisations can always find 'reasons' to defend their actions, no matter how inconsistent they may seem with simple questions of morality. They will tell us that there is a bigger picture. They will try to convince us that Saddam is in League with Ben Laden, for example.

 

Then the underlying truth is that the coalition forces were ordered to protect oil refineries rather than hospitals or to prevent looting.

 

I'm sorry to say that anyone who thinks our leaders' outspoken morals are any more palatable than those of various other world leaders need to look deep inside.

 

What makes any of us think we can impose our standards onto others - and be in the right! Some so-called religious leaders are telling their flock that killing non-believers is a necessary part of their faith. It's just the flip side of the same coin.

 

Signed the DEVIL'S OFFICIAL ADVOCATE!

Originally posted by NigelBoyd

Truth is that world leaders and their organisations can always find 'reasons' to defend their actions, no matter how inconsistent they may seem with simple questions of morality. They will tell us that there is a bigger picture. They will try to convince us that Saddam is in League with Ben Laden, for example.

 

Then the underlying truth is that the coalition forces were ordered to protect oil refineries rather than hospitals or to prevent looting.

 

I'm sorry to say that anyone who thinks our leaders' outspoken morals are any more palatable than those of various other world leaders need to look deep inside.

 

What makes any of us think we can impose our standards onto others - and be in the right! Some so-called religious leaders are telling their flock that killing non-believers is a necessary part of their faith. It's just the flip side of the same coin.

 

Signed the DEVIL'S OFFICIAL ADVOCATE!

 

1 Q. Would you rather live in UK or Iraq before the war ?

Originally posted by 300z

Imagine if they never rescued you lot in WW2,lol youd all be dancing to the deutschmark :D

 

Yeah and when you compare Germany's standard of living and the state of this country maybee it wouldnt have been such a bad thing LOL :D

Originally posted by NigelBoyd

Some so-called religious leaders are telling their flock that killing non-believers is a necessary part of their faith. It's just the flip side of the same coin.

 

Signed the DEVIL'S OFFICIAL ADVOCATE!

 

No matter how cynical our leaders might be, coveting oil is not the same as commanding civilians to kill people of different religions. How would you feel if that was govt. policy in Manchester?