95 replies to this topic

[Monolithix]

Next election i'll be a student proper, so it'll be the LibDem;s for me.... ;p

As for the war, i'm still undecided.  Up until a few days ago i wasn't bothered either way, but after spending the past few days reading the bbc news website and watching CNN (got to love having Sky at work...) I've decided i'm anti-war.  The troups being kitted up for chemical warfare protection is a standard procedure i'm sure, but it sure as hell brings home what is actually about to happen.

People don't have to die because Bush wants the worlds oil to himself....

[Emad]

Bah, everyone knows there are no winners in war, only losers.. Thou shalt not kill.. Bah. Hell, even the Pope said it was bad

Anyone read cook's speech? That was v good in my opinion.. http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/2859431.stm

The main thing I don't like here is how it shows what our democracy is really like. Tony Blair is calling on party loyalty to follow his stance. Anything other than loyalty to the party is a bad thing. In an issue like this, shouldn't each MP be asked to make up his or her own mind having been given ALL the evidence? It annoys me as much as when the opposition argues for the sake of arguing..

Lets bomb the saudis out of power, they're the real terrorist sponsers.. Failing that, lets get Israel off occupied land.. Bah.

Brain dead, need sleep, nite..

[mashkhan]

Well said Fraser,
What I find particularly galling is the double standards of the American's they act like they are the policeman of the world, yet the Israelis systematically abuse every civil right in the book and are backed up by the Americans. Is it any wonder that there is a deep mistrust of them in the Arabic world. Let's not forget who trained Al Qaeda/ Saddam and provided them with weapons in the first place. It's not only the Middle East who have "benefited" from American foreign policy they also helpled Pinochet take power in Chile, screwed over the Cubans with crippling sanctions, Vietnam, Iran etc

[yatpeak]

I don't like that "SHOULD hit the right thing".
Wyatt

[dan.peterson]

1. Oil
2. National Security
3. US economic imperialism and other Friskisms.
4. Political Expediency


1. Hmm. The oil arguement is all very impressive and tempting, god knows the US admin knows a thing or two about it,

But it would be ten times easier to simply take oil from Saddam and brush the human rights problems under the carpet (a la Saudi Arabia, and most of the gulf states, not too mention Latin America) than to actually expend the amount of effort that Bush has done to get Saddam out.

The oil arguement simply does not make sense- Much as I would like to tar the Bush admin with more corruption, and self interest.

2. National Security.
Almost a joke really, Bush has barely begun to make his case:
- Timing?
- Proof?
- Connection with terror?
But that said no doubt Iraq would act in the same way as Syria and other rogue states and happily support their main enemy. My enemies enemy is my friend is one that always holds up at the extremes of geopolitics.

3. US economic imperialism.
Not to go against Frisk totally, but he is the classic overly educated liberal. Regardless of the arguements for and against, he will act against action, and against any hegemonic authority. And imperialism? Does not seem to make sense imeadiately, but then who knows with Bush and a US with an aching self esteem.

4. Political Expediancy.
The domestic pressure for Bush to give the war against "terror" a human face, and a nation state against which to use the US's strength must be immense. And so there was Iraq...?

There is no clear answer, but it should be recognised that what is required is more than simply shouting "its de oil, its de oil". God knows what it is, but the opposition must not resort to as arguments just as unsound as the Bush/Blair coalition.

And if you want to hear a fantastic speech against it, check out
http://www.publicati...30318-32_spnew0


And as always also have a look at:
http://www.bushisms.com the leader of the free world. God bless.

Regarding democracy, well no, no one pretends it is perfect but
q. Who would you prefer to have the might that is wielded by America?
George Bush, inept, inarticulate as he is?
Zhang Zemin/ Li Peng of China?

Anyone with the sort of power that the US has will always wield it, given that, we should count ourselves lucky that the world is as it is, and the US tries to at least keep the appearance of acting benignly. The alternative is a lot worse.

[TSCRYPTO]

Absolutely against it.

Its prosecution is based on lies, hypocrisy, sensationalism and speculation.

Need we forget that it was the US who gave Saddam the go-ahead to gas the kurds in the late 80's and then tried to pin it on Iran?

Need we forget that if the US were so concerned about dictators and those who suffer under them they would go after the junta in Burma, the represssive and corrupt regimes of Yemen and Saudi Arabia and of course Zimbabwe?

Need we forget that NO concrete evidence of the existence of WMD's has been provided?

Need we forget that containment has worked over the last ten years and that there is no evidence of Saddam having ties to AQ?

Need we forget that the Arab League has unequivocally opposed the war and the resulting military occupation / puppet government?

Need we forget that Ariel Sharon, only a few weeks ago stated that the US should not stop at Iraq, but should continue through to Egypt and Syria?

Need we forget that the US has propped up and supported most (if not all) of the worlds most repressive regimes? (Remember Noriega - the US's no. 1 guy in Central America - the US invaded the country, not to free the citizens from a drug-dealing tyrant, but because he was days away from blowing the lid in his drug dealings with the CIA and DEA - do a google search - there is plenty of information about this). (Remember Marcos of the Philippines - referred to by Washington as "our kinda guy").

Need we forget that war and a US military occupying force slap bang in the middle of the ME will only further radicalise thousands of muslims, already angry at the US's policy re. Israel and of course the represive ME governments noted above?

Need we forget that contracts for the "re-building" of Iraq have already been awarded - to US companies only?

Its just another exercise in economic imperialism, which has been a part of western capitalist governments since the time of Christopher Columbus.

This war is WRONG

Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that.

[madu]

And the testing of new military systems and technology?? I mean extensive testing. That's what USSR (CCCP) did in Afganistan when they were at the top of their military power and had just developed a series of new military might.. Testing testing.... One-two, one-two!!

[capt_janeway]

Hope their Smart bombs are a bit more reliable than our Smartphones were!

:roll:

[Myke]

so uh TSCRYPTO, you think sadam should stay in power?   containment has worked the past 10 years?  you mean keeping sadam in iraq?  yes.. it has worked quite well.

[superkingdave]

some people give arguments that are just bush bashing or anti american. i do not believe these arguments are valid in this situation... you either think that the war is justified or not... however much of a toolspank bush is, if he is doing the right thing then he is doing the right thing and past misdemeanors should not come into the equation. i believe that war is necessary and i just hope that it is completed with as little bloodshed as possible.

[TSCRYPTO]

No Myke...

I am all for Saddam being excised from the ME political landscape, but this is the wrong way to go about it...

Read my post - this war is not about overthrowing a dictator - if this was the case then the US would be expressing this goal world wide - instead it prefers to create and prop up tyrants.

The long term ramifications of this war are terrifying. Not just for those in the ME, but for the world as a whole.

Note too that this war is a huge display of political and military muscle and it sends a clear message to the rest of the world - International conventions and law mean nothing to us - we are a law unto ourselves - DONT FCUK WITH US.

This conflict is only the beginning.

[vampyre69]

i said jesse a pass me ma shotgun, i'sa gunna git me soma them iwaqi's for dinna and cook us a saddam spitroast.
Dem boys r gunna know my name when i'sa git my hands on em Leroy Delaway yes siree theysa gunna know that for a while screamin' it while I be roastin' the asses on the fire.

Seriously now I said yes but again I'm not sure everyone's doing it for the right reasons we should have done this a very long time ago, becuase now weve got all thos pop idol saddam look-a-likes to kill too, just in case we don't get him.

Although I would say it's more an invasion than a war at the moment and I hope it stays that way - a war is when they start blowing our asses up in return.

[cepheus1]

            


When you look back at the common sense and progressiveness of arguments against American intervention in Vietnam, Chile and the like, you can't help but be struck by the sheer befuddled babyishness of the pro-Saddam apologists:

1) "It's all about oil!" Like hyperactive brats who get hold of one phrase and repeat it endlessly, this naive and prissy mantra is enough to drive to the point of madness any person who actually attempts to think beyond the clichés. Like "Whatever!" it is one of the few ways in which the dull-minded think they can have the last word in any argument. So what if it is about oil, in part? Are you prepared to give up your car and central heating and go back to the Dark Ages? If not, don't be such a hypocrite. The fact is that this war is about freedom, justice - and oil. It's called multitasking. Get used to it!

2) "But we sold him the weapons!" An incredible excuse for not fighting, this one - almost surreal in its logic. If the west sold him the weapons that helped make him the monstrous power that he is, responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of Iranians, Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iraqis, then surely it is our responsibility to redress our greed and ignorance by doing the lion's share in getting rid of him.

3) "America's always interfering in other countries!" And when it's not, it is derided as selfish and isolationist. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

4) "Saddam Hussein may have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people - but he hasn't done anything to us! We shouldn't invade any country unless it attacks us!" I love this one, it's so mind-bogglingly selfish - and it's always wheeled out by people who call themselves "internationalists", too. These were the people who thought that a population living in terror under the Taliban was preferable to a bit of liberating foreign fire power, even fighting side by side with an Afghani resistance. On this principle, if we'd known about Hitler gassing the Jews all through the 1930s, we still shouldn't have invaded Germany; the Jews were, after all, German citizens and not our business. If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise. And that's where you link up with all those nasty rightwing columnists who are so opposed to fighting Iraq; they, too, believe that the lives of a thousand coloured chappies aren't worth the death of one British soldier. Military inaction, unless in the defence of one's own country, is the most extreme form of narcissism and nationalism; people who preach it are the exact opposite of the International Brigade, and that's so not a good look.

5) "Ooo, your friends smell!" Well, so do yours. We may be saddled with Bush and Blair, but you've got Prince Charles (a big friend of the Islamic world, probably because of its large number of feudal kingdoms and hardline attitude to uppity women), the Catholic church (taking a brief break from buggering babies to condemn any western attack as "morally unacceptable") and posturing pansies such as Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow and Damon Albarn.


The words aren't mine unfortunately...they came from the pen of Julie Birchill writing in The Guardian - but there is a lot of sense written there - IMHO.

Go back and re-read some of the posts in this thread - it's almost as if she has read some of these responses and answered them

No right-minded person would say they agree with war - innocent people WILL die - but there is a bigger picture! Don't be an ostrich

[fraser]

Cepheus, you suggest that people should not be an ostrich. Fine. Could you please pull your own head out of the sand, and take a look at the dictatorships and "regimes" that the US actively supports. Of which Saddam used to be a member.

The US has done this before. In Panama, they managed to get a CIA agent into the presidency there. When he displayed a little bit of national pride and backbone, going against orders, they fell out with him and the US declared war with the country.

The USA actively supports barbaric regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. The support of these regimes is responsible for 99% of anti-US sentiment in the middle east. Al Qaeda have stated this is why they attack America (nothing to do with Bush's "they hate freedom and democracy" facist-propaganda lies). If they truely wanted to prevent terrorism and fight for freedom and democracy, they would be the logical places to start. Saudi Arabria treats women just as badly as the Talliban (if not worse), yet have you ever heard that fact in our news media? They are considered allies because they do business with us. The governments attrocites against the local populations are brushed aside, while we focus on similar traits in a "regime" that doesn't do business with us.

There is a directly proportional relationship between a person's history knowledge and their beliefs in this war. The more you know, the more you are against it. I can understand all the pro-war people's logic...based upon the information available to them in popular media, then yes, I'd agree that war was required. However, if you happen to know a bit more than the average Sun reader, then the hypocracy, lies and propaganda are plain to see.

I feel sorry for the pro-war people. They are no different to the German people in WW2. They also believed that the war was neccessary and backed it. They didn't know the real motives behind it, and they certainally didn't know what was happening to the Jews when they got on those trains.

It's not all about oil. It's about many different things. Of which the plight of the Arabic people is not one of them.

[davy]

Calm down guys.
We live in a democracy where people are permitted different points of views.
NOTHING is achieved by slagging off people whose views happen to differ from your own.
This is a friendly forum so lets see if we can keep it that way.
davy.

[Monolithix]

I don't see anyone slagging anyone else off, a bit of heated discussion is good all round imho.  fraser clearly has done a lot of research and hopefully he can open some other peoples eyes.

Keep it up people

[davy]

Mono,

imho heated discussion is not good when one side or the other throw blanket insults at the other side of the argument.
I quote:

"Anyone with a modicum of common sense can see that",

and

"If you know a bit more than the average Sun reader etc"

These types of phrases are or could be insulting/offensive to a large number of people.
To use such language imho only serves to lessen the impact of the argument being put forward.

davy.

[Monolithix]

As soon as people start giving personal insults or take them personally then something will be done...

[fraser]

Quote

If you know a bit more than the average Sun reader etc

Sorry, I did not mean to suggest anything about Sun readers with that comment. I singled out the Sun as it is very much pro-war, completely ignoring any argument against the war. Newspapers should not be like that, they should be impartial and present the reader with the information to make their own decissions.

The main problem with modern media news is when people restrict themselfs to a few (or one) sources. News media exists to make profit, and that is done by increasing circulation. The media has no respect for fact, hence all of the sensationalism. It simply makes them lots of money, as stories about war, paedophiles, the monarchy and drugs sell.