Herr Capitan wrote: Did any of you change views during the war/ since it began
I have changed my views. I thought originally that it was a dodgy idea, more
linked to oil and U.S.A. presidential politics than anything else. Now I'm sure
of it, and that it's a bloody stupid thing to have done.
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Herr Capitan wrote: Did any of you change views during the war/ since it began
Nope. I've been against it from the very first.
I read the news every day, and am horrified by the kidnappings, beheadings, and so on. But I am also horrified at things like fire jelly and the hundreds of civilian deaths.
If America was invaded by another country, I don't think I'd hesitate to use whatever means necessary to get my country back.
Nope. I've been against it from the very first.
I read the news every day, and am horrified by the kidnappings, beheadings, and so on. But I am also horrified at things like fire jelly and the hundreds of civilian deaths.
If America was invaded by another country, I don't think I'd hesitate to use whatever means necessary to get my country back.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
I have changed my mind. At first, I thought it would be a wasted effort that would cost the lives of many thousands more of our troops than it has. I began to wonder why we would focus on Iraq. I remembered the President had said to pay attention to what is done and not so much to what is said. With that in mind, I decided to look into why it might be the right thing to do. What was I missing? I couldn't accept the idea that we did it because we are somehow evil.
There are hundreds of thousands of Islamic extremists in that part of the world that are committed to seeing us dead. They want us dead because of our way of life for sure but more than that, they want us dead because we are not Muslim (Atheists, Pantheists and Agnostics included). Not all Muslims want to kill off all other beliefs or non beliefs. There are just so many of them in that part of the world that do, that they can no longer be ignored. Let 9-11 testify to that fact. We did not start this war.
Iraq is as strategically important today as it has been since it was in the heart of ancient Babylon. It is where we must be. It is a beachhead we must hold. If we don’t we will be fighting those who want to murder us in our own streets. The extremists interpret Mohammad’s teachings to be that we are their greatest enemy but that they must deal with the nearest enemy first. In Iraq we are their nearest enemy and their greatest enemy. By following their theology they will be more likely to fight us in Iraq than here. I can’t remember the Yale professor’s name who said that Iraq has become like flypaper, drawing in and capturing the terrorists.
There are hundreds of thousands of Islamic extremists in that part of the world that are committed to seeing us dead. They want us dead because of our way of life for sure but more than that, they want us dead because we are not Muslim (Atheists, Pantheists and Agnostics included). Not all Muslims want to kill off all other beliefs or non beliefs. There are just so many of them in that part of the world that do, that they can no longer be ignored. Let 9-11 testify to that fact. We did not start this war.
Iraq is as strategically important today as it has been since it was in the heart of ancient Babylon. It is where we must be. It is a beachhead we must hold. If we don’t we will be fighting those who want to murder us in our own streets. The extremists interpret Mohammad’s teachings to be that we are their greatest enemy but that they must deal with the nearest enemy first. In Iraq we are their nearest enemy and their greatest enemy. By following their theology they will be more likely to fight us in Iraq than here. I can’t remember the Yale professor’s name who said that Iraq has become like flypaper, drawing in and capturing the terrorists.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Anyway, the main reason I am now beginning to think invading Iraq was the right thing is: since America have gone into Iraq we have seen all these terrorist groups and factions kidnapping and beheading, and killing both foreigners and their own. If such brutallity and inhumane coldness is so widespread there surely it had to be changed.
One of the things pointed out by intellegence reports and many commentators was that invading Iraq would help terrorists recruit new members and would encourage terrorism not lessen it. The ones that were already there now have an excuse.
There are hundreds of thousands of Islamic extremists in that part of the world that are committed to seeing us dead. They want us dead because of our way of life for sure but more than that, they want us dead because we are not Muslim (Atheists, Pantheists and Agnostics included). Not all Muslims want to kill off all other beliefs or non beliefs. There are just so many of them in that part of the world that do, that they can no longer be ignored. Let 9-11 testify to that fact. We did not start this war.
In a population of billions there are hundreds of thousands? How does such a small minority get power?
You can't fight terrorism as if you were fighting a conventional war because who is your enemy? You really need to take a good look at what all this is about about, thousands of people did not decide one day to make war on america something made gave them a reason. Deciding they are dangerous lunatics is a way of stopping thinking about it.
Getting rid of Saddam nay or may not turn out all right and may have been justified of itself bit this was not the way to do it. First of all how did saddam come to power? who helped him. how did he get his WMD's in the first place? when he used them on his own people why did the west just look on?
Come to that who helped the Taliban?
This is not black and white good against evil.
Iraq is as strategically important today as it has been since it was in the heart of ancient Babylon. It is where we must be. It is a beachhead we must hold.
What, so now it is a war of conquest to control the resources in the region? When france and britain took control of the region after ww1 it was imperialism pure and simple with no pretence of a higher moral ground. What is it now?
You can't impose democracy at the point if a gun it has to be fought for by the people in those countries concerned.
As you may have gathered I was opposed to the war in the first place and my views haven't changed. Not opposed to getting rid of Saddam but that has to come from the iraquis. but that is not what the war was about, supposedly. If the US had just gone after alqueda you would have had massive support instead it was taken as an excuse to send troops in to the oil fields of the middle east.
I watched with disbelief as UK politicians were suckered in by Tony Blair. We joined the US because supposedly he had WMD's aimed at the UK. Now TB says he didn't realise the 45 minute comment referred to battlefield not strategic weapons but he believed it was the right thing to do. Our own democracy is now under threat as anti terrorist measures reducing out civil rights get pushed through on a wave of hysteria. TB knew parliament would never have supported a war to topple Saddan Hussein so he spun a good yarn and got away with it. The next election is going to be very interesting.
The whole thing is a disaster. If the US follows on and attacks Iran and Syria then the worst fears of the middle east will be confirmed and the resulting warfare will go on for generations.
What would you di if you were iranian? Doesn't matter what you think of your government and how oppressive and opposed to it you might be, What you would not tolerate is an outsider coming in to sort it out.
Just remember who sold Iran the nuclear reactors in the first place.
While you are at it wonder why the Israelis do not face the same calls to have their actual nuclear weapons removed or to allow in UN inspectors. It's the double standards that get me. If I was syrian I would want wmd's to keep israel in check.
The terrorists have got exactly what they wanted, the west attacking islam, western economies in turmoil -the wtc was an economic target, a symbol of western capitalism. Whatever you think of al queda stupid they are not.
Warfare is a last resort. Pre-emptive warfare is a nightmare that the UN was formed to stop. If you had waited instead of wanting to go it alone you would have had other nations with you not just one or two. As it is no one will believe any future threat because of the way this one was hyped up. You are dealing with insurgents the way the israelis do and just creating more and more support for them. You can't flatten a whole street killing innocents because you were after a few insurgents and not expect people to become angry at you. They blame the outsider not the neighbour.
One of the things pointed out by intellegence reports and many commentators was that invading Iraq would help terrorists recruit new members and would encourage terrorism not lessen it. The ones that were already there now have an excuse.
There are hundreds of thousands of Islamic extremists in that part of the world that are committed to seeing us dead. They want us dead because of our way of life for sure but more than that, they want us dead because we are not Muslim (Atheists, Pantheists and Agnostics included). Not all Muslims want to kill off all other beliefs or non beliefs. There are just so many of them in that part of the world that do, that they can no longer be ignored. Let 9-11 testify to that fact. We did not start this war.
In a population of billions there are hundreds of thousands? How does such a small minority get power?
You can't fight terrorism as if you were fighting a conventional war because who is your enemy? You really need to take a good look at what all this is about about, thousands of people did not decide one day to make war on america something made gave them a reason. Deciding they are dangerous lunatics is a way of stopping thinking about it.
Getting rid of Saddam nay or may not turn out all right and may have been justified of itself bit this was not the way to do it. First of all how did saddam come to power? who helped him. how did he get his WMD's in the first place? when he used them on his own people why did the west just look on?
Come to that who helped the Taliban?
This is not black and white good against evil.
Iraq is as strategically important today as it has been since it was in the heart of ancient Babylon. It is where we must be. It is a beachhead we must hold.
What, so now it is a war of conquest to control the resources in the region? When france and britain took control of the region after ww1 it was imperialism pure and simple with no pretence of a higher moral ground. What is it now?
You can't impose democracy at the point if a gun it has to be fought for by the people in those countries concerned.
As you may have gathered I was opposed to the war in the first place and my views haven't changed. Not opposed to getting rid of Saddam but that has to come from the iraquis. but that is not what the war was about, supposedly. If the US had just gone after alqueda you would have had massive support instead it was taken as an excuse to send troops in to the oil fields of the middle east.
I watched with disbelief as UK politicians were suckered in by Tony Blair. We joined the US because supposedly he had WMD's aimed at the UK. Now TB says he didn't realise the 45 minute comment referred to battlefield not strategic weapons but he believed it was the right thing to do. Our own democracy is now under threat as anti terrorist measures reducing out civil rights get pushed through on a wave of hysteria. TB knew parliament would never have supported a war to topple Saddan Hussein so he spun a good yarn and got away with it. The next election is going to be very interesting.
The whole thing is a disaster. If the US follows on and attacks Iran and Syria then the worst fears of the middle east will be confirmed and the resulting warfare will go on for generations.
What would you di if you were iranian? Doesn't matter what you think of your government and how oppressive and opposed to it you might be, What you would not tolerate is an outsider coming in to sort it out.
Just remember who sold Iran the nuclear reactors in the first place.
While you are at it wonder why the Israelis do not face the same calls to have their actual nuclear weapons removed or to allow in UN inspectors. It's the double standards that get me. If I was syrian I would want wmd's to keep israel in check.
The terrorists have got exactly what they wanted, the west attacking islam, western economies in turmoil -the wtc was an economic target, a symbol of western capitalism. Whatever you think of al queda stupid they are not.
Warfare is a last resort. Pre-emptive warfare is a nightmare that the UN was formed to stop. If you had waited instead of wanting to go it alone you would have had other nations with you not just one or two. As it is no one will believe any future threat because of the way this one was hyped up. You are dealing with insurgents the way the israelis do and just creating more and more support for them. You can't flatten a whole street killing innocents because you were after a few insurgents and not expect people to become angry at you. They blame the outsider not the neighbour.
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
A by-product of the war has either been that Saddam was removed and mass graves won’t be getting filled so fast, or a beachhead has been established. Which ever one it is, I now see the invasion as necessary.
We are not dealing with people who are focused on the U.S. alone. They are at war with their neighbors in about 15 different places around the world. They didn’t hit the WTC because they wanted to demonstrate against an economic system. They hit the WTC in an attempt to destroy an economic system and the people it supports.
Agreed, we set up a number of those who now pose a threat. How does that mitigate their motives?
Israel is in a defensive mode. They are also a democracy. What sense would it make to disarm a friend in the midst of his enemies?
I don’t think it would be wise for us to wait for another attack. Their stated goal is to see us dead. Why should we wait to see if they mean it after they have already hit us as hard as they have?
Saddam was paying to encourage suicide bombers. His government was in support of our destruction. The people of Iraq hadn’t had the power to overturn him. Waiting until they had the power may have meant waiting too long.
How many more need to die before the threat is real?
We are not dealing with people who are focused on the U.S. alone. They are at war with their neighbors in about 15 different places around the world. They didn’t hit the WTC because they wanted to demonstrate against an economic system. They hit the WTC in an attempt to destroy an economic system and the people it supports.
Agreed, we set up a number of those who now pose a threat. How does that mitigate their motives?
Israel is in a defensive mode. They are also a democracy. What sense would it make to disarm a friend in the midst of his enemies?
I don’t think it would be wise for us to wait for another attack. Their stated goal is to see us dead. Why should we wait to see if they mean it after they have already hit us as hard as they have?
Saddam was paying to encourage suicide bombers. His government was in support of our destruction. The people of Iraq hadn’t had the power to overturn him. Waiting until they had the power may have meant waiting too long.
How many more need to die before the threat is real?
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
They didn’t hit the WTC because they wanted to demonstrate against an economic system. They hit the WTC in an attempt to destroy an economic system and the people it supports.
That was my point. It was an attack against the "west" hit the economy and provoke retaliation. What do think they wanted to achieve? They wanted an extreme reaction and they got it. this is more than throwing stones at someone you don't like, it was well thought out and executed it was an act designed to shock and provoke retaliation. These people are nutters but not stupid.
Agreed, we set up a number of those who now pose a threat. How does that mitigate their motives?
It doesn't but you need to look at the history of the region and what has led up tp this before you assign blame to one party or the other. Them bad us good guys does not work it's not a black and white good against evil war however much you want to believe it is.
I don’t think it would be wise for us to wait for another attack. Their stated goal is to see us dead. Why should we wait to see if they mean it after they have already hit us as hard as they have?
Who is going to attack you? you are talking about terrorists not nation states. If you want to cause terror you do not need WMD's to do it, random explosions, disrupt communications, a bomb on the new york underground, causing chaos is easy to do. They don't need to bring things in to the states there is plenty of stuff available in the US to use. Blow up a fuel train in the middle if a build up area it's actually easy to do if you are so disposed and almost impossible to guard against.
How many troops do you think you will need to invade iran or will you just nuke the place, how about syria?
Apart from that those who attacked you on 911 were Saudi Arabian. There is no link to them and to Iraq. When will you attack Saudi and stop them from financing terrorism. the money for terrorist organisations is going through Saudi Banks how about pressurising them?
What will you do if fundamentalists finally manage to everthrow the house of Saud?
Israel is in a defensive mode. They are also a democracy. What sense would it make to disarm a friend in the midst of his enemies?
It is a bit hypocritical to invade Iraq for ignoring UN resolutions but turn a blind eye to israel doing the same and block attempts to get un sanctions against them.
Arafat keeps getting elected, you may not like him but he represents the palestinian people, to refuse to talk to them just because their leader doesn't say what you want is not conducive to making peace.
You cannot end this with bombs or by attacking anyone you think might be an enemy. You need to think before lashing out.
That was my point. It was an attack against the "west" hit the economy and provoke retaliation. What do think they wanted to achieve? They wanted an extreme reaction and they got it. this is more than throwing stones at someone you don't like, it was well thought out and executed it was an act designed to shock and provoke retaliation. These people are nutters but not stupid.
Agreed, we set up a number of those who now pose a threat. How does that mitigate their motives?
It doesn't but you need to look at the history of the region and what has led up tp this before you assign blame to one party or the other. Them bad us good guys does not work it's not a black and white good against evil war however much you want to believe it is.
I don’t think it would be wise for us to wait for another attack. Their stated goal is to see us dead. Why should we wait to see if they mean it after they have already hit us as hard as they have?
Who is going to attack you? you are talking about terrorists not nation states. If you want to cause terror you do not need WMD's to do it, random explosions, disrupt communications, a bomb on the new york underground, causing chaos is easy to do. They don't need to bring things in to the states there is plenty of stuff available in the US to use. Blow up a fuel train in the middle if a build up area it's actually easy to do if you are so disposed and almost impossible to guard against.
How many troops do you think you will need to invade iran or will you just nuke the place, how about syria?
Apart from that those who attacked you on 911 were Saudi Arabian. There is no link to them and to Iraq. When will you attack Saudi and stop them from financing terrorism. the money for terrorist organisations is going through Saudi Banks how about pressurising them?
What will you do if fundamentalists finally manage to everthrow the house of Saud?
Israel is in a defensive mode. They are also a democracy. What sense would it make to disarm a friend in the midst of his enemies?
It is a bit hypocritical to invade Iraq for ignoring UN resolutions but turn a blind eye to israel doing the same and block attempts to get un sanctions against them.
Arafat keeps getting elected, you may not like him but he represents the palestinian people, to refuse to talk to them just because their leader doesn't say what you want is not conducive to making peace.
You cannot end this with bombs or by attacking anyone you think might be an enemy. You need to think before lashing out.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
seems there's a lot of fans of neville chamberlain here.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
seems there's a lot of fans of neville chamberlain here.
_________________
Cheap shot not worthy of you. It also shows a staggering ignorance of history and also american policy between the wars and the us attitide towards germany at the outbreak of ww2. No one in the UK had any reason to expect america to get involved and you didn't for three years you stood back and watched it all happen apart from a few who joined up.
Actually as an aside quite a few have written autobiographies if you fancy a good read about what were at the time two alien cultures, still are I suppose.
Let me put it to you in simple terms. Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on 911. Invading Iraq has done nothing to combat terrorism and has made things a lot worse. The time to have taken out saddam hussein was immediately after the first gulf war instead he got to stay on his throne. Having left him it is better that iraquis sort out their own problems and get rid of him themselves.
It would also have been sensible not to support him in his war with Iran or even not to have encouraged him in his endeavours. It would have been sensible in hindsight not to have helped the taliban overthrow the government in afghanistan. It would have been sensible to have supported the rebellion in Basra just after the gulf war instead of letting him crush it.
If I thought invading iraq now had anything to do with the fight against terrorism or was going to help i would support it. But it doesn't and I don't. Instead you are embroiled in a nightmare that is going to go on and on. Thanks to GW telling the rest of the world to go play with itself you are unlikely to get any help or much sympathy especially if you start building permanent bases in Iraq.
You are obviously patriotic why is it you cannot understand that you cannot impose democracy at the point if a gun or that if you say to people if you are not with us you are against us most nations in the world will respond with a resounding get stuffed.
Imagine for a momemt If you were iranian or syrian and hostile to the present regime what would you do if it was attacked from outside and you thought you were the next target after iran?
Opposing the war in iraq does not mean you support terrorists that is the kind of simplistic crap that seems to be the stock answer of those who don't want to think aboiut it. The terrorists did not just wake up one day and make a career choice something led to it.
What is alarming is that GW and TB both seem to have been motivated by a belief it was the right thing to do and certainly in the case of TB changed the evidence to match what they believed. (Bush I don't really know about) It's a crap way to run a government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 43,00.html
At prime minister's questions, Tony Blair again pleaded the defence of good intentions - he acted in good faith but was misled by wrong information. This leaves a conundrum: why is he not more angry with those who misled him?
What makes it worse is that US tactics are perceived as too confrontational. It's not just iraquis that are wary of the americans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 36,00.html
'For a year, Britain has been trying in vain to persuade US forces to show the same restraint as our troops, who have won a lot of local goodwill as a result,' Cook said yesterday.
'The real risk of sending a British battalion into the US sector is that our troops could become associated in Iraqi minds with US methods.'
Something else for you to think about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 87,00.html
_________________
Cheap shot not worthy of you. It also shows a staggering ignorance of history and also american policy between the wars and the us attitide towards germany at the outbreak of ww2. No one in the UK had any reason to expect america to get involved and you didn't for three years you stood back and watched it all happen apart from a few who joined up.
Actually as an aside quite a few have written autobiographies if you fancy a good read about what were at the time two alien cultures, still are I suppose.
Let me put it to you in simple terms. Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on 911. Invading Iraq has done nothing to combat terrorism and has made things a lot worse. The time to have taken out saddam hussein was immediately after the first gulf war instead he got to stay on his throne. Having left him it is better that iraquis sort out their own problems and get rid of him themselves.
It would also have been sensible not to support him in his war with Iran or even not to have encouraged him in his endeavours. It would have been sensible in hindsight not to have helped the taliban overthrow the government in afghanistan. It would have been sensible to have supported the rebellion in Basra just after the gulf war instead of letting him crush it.
If I thought invading iraq now had anything to do with the fight against terrorism or was going to help i would support it. But it doesn't and I don't. Instead you are embroiled in a nightmare that is going to go on and on. Thanks to GW telling the rest of the world to go play with itself you are unlikely to get any help or much sympathy especially if you start building permanent bases in Iraq.
You are obviously patriotic why is it you cannot understand that you cannot impose democracy at the point if a gun or that if you say to people if you are not with us you are against us most nations in the world will respond with a resounding get stuffed.
Imagine for a momemt If you were iranian or syrian and hostile to the present regime what would you do if it was attacked from outside and you thought you were the next target after iran?
Opposing the war in iraq does not mean you support terrorists that is the kind of simplistic crap that seems to be the stock answer of those who don't want to think aboiut it. The terrorists did not just wake up one day and make a career choice something led to it.
What is alarming is that GW and TB both seem to have been motivated by a belief it was the right thing to do and certainly in the case of TB changed the evidence to match what they believed. (Bush I don't really know about) It's a crap way to run a government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 43,00.html
At prime minister's questions, Tony Blair again pleaded the defence of good intentions - he acted in good faith but was misled by wrong information. This leaves a conundrum: why is he not more angry with those who misled him?
What makes it worse is that US tactics are perceived as too confrontational. It's not just iraquis that are wary of the americans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 36,00.html
'For a year, Britain has been trying in vain to persuade US forces to show the same restraint as our troops, who have won a lot of local goodwill as a result,' Cook said yesterday.
'The real risk of sending a British battalion into the US sector is that our troops could become associated in Iraqi minds with US methods.'
Something else for you to think about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 87,00.html
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
gmc wrote: _________________
Cheap shot not worthy of you. It also shows a staggering ignorance of history and also american policy between the wars and the us attitide towards germany at the outbreak of ww2. No one in the UK had any reason to expect america to get involved and you didn't for three years you stood back and watched it all happen apart from a few who joined up.
wait - you're accusing me of a cheap shot, and staggering ignorance of history, yet you open with a cheap shot of your own about how we 'stood back and watched it all happen'? please.
and, you're welcome. there is a Great Britain now only because of the US's winning world war II. GB would have been just another german state if we had not interceded. this isn't even open to debate.
Let me put it to you in simple terms. Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on 911.
i've never said that. there's no doubt the US administration felt that.
Invading Iraq has done nothing to combat terrorism and has made things a lot worse.
that's a highly debateable opinion, not a fact.
The time to have taken out saddam hussein was immediately after the first gulf war instead he got to stay on his throne.
hindsight is 20/20. perhaps if neville chamberlain hadn't engaged in appeasement, world war II would not have been as devastating a conflict as it was? it's lovely to 'monday morning quarterback' about past history. but it is not informative of the current situation.
Having left him it is better that iraquis sort out their own problems and get rid of him themselves.
nonsense. nearly 14 years passed after the gulf war, and no signs of saddam being toppled by his own people, largely because of a savage and brutal reign of terror against dissidents within his own country. again, hindsight is lovely, but it does not necessarily inform the present.
It would also have been sensible not to support him in his war with Iran or even not to have encouraged him in his endeavours. It would have been sensible in hindsight not to have helped the taliban overthrow the government in afghanistan. It would have been sensible to have supported the rebellion in Basra just after the gulf war instead of letting him crush it.
but since this is hindsight, we really do not know, do we.
If I thought invading iraq now had anything to do with the fight against terrorism or was going to help i would support it. But it doesn't and I don't. Instead you are embroiled in a nightmare that is going to go on and on. Thanks to GW telling the rest of the world to go play with itself you are unlikely to get any help or much sympathy especially if you start building permanent bases in Iraq.
what a lot of poppycock. france and germany have made clear that they would never have supported, gotten involved in, or assisted in any way in the iraqi conflict. they're not going to dive in if kerry gets elected here, either.
the iraq conflict is a military conflict. military conflicts have a rather common tendency to not go according to plan. this is largely due to the small fact that it is war, and war is not predictable. is it a nightmare? hardly. is it 'going badly'? that depends greatly upon perception. to those who are constitutionally against military conflict under any circumstances, it is a priori 'going badly'. to those who recognize that military conflicts are unpredictable, dangerous, fraught with unknown variables, prey to changes in dynamics that could not be anticipated, then it is not going badly. is it unpleasant? of course. that's what military conflict is. are lives being lost? yes, of course, that's what military conflict tends to reap. is it a just cause? i believe it is, but only history will make that judgement.
let's see - saddam hussein blatantly, petulantly, and arrogantly ignored UN sanctions for a decade. seventeen resolutions passed against them. but of course, there are apparently many, many people out there who believe 'if only we could have gotten that eighteenth resolution, it all would have been resolved!'. poppycock and more poppycock. the UN is a eUNuch.
You are obviously patriotic why is it you cannot understand that you cannot impose democracy at the point if a gun or that if you say to people if you are not with us you are against us most nations in the world will respond with a resounding get stuffed.
we are not imposing democracy at the point of a gun. period. The US has not said that if you are not with us you're against us. we've simply said that if you aren't with us, then you aren't with us. i don't recall us closing all trade with france and germany. we've not launched attacks on them for not being with us. are diplomatic relations a bit cool? sure. so what?
the fact is, france didn't want to join this conflict because france was a friend of saddam. they had numerous lucrative military contracts with him. and they hate the fact that we've taken action against a nation they still feel is rightfully theirs in a lot of ways.
Imagine for a momemt If you were iranian or syrian and hostile to the present regime what would you do if it was attacked from outside and you thought you were the next target after iran?
i don't know. and i'm not clear what you're suggesting, sorry.
Opposing the war in iraq does not mean you support terrorists that is the kind of simplistic crap that seems to be the stock answer of those who don't want to think aboiut it.
ok. i didn't suggest that, but perhaps you're referring to someone else.
The terrorists did not just wake up one day and make a career choice something led to it.
that's true. but what is your point?
What is alarming is that GW and TB both seem to have been motivated by a belief it was the right thing to do and certainly in the case of TB changed the evidence to match what they believed. (Bush I don't really know about) It's a crap way to run a government.
it was the right thing to do, even without WMD's being found.
What makes it worse is that US tactics are perceived as too confrontational. It's not just iraquis that are wary of the americans
frankly, i could not care less if other countries don't like the mean old US. good luck to europe if we were to completely pull all our nato support tomorrow. good luck if we stopped all trade with european nations. good luck to nations all over the earth that benefit from incredible amounts of free money and goods we hand out left and right. good luck to the rest of the world if the US were to tomorrow dismantle our military - and the world would be left without its policeman. yes, i said it. the rest of the world resents the fact that we act as the world's policemen. god forbid we don't show up when they need our help however.
as policemen, have we been guilty of using excessive force sometimes, of being a bully? you bet. does that mean that every use of force by us is excessive? of course not. does it mean that we should dismantle our military, and pull all aid to foreign nations, and close off to the rest of the world - become isolationists? well, we could. but the rest of the world would be cast into turmoil that would make iraq look like a tea party.
Cheap shot not worthy of you. It also shows a staggering ignorance of history and also american policy between the wars and the us attitide towards germany at the outbreak of ww2. No one in the UK had any reason to expect america to get involved and you didn't for three years you stood back and watched it all happen apart from a few who joined up.
wait - you're accusing me of a cheap shot, and staggering ignorance of history, yet you open with a cheap shot of your own about how we 'stood back and watched it all happen'? please.
and, you're welcome. there is a Great Britain now only because of the US's winning world war II. GB would have been just another german state if we had not interceded. this isn't even open to debate.
Let me put it to you in simple terms. Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on 911.
i've never said that. there's no doubt the US administration felt that.
Invading Iraq has done nothing to combat terrorism and has made things a lot worse.
that's a highly debateable opinion, not a fact.
The time to have taken out saddam hussein was immediately after the first gulf war instead he got to stay on his throne.
hindsight is 20/20. perhaps if neville chamberlain hadn't engaged in appeasement, world war II would not have been as devastating a conflict as it was? it's lovely to 'monday morning quarterback' about past history. but it is not informative of the current situation.
Having left him it is better that iraquis sort out their own problems and get rid of him themselves.
nonsense. nearly 14 years passed after the gulf war, and no signs of saddam being toppled by his own people, largely because of a savage and brutal reign of terror against dissidents within his own country. again, hindsight is lovely, but it does not necessarily inform the present.
It would also have been sensible not to support him in his war with Iran or even not to have encouraged him in his endeavours. It would have been sensible in hindsight not to have helped the taliban overthrow the government in afghanistan. It would have been sensible to have supported the rebellion in Basra just after the gulf war instead of letting him crush it.
but since this is hindsight, we really do not know, do we.
If I thought invading iraq now had anything to do with the fight against terrorism or was going to help i would support it. But it doesn't and I don't. Instead you are embroiled in a nightmare that is going to go on and on. Thanks to GW telling the rest of the world to go play with itself you are unlikely to get any help or much sympathy especially if you start building permanent bases in Iraq.
what a lot of poppycock. france and germany have made clear that they would never have supported, gotten involved in, or assisted in any way in the iraqi conflict. they're not going to dive in if kerry gets elected here, either.
the iraq conflict is a military conflict. military conflicts have a rather common tendency to not go according to plan. this is largely due to the small fact that it is war, and war is not predictable. is it a nightmare? hardly. is it 'going badly'? that depends greatly upon perception. to those who are constitutionally against military conflict under any circumstances, it is a priori 'going badly'. to those who recognize that military conflicts are unpredictable, dangerous, fraught with unknown variables, prey to changes in dynamics that could not be anticipated, then it is not going badly. is it unpleasant? of course. that's what military conflict is. are lives being lost? yes, of course, that's what military conflict tends to reap. is it a just cause? i believe it is, but only history will make that judgement.
let's see - saddam hussein blatantly, petulantly, and arrogantly ignored UN sanctions for a decade. seventeen resolutions passed against them. but of course, there are apparently many, many people out there who believe 'if only we could have gotten that eighteenth resolution, it all would have been resolved!'. poppycock and more poppycock. the UN is a eUNuch.
You are obviously patriotic why is it you cannot understand that you cannot impose democracy at the point if a gun or that if you say to people if you are not with us you are against us most nations in the world will respond with a resounding get stuffed.
we are not imposing democracy at the point of a gun. period. The US has not said that if you are not with us you're against us. we've simply said that if you aren't with us, then you aren't with us. i don't recall us closing all trade with france and germany. we've not launched attacks on them for not being with us. are diplomatic relations a bit cool? sure. so what?
the fact is, france didn't want to join this conflict because france was a friend of saddam. they had numerous lucrative military contracts with him. and they hate the fact that we've taken action against a nation they still feel is rightfully theirs in a lot of ways.
Imagine for a momemt If you were iranian or syrian and hostile to the present regime what would you do if it was attacked from outside and you thought you were the next target after iran?
i don't know. and i'm not clear what you're suggesting, sorry.
Opposing the war in iraq does not mean you support terrorists that is the kind of simplistic crap that seems to be the stock answer of those who don't want to think aboiut it.
ok. i didn't suggest that, but perhaps you're referring to someone else.
The terrorists did not just wake up one day and make a career choice something led to it.
that's true. but what is your point?
What is alarming is that GW and TB both seem to have been motivated by a belief it was the right thing to do and certainly in the case of TB changed the evidence to match what they believed. (Bush I don't really know about) It's a crap way to run a government.
it was the right thing to do, even without WMD's being found.
What makes it worse is that US tactics are perceived as too confrontational. It's not just iraquis that are wary of the americans
frankly, i could not care less if other countries don't like the mean old US. good luck to europe if we were to completely pull all our nato support tomorrow. good luck if we stopped all trade with european nations. good luck to nations all over the earth that benefit from incredible amounts of free money and goods we hand out left and right. good luck to the rest of the world if the US were to tomorrow dismantle our military - and the world would be left without its policeman. yes, i said it. the rest of the world resents the fact that we act as the world's policemen. god forbid we don't show up when they need our help however.
as policemen, have we been guilty of using excessive force sometimes, of being a bully? you bet. does that mean that every use of force by us is excessive? of course not. does it mean that we should dismantle our military, and pull all aid to foreign nations, and close off to the rest of the world - become isolationists? well, we could. but the rest of the world would be cast into turmoil that would make iraq look like a tea party.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
gmc,
I agree, it was well thought out and executed. Remember how many airplanes they used? Remember that they hit the Pentagon and planned to hit the Whitehouse but failed? They thought they were going to cripple us. They didn’t expect us to be able to respond. They thought they were going to break our will to fight.
Sorry, but them bad/us good, is how it has to be. They are the ones who are at war with their neighbors all over the globe. They are the ones who have a history of attacking us and getting away with it for more than a decade. The terrorists are bad. The people in the countries that support them may not be all bad but the governments that support them are.
I couldn’t agree more regarding the Saudis. We have a huge problem and we need to deal with it. One way to deal with it is to understand the enemy. This enemy can’t be reasoned with and they don’t respond to law enforcement measures. If they were responsive, the tactics of the Clinton administration would have worked. They don’t care about life and they will destroy civilization unless they see their efforts resulting in a net loss to their effort. The rest of the world needs to provide them with that loss.
You have a good point. This is a problem that is much larger than most understand. The thing we must keep in mind is that we are dealing with a culture that understands and responds to power, all else seems to fail.
If they see themselves loosing, they may switch sides. The fact that the problem is difficult shouldn’t keep us from going after those who want to destroy us.
The argument that we are in Iraq and Iraq didn’t attack us so we shouldn't have done it or that we should leave isn’t logical. If FDR thought it was logical, we would probably be writing this in another language. In WWII we were attacked by Japan but we fought Germany. Korea never invaded us but we fought there. Did Bosnia attack us?
Why is Israel maintaining nukes? It isn’t so they can use them against us. It would be hypocritical to ask our best friend to put down a club when he was surrounded by a gang that wanted to kill him, wouldn’t it? Israel would fit in Oregon 5 times. They are a small group of people trying to survive.
Maybe if Arafat would do something to stop suicide bombers and missile attacks he could be recognized as a partner for peace. As long as he had a voice the violence was raging. It still isn't safe in Israel (unless you compare it to Detroit) but it is better now that the leader of the gang that elected him is silent.
The idea that this can be negotiated or that we can somehow change our behavior to make it go away is naive. That's not to say we don't have behavior that needs to be changed.
I agree, it was well thought out and executed. Remember how many airplanes they used? Remember that they hit the Pentagon and planned to hit the Whitehouse but failed? They thought they were going to cripple us. They didn’t expect us to be able to respond. They thought they were going to break our will to fight.
Sorry, but them bad/us good, is how it has to be. They are the ones who are at war with their neighbors all over the globe. They are the ones who have a history of attacking us and getting away with it for more than a decade. The terrorists are bad. The people in the countries that support them may not be all bad but the governments that support them are.
I couldn’t agree more regarding the Saudis. We have a huge problem and we need to deal with it. One way to deal with it is to understand the enemy. This enemy can’t be reasoned with and they don’t respond to law enforcement measures. If they were responsive, the tactics of the Clinton administration would have worked. They don’t care about life and they will destroy civilization unless they see their efforts resulting in a net loss to their effort. The rest of the world needs to provide them with that loss.
You have a good point. This is a problem that is much larger than most understand. The thing we must keep in mind is that we are dealing with a culture that understands and responds to power, all else seems to fail.
If they see themselves loosing, they may switch sides. The fact that the problem is difficult shouldn’t keep us from going after those who want to destroy us.
The argument that we are in Iraq and Iraq didn’t attack us so we shouldn't have done it or that we should leave isn’t logical. If FDR thought it was logical, we would probably be writing this in another language. In WWII we were attacked by Japan but we fought Germany. Korea never invaded us but we fought there. Did Bosnia attack us?
Why is Israel maintaining nukes? It isn’t so they can use them against us. It would be hypocritical to ask our best friend to put down a club when he was surrounded by a gang that wanted to kill him, wouldn’t it? Israel would fit in Oregon 5 times. They are a small group of people trying to survive.
Maybe if Arafat would do something to stop suicide bombers and missile attacks he could be recognized as a partner for peace. As long as he had a voice the violence was raging. It still isn't safe in Israel (unless you compare it to Detroit) but it is better now that the leader of the gang that elected him is silent.
The idea that this can be negotiated or that we can somehow change our behavior to make it go away is naive. That's not to say we don't have behavior that needs to be changed.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
gmc wrote: No one in the UK had any reason to expect america to get involved and you didn't for three years you stood back and watched it all happen apart from a few who joined up.
you know, looking at this, it strikes me that had we not 'stood back and watched it all happen' as you claim, we'd have been accused of nation building and aggression, going today's rhetorical standards.
you know, looking at this, it strikes me that had we not 'stood back and watched it all happen' as you claim, we'd have been accused of nation building and aggression, going today's rhetorical standards.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Clint wrote: There are hundreds of thousands of Islamic extremists in that part of the world that are committed to seeing us dead. They want us dead because of our way of life for sure but more than that
Why do people in the U.S.A. persist in this thought? I'm not sure if anyone at all
in the whole world wants you dead because of your way of life.
Clint wrote: they want us dead because we are not Muslim (Atheists, Pantheists and Agnostics included). Not all Muslims want to kill off all other beliefs or non beliefs. There are just so many of them in that part of the world that do, that they can no longer be ignored. Let 9-11 testify to that fact. We did not start this war.
This ia paranoia with delusions of grandeur. Also, Iraq wasn't responsible for
the blowing up of those buildings, and yes, you did start what you choose to
call war. Oh, did you hear that the Iraquis dod not have any WsMD??
Clint wrote: Iraq is as strategically important today as it has been since it was in the heart of ancient Babylon. It is where we must be. It is a beachhead we must hold. If we don’t we will be fighting those who want to murder us in our own streets. The extremists interpret Mohammad’s teachings to be that we are their greatest enemy but that they must deal with the nearest enemy first. In Iraq we are their nearest enemy and their greatest enemy. By following their theology they will be more likely to fight us in Iraq than here. I can’t remember the Yale professor’s name who said that Iraq has become like flypaper, drawing in and capturing the terrorists.
Good excuse for a bit of action, then - no matter how shallow and invalid
the reason fed to you by your government - isn't it.
Why do people in the U.S.A. persist in this thought? I'm not sure if anyone at all
in the whole world wants you dead because of your way of life.
Clint wrote: they want us dead because we are not Muslim (Atheists, Pantheists and Agnostics included). Not all Muslims want to kill off all other beliefs or non beliefs. There are just so many of them in that part of the world that do, that they can no longer be ignored. Let 9-11 testify to that fact. We did not start this war.
This ia paranoia with delusions of grandeur. Also, Iraq wasn't responsible for
the blowing up of those buildings, and yes, you did start what you choose to
call war. Oh, did you hear that the Iraquis dod not have any WsMD??
Clint wrote: Iraq is as strategically important today as it has been since it was in the heart of ancient Babylon. It is where we must be. It is a beachhead we must hold. If we don’t we will be fighting those who want to murder us in our own streets. The extremists interpret Mohammad’s teachings to be that we are their greatest enemy but that they must deal with the nearest enemy first. In Iraq we are their nearest enemy and their greatest enemy. By following their theology they will be more likely to fight us in Iraq than here. I can’t remember the Yale professor’s name who said that Iraq has become like flypaper, drawing in and capturing the terrorists.
Good excuse for a bit of action, then - no matter how shallow and invalid
the reason fed to you by your government - isn't it.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Clint wrote: How many more need to die before the threat is real?
Through presumtion comes nothing but strife.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
Through presumtion comes nothing but strife.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
gmc wrote: Who is going to attack you? you are talking about terrorists not nation states. If you want to cause terror you do not need WMD's to do it, random explosions, disrupt communications, a bomb on the new york underground, causing chaos is easy to do. They don't need to bring things in to the states there is plenty of stuff available in the US to use. Blow up a fuel train in the middle if a build up area it's actually easy to do if you are so disposed and almost impossible to guard against.
That is a good description of terrorist tactics.
That is a good description of terrorist tactics.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Bill Sikes wrote: Why do people in the U.S.A. persist in this thought? I'm not sure if anyone at all
in the whole world wants you dead because of your way of life.
you would do well to read osama bin laden's own words on this matter.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldvie ... 25,00.html
i hope you'll revise your comments after reading it.
in the whole world wants you dead because of your way of life.
you would do well to read osama bin laden's own words on this matter.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldvie ... 25,00.html
i hope you'll revise your comments after reading it.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
anastrophe wrote:
Nothing of world value - all snipped.
...
Nothing of world value - all snipped.
...
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Bill Sikes wrote: ...
A liberal is a man who leaves the room when the fight begins.
-Heywood Broun
A liberal is a man who leaves the room when the fight begins.
-Heywood Broun
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Bill Sikes wrote: Why do people in the U.S.A. persist in this thought? I'm not sure if anyone at all
in the whole world wants you dead because of your way of life.
This ia paranoia with delusions of grandeur. Also, Iraq wasn't responsible for
the blowing up of those buildings, and yes, you did start what you choose to
call war. Oh, did you hear that the Iraquis dod not have any WsMD??
Good excuse for a bit of action, then - no matter how shallow and invalid
the reason fed to you by your government - isn't it.
Maybe that's what some in the U.S.A. think. I think the whole world is facing an enemy that wants them dead if they don't convert to their way. This isn't about the U.S.A. alone, just look around the world at what these wild men are doing.
Iraq's leader was paying the families of suicide bombers, encouraging them to carry out missions of terror. Iraq's leader was in power because enough people there supported him. They probably supported him out of fear but until he was gone there was no way to know.
If you think you are safe because you don't mean them any harm, I hope your are right but all that I know tells me you are wrong.
in the whole world wants you dead because of your way of life.
This ia paranoia with delusions of grandeur. Also, Iraq wasn't responsible for
the blowing up of those buildings, and yes, you did start what you choose to
call war. Oh, did you hear that the Iraquis dod not have any WsMD??
Good excuse for a bit of action, then - no matter how shallow and invalid
the reason fed to you by your government - isn't it.
Maybe that's what some in the U.S.A. think. I think the whole world is facing an enemy that wants them dead if they don't convert to their way. This isn't about the U.S.A. alone, just look around the world at what these wild men are doing.
Iraq's leader was paying the families of suicide bombers, encouraging them to carry out missions of terror. Iraq's leader was in power because enough people there supported him. They probably supported him out of fear but until he was gone there was no way to know.
If you think you are safe because you don't mean them any harm, I hope your are right but all that I know tells me you are wrong.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Sikes> Why do people in the U.S.A. persist in this thought? I'm not sure if anyone
Sikes> at all in the whole world wants you dead because of your way of life.
anastrophe wrote: you would do well to read osama bin laden's own words on
this matter.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldvie ... 25,00.html
i hope you'll revise your comments after reading it.
Ah... I thought you were talking of people being jealous of your way of life, which
is the usual thought propounded.
I've read that letter - there does indeed seem to be a great deal of truth
contained in it.
Sikes> at all in the whole world wants you dead because of your way of life.
anastrophe wrote: you would do well to read osama bin laden's own words on
this matter.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldvie ... 25,00.html
i hope you'll revise your comments after reading it.
Ah... I thought you were talking of people being jealous of your way of life, which
is the usual thought propounded.
I've read that letter - there does indeed seem to be a great deal of truth
contained in it.
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
i hope you'll revise your comments after reading it.
Nope I have always thought fundamentalists if any religon were dangerous nutters that should be watched very carefully.
He is from Saudi arabia, what did iraq have to do with 911? Even your own 911 commission are saying the same thing that there was no connection.
Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.
The house of saud is hardly a shining example of democracy, 911 is about suadi politics as much as anything else.
You go after terrorists by breaking up their organisations and cutting off their funds, blowing up the neighbourhood is not a constructive method or one that is likely to cut their support. Following the money trail would have probably been useful but it seems to keep leading back to saudi arabia.
The middle east is not full of fundamentalist muslims, even the iranians are getting fed up and if left alone would probably change with time.
As for palestine don't you wonder what makes someone despair so much that they will commit suicide to make their point?
Don't misunderstand i do not support terrorism and the islamic kind is particularly nasty but this is about whether Iraq was a good idea and i still think it was a very bad one that is going to make things a lot worse.
Don't forget two thirds of the worlds population are neither christian or muslim. They need the oil as well now so that could get interesting if the US decides to take over the middle east.
A lot of the apocalyptic prophecies seem to point to a conflagration staring in the middle east who knows what will happen.
and, you're welcome. there is a Great Britain now only because of the US's winning world war II. GB would have been just another german state if we had not interceded. this isn't even open to debate.
yeah right, one for a different forum perhaps but, no offence you really need to study some history if you believe that one. The russians would have saved us
the us and uk were not allies at the start of ww2, the vast majority of americans were dead against getting involved in another european war for quite understandable reasons and no one actually expected you to join in at the time as there was no real reason why you should. the world was a very different place. l
Nope I have always thought fundamentalists if any religon were dangerous nutters that should be watched very carefully.
He is from Saudi arabia, what did iraq have to do with 911? Even your own 911 commission are saying the same thing that there was no connection.
Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington.
The house of saud is hardly a shining example of democracy, 911 is about suadi politics as much as anything else.
You go after terrorists by breaking up their organisations and cutting off their funds, blowing up the neighbourhood is not a constructive method or one that is likely to cut their support. Following the money trail would have probably been useful but it seems to keep leading back to saudi arabia.
The middle east is not full of fundamentalist muslims, even the iranians are getting fed up and if left alone would probably change with time.
As for palestine don't you wonder what makes someone despair so much that they will commit suicide to make their point?
Don't misunderstand i do not support terrorism and the islamic kind is particularly nasty but this is about whether Iraq was a good idea and i still think it was a very bad one that is going to make things a lot worse.
Don't forget two thirds of the worlds population are neither christian or muslim. They need the oil as well now so that could get interesting if the US decides to take over the middle east.
A lot of the apocalyptic prophecies seem to point to a conflagration staring in the middle east who knows what will happen.
and, you're welcome. there is a Great Britain now only because of the US's winning world war II. GB would have been just another german state if we had not interceded. this isn't even open to debate.
yeah right, one for a different forum perhaps but, no offence you really need to study some history if you believe that one. The russians would have saved us
the us and uk were not allies at the start of ww2, the vast majority of americans were dead against getting involved in another european war for quite understandable reasons and no one actually expected you to join in at the time as there was no real reason why you should. the world was a very different place. l-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
gmc wrote:
As for palestine don't you wonder what makes someone despair so much that they will commit suicide to make their point?
i don't think it has much to do with despair at all. it has to do with a deeply believed tenet of islam that has been corrupted, then turned round and used to inculcate those who are disposessed, to wit that if you are 'martyred' you go to paradise, and have your pick of nubian virgins or whatever. if you make the afterlife sound a thousand times better than real life, it just encourages people to kill themselves.
Don't misunderstand i do not support terrorism and the islamic kind is particularly nasty but this is about whether Iraq was a good idea and i still think it was a very bad one that is going to make things a lot worse. as i said, history will tell. let's touch-base a decade from now...
yeah right, one for a different forum perhaps but, no offence you really need to study some history if you believe that one. The russians would have saved us
not bloody likely. they were a bit busy saving their own hides, thank you very much. stalin, to put it bluntly, wouldn't have given a fart to save england.
the us and uk were not allies at the start of ww2, the vast majority of americans were dead against getting involved in another european war
so what? are you suggesting that because public opinion may have been generally against it, therefore we should not have gotten involved? that's the worst example of tyranny of the majority i can think of. there are times when what is Right is more important than what is popular. it seems much of the argument against the iraq war is that it's 'unpopular'. thankfully, the world is not a popularity contest.
for quite understandable reasons and no one actually expected you to join in at the time as there was no real reason why you should. the world was a very different place. l
none of what you've written, besides the silly reference to the russians saving you, in any way suggests that you would have won world war II without the massive support of the US, both materially and in forces.
anyone who thinks hitler would have been turned back without the U.S. is daft. yes, that's ad hominem. oh well. there are times when historical revisionism chafes, to say the least.
As for palestine don't you wonder what makes someone despair so much that they will commit suicide to make their point?
i don't think it has much to do with despair at all. it has to do with a deeply believed tenet of islam that has been corrupted, then turned round and used to inculcate those who are disposessed, to wit that if you are 'martyred' you go to paradise, and have your pick of nubian virgins or whatever. if you make the afterlife sound a thousand times better than real life, it just encourages people to kill themselves.
Don't misunderstand i do not support terrorism and the islamic kind is particularly nasty but this is about whether Iraq was a good idea and i still think it was a very bad one that is going to make things a lot worse. as i said, history will tell. let's touch-base a decade from now...
yeah right, one for a different forum perhaps but, no offence you really need to study some history if you believe that one. The russians would have saved us
not bloody likely. they were a bit busy saving their own hides, thank you very much. stalin, to put it bluntly, wouldn't have given a fart to save england.
the us and uk were not allies at the start of ww2, the vast majority of americans were dead against getting involved in another european war
so what? are you suggesting that because public opinion may have been generally against it, therefore we should not have gotten involved? that's the worst example of tyranny of the majority i can think of. there are times when what is Right is more important than what is popular. it seems much of the argument against the iraq war is that it's 'unpopular'. thankfully, the world is not a popularity contest.
for quite understandable reasons and no one actually expected you to join in at the time as there was no real reason why you should. the world was a very different place. l
none of what you've written, besides the silly reference to the russians saving you, in any way suggests that you would have won world war II without the massive support of the US, both materially and in forces.
anyone who thinks hitler would have been turned back without the U.S. is daft. yes, that's ad hominem. oh well. there are times when historical revisionism chafes, to say the least.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Bill Sikes wrote:
I've read that letter - there does indeed seem to be a great deal of truth
contained in it.
so, what are you suggesting? because there is truth in it, that means the actions propounded are justified?
I've read that letter - there does indeed seem to be a great deal of truth
contained in it.
so, what are you suggesting? because there is truth in it, that means the actions propounded are justified?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
gmc> Russians helped in defeating Hitler
anastrophe wrote:
they were a bit busy saving their own hides, thank you very much. stalin, to put it bluntly, wouldn't have given a fart to save england.
Well, that's another "Whoosh!". I'm sure gmc will explain.
anastrophe wrote:
they were a bit busy saving their own hides, thank you very much. stalin, to put it bluntly, wouldn't have given a fart to save england.
Well, that's another "Whoosh!". I'm sure gmc will explain.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Sikes> truth in Bin Laden's "open letter"
anastrophe wrote: so, what are you suggesting? because there is truth in it, that means the actions propounded are justified?
Do you think that is what I am suggesting?
anastrophe wrote: so, what are you suggesting? because there is truth in it, that means the actions propounded are justified?
Do you think that is what I am suggesting?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Bill Sikes wrote: Sikes> truth in Bin Laden's "open letter"
Do you think that is what I am suggesting?
well gee, we can go in circles for hours with that line of response.
"do you think that that is what i think that you are suggesting?"
"do you think that that is what i think that you think that i think that you are suggesting?"
fun! :-5
Do you think that is what I am suggesting?
well gee, we can go in circles for hours with that line of response.
"do you think that that is what i think that you are suggesting?"
"do you think that that is what i think that you think that i think that you are suggesting?"
fun! :-5
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Bill Sikes wrote: gmc> Russians helped in defeating Hitler
Well, that's another "Whoosh!". I'm sure gmc will explain.
what does 'whoosh!' mean, other than perhaps onomatopoeia for the sound of a fart?
sure, stalin would have helped england. yeah. helped to rub out most of your population as 'undesireables'. hey, he did it to millions of his own countrymen, why not you?
Well, that's another "Whoosh!". I'm sure gmc will explain.
what does 'whoosh!' mean, other than perhaps onomatopoeia for the sound of a fart?
sure, stalin would have helped england. yeah. helped to rub out most of your population as 'undesireables'. hey, he did it to millions of his own countrymen, why not you?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
anastrophe
none of what you've written, besides the silly reference to the russians saving you, in any way suggests that you would have won world war II without the massive support of the US, both materially and in forces.
anyone who thinks hitler would have been turned back without the U.S. is daft. yes, that's ad hominem. oh well. there are times when historical revisionism chafes, to say the least.
__________________
there are times when historical revisionism chafes, to say the least. oh yes.
Well you would probably have had a europe dominated by russia and uncle joe (as he was lovingly known in the american press at the time) . things would have turned out differently that's for sure. You can't change what happened and arguing about what would have happened is always a bit pointless. There are those who now argue we should have made peace with hitler and kept our empire, after all who needs europe. But you seriously need to read up a bit about what happened during the lead up to us entry to the war, which incidentally had been going on for three over three years before you joined in. Luckily we gave you all the secrets of radar, sonar jet engines etc to help you out otherwise you would have struggled a bit. While you're at it read up about indo china and how the US got dragged in to that one.
I love debate and I am not trying to be personal so please don't take it that way as that is not my intention.
What is it you think the war in iraq has done to curb terrorism? This is not a war against a nation state and having the most powerful armed forces on the planet wont stop a terrorist attack in america. Good intelligence does and so does cutting off the oxygen of moral justification.
ON 911 but the attack was aimed to provoke a reaction. If you really think they believed the US would be paralysed with fear as a result you don't credit them with enough intelligence. On one level fundamentalist can't understand the attitude of the west but bin laden was a western educated engineer who knows america well Stomping all over the middle east is what IMO bin laden wanted you to do. though attacking Iraq may have surprised him. But I doubt very much that he expected you to do nothing. The whole point of present day terrorists is to get a reaction.
Actually we probably all agree about terrorism with the only area of disagreement being the war in Iraq. i think it is a war being fought for spurious reasons that is making things worse not better. Hard line politics and a gung ho attitude do not work. confrontational US military tactics in Iraq are making things worse as flattening whole towns to get a few insurgents and killing hundreds of innocent people in the process just escalates the whole thing and loses support for the coalition. Rather than copying israeli tactics which you know dont work you could learn a lot from nations that have been sussessfully fighting terrorists for decades.
There is now real concern that british troops will be placed under american command, they have a whole different approach that doesn't involve flattening everything in sight when attacked. It's ironic, the Black Watch that were going to be home at christmas now look as though they are staying, when they come back they will be disbanded and combined with other regiments in a high tech modern army because they are not needed. pissed off is probably not an adequate description.
It's not the intention to combat terrorism i have a problem with its the tactics
i don't think it has much to do with despair at all. it has to do with a deeply believed tenet of islam that has been corrupted, then turned round and used to inculcate those who are disposessed, to wit that if you are 'martyred' you go to paradise, and have your pick of nubian virgins or whatever. if you make the afterlife sound a thousand times better than real life, it just encourages people to kill themselves.
if you make the afterlife sound a thousand times better than real life, it just encourages people to kill themselves.
I suppose that's why according to catholic doctrine (I'm not catholic so I may be wrong here) if you commit suicide you don't go to heaven otherwise they'd all be topping themselves. Bet Ian paisley would love that one.
Another quick question, if you were palestinian what would you do about israel?
not bloody likely. they were a bit busy saving their own hides, thank you very much. stalin, to put it bluntly, wouldn't have given a fart to save england.
Being a non english person I have sympathy for that point of view (smiley showing hysterical laughter, there isn't one so imagine it) no offence bill
none of what you've written, besides the silly reference to the russians saving you, in any way suggests that you would have won world war II without the massive support of the US, both materially and in forces.
anyone who thinks hitler would have been turned back without the U.S. is daft. yes, that's ad hominem. oh well. there are times when historical revisionism chafes, to say the least.
__________________
there are times when historical revisionism chafes, to say the least. oh yes.
Well you would probably have had a europe dominated by russia and uncle joe (as he was lovingly known in the american press at the time) . things would have turned out differently that's for sure. You can't change what happened and arguing about what would have happened is always a bit pointless. There are those who now argue we should have made peace with hitler and kept our empire, after all who needs europe. But you seriously need to read up a bit about what happened during the lead up to us entry to the war, which incidentally had been going on for three over three years before you joined in. Luckily we gave you all the secrets of radar, sonar jet engines etc to help you out otherwise you would have struggled a bit. While you're at it read up about indo china and how the US got dragged in to that one.
I love debate and I am not trying to be personal so please don't take it that way as that is not my intention.
What is it you think the war in iraq has done to curb terrorism? This is not a war against a nation state and having the most powerful armed forces on the planet wont stop a terrorist attack in america. Good intelligence does and so does cutting off the oxygen of moral justification.
ON 911 but the attack was aimed to provoke a reaction. If you really think they believed the US would be paralysed with fear as a result you don't credit them with enough intelligence. On one level fundamentalist can't understand the attitude of the west but bin laden was a western educated engineer who knows america well Stomping all over the middle east is what IMO bin laden wanted you to do. though attacking Iraq may have surprised him. But I doubt very much that he expected you to do nothing. The whole point of present day terrorists is to get a reaction.
Actually we probably all agree about terrorism with the only area of disagreement being the war in Iraq. i think it is a war being fought for spurious reasons that is making things worse not better. Hard line politics and a gung ho attitude do not work. confrontational US military tactics in Iraq are making things worse as flattening whole towns to get a few insurgents and killing hundreds of innocent people in the process just escalates the whole thing and loses support for the coalition. Rather than copying israeli tactics which you know dont work you could learn a lot from nations that have been sussessfully fighting terrorists for decades.
There is now real concern that british troops will be placed under american command, they have a whole different approach that doesn't involve flattening everything in sight when attacked. It's ironic, the Black Watch that were going to be home at christmas now look as though they are staying, when they come back they will be disbanded and combined with other regiments in a high tech modern army because they are not needed. pissed off is probably not an adequate description.
It's not the intention to combat terrorism i have a problem with its the tactics
i don't think it has much to do with despair at all. it has to do with a deeply believed tenet of islam that has been corrupted, then turned round and used to inculcate those who are disposessed, to wit that if you are 'martyred' you go to paradise, and have your pick of nubian virgins or whatever. if you make the afterlife sound a thousand times better than real life, it just encourages people to kill themselves.
if you make the afterlife sound a thousand times better than real life, it just encourages people to kill themselves.
I suppose that's why according to catholic doctrine (I'm not catholic so I may be wrong here) if you commit suicide you don't go to heaven otherwise they'd all be topping themselves. Bet Ian paisley would love that one.
Another quick question, if you were palestinian what would you do about israel?
not bloody likely. they were a bit busy saving their own hides, thank you very much. stalin, to put it bluntly, wouldn't have given a fart to save england.
Being a non english person I have sympathy for that point of view (smiley showing hysterical laughter, there isn't one so imagine it) no offence bill
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
gmc wrote: no offence bill
Bill? That was anapotrrophe's quote.
Bill? That was anapotrrophe's quote.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
anastrophe wrote: what does 'whoosh!' mean, other than perhaps onomatopoeia for the sound of a fart?
"Whoosh!" is standard Usenet-speak for the sound of something flying over
someone's head...
anastrophe wrote: sure, stalin would have helped england. yeah. helped to
rub out most of your population as 'undesireables'. hey, he did it to millions of
his own countrymen, why not you?
The point being that if Hitler had not commenced hostilities against the
Russians, then he would have invaded Britian (Note, Britian, not just
England). His resources were over-extended by the action in Russia. Had
he been able to concentrate on Britian, then the result would have been
a foregone conclusion, and the USA would not have been able or willing to
do anything about it.
The course of history would have been completely changed. Perhaps you'd
now be speaking Japanese.
"Whoosh!" is standard Usenet-speak for the sound of something flying over
someone's head...
anastrophe wrote: sure, stalin would have helped england. yeah. helped to
rub out most of your population as 'undesireables'. hey, he did it to millions of
his own countrymen, why not you?
The point being that if Hitler had not commenced hostilities against the
Russians, then he would have invaded Britian (Note, Britian, not just
England). His resources were over-extended by the action in Russia. Had
he been able to concentrate on Britian, then the result would have been
a foregone conclusion, and the USA would not have been able or willing to
do anything about it.
The course of history would have been completely changed. Perhaps you'd
now be speaking Japanese.
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Bill>Bill? That was anapotrrophe's quote.
Know it was but from some of your posts i assume you're english but i didn't want you taking umbrage at anti english jokes.
Know it was but from some of your posts i assume you're english but i didn't want you taking umbrage at anti english jokes.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Sikes> Bill? That was anapotrrophe's quote.
gmc wrote: Bill>
Know it was but from some of your posts i assume you're english but i didn't want you taking umbrage at anti english jokes.
OK Ta. I didn't actually detect an anti English joke - was it a good one?
It seems to me that the cohesion of this so-called United Kingdom is being
damaged these days by historical and imagined events - if so, it's a shame.
People are really thin-skinned, all of them, hairy Jocks, soft Southeners,
tight lard-eating Northerners, and sheep-shgng Taffies, not to mention
the Irish, it's getting to the stage where you can't insult any of these
ubggres in good humour.
gmc wrote: Bill>
Know it was but from some of your posts i assume you're english but i didn't want you taking umbrage at anti english jokes.
OK Ta. I didn't actually detect an anti English joke - was it a good one?
It seems to me that the cohesion of this so-called United Kingdom is being
damaged these days by historical and imagined events - if so, it's a shame.
People are really thin-skinned, all of them, hairy Jocks, soft Southeners,
tight lard-eating Northerners, and sheep-shgng Taffies, not to mention
the Irish, it's getting to the stage where you can't insult any of these
ubggres in good humour.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
gmc wrote: There is now real concern that british troops will be placed under american command, they have a whole different approach that doesn't involve flattening everything in sight when attacked. It's ironic, the Black Watch that were going to be home at christmas now look as though they are staying, when they come back they will be disbanded and combined with other regiments in a high tech modern army because they are not needed. pissed off is probably not an adequate description.
Look what the inestimable [surely shome mishtake? - Ed.] Hoon is up to now:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... altop.html
Look what the inestimable [surely shome mishtake? - Ed.] Hoon is up to now:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... altop.html
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Bill Sikes wrote: "Whoosh!" is standard Usenet-speak for the sound of something flying over
someone's head...
must be relatively new. i've been on usenet since 1986, never heard it.
The point being that if Hitler had not commenced hostilities against the
Russians, then he would have invaded Britian (Note, Britian, not just
England). His resources were over-extended by the action in Russia. Had
he been able to concentrate on Britian, then the result would have been
a foregone conclusion, and the USA would not have been able or willing to
do anything about it.
bald speculation, and quite meaningless. besides, that's not what GMC suggested. he suggested that if we had not assisted you, stalin would have.
The course of history would have been completely changed. Perhaps you'd
now be speaking Japanese.
nani o korimasu ka?
i already speak japanese. so we must have lost world war II. QED.
someone's head...
must be relatively new. i've been on usenet since 1986, never heard it.
The point being that if Hitler had not commenced hostilities against the
Russians, then he would have invaded Britian (Note, Britian, not just
England). His resources were over-extended by the action in Russia. Had
he been able to concentrate on Britian, then the result would have been
a foregone conclusion, and the USA would not have been able or willing to
do anything about it.
bald speculation, and quite meaningless. besides, that's not what GMC suggested. he suggested that if we had not assisted you, stalin would have.
The course of history would have been completely changed. Perhaps you'd
now be speaking Japanese.
nani o korimasu ka?
i already speak japanese. so we must have lost world war II. QED.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
OK Ta. I didn't actually detect an anti English joke - was it a good one?
Not particularly. Wish I hadn't mentioned it now.
Look what the inestimable [surely shome mishtake? - Ed.] Hoon is up to now:
Such things are supposed to be debated before a decision is made. I keep hoping parliament will exert itself and remind TB who is actually in charge of the country. I was no fan of Maggie Thatcher and called her many things bit devious lying B^%&*^%$ wasn't one of them. Actually maybe I'm being unkind he still believes he is doing the right thing even if all the evidence was against it and he had to change the wording.
Conversation overheard in music shop as customer examines bodhran "I believe traditionally they are made with the skin of Englishmen. Not any more sir, they are too thick skinned nowadays"
What do you call two sheep tied to a lamp post in cardiff/aberdeen? No forget it bad taste.
Not particularly. Wish I hadn't mentioned it now.
Look what the inestimable [surely shome mishtake? - Ed.] Hoon is up to now:
Such things are supposed to be debated before a decision is made. I keep hoping parliament will exert itself and remind TB who is actually in charge of the country. I was no fan of Maggie Thatcher and called her many things bit devious lying B^%&*^%$ wasn't one of them. Actually maybe I'm being unkind he still believes he is doing the right thing even if all the evidence was against it and he had to change the wording.
Conversation overheard in music shop as customer examines bodhran "I believe traditionally they are made with the skin of Englishmen. Not any more sir, they are too thick skinned nowadays"
What do you call two sheep tied to a lamp post in cardiff/aberdeen? No forget it bad taste.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
anastrophe wrote: must be relatively new. i've been on usenet since 1986, never heard it.
meant to say that i've been on usenet since '86 - but have not been active in the last year or two.
meant to say that i've been on usenet since '86 - but have not been active in the last year or two.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
anastrophe wrote: meant to say that i've been on usenet since '86 - but have not been active in the last year or two.
I can only find your posts back to '93, but obviously you may have had different
details. Computers, guns, baseball, etc. Yes, the argot of Usenet is continually
changing, and is very parochial. "Whoosh!" has been around for *ages* in
the bits I've frequented, but obviously that's not much of it!
Does ForumGarden exist solely because of smileglobal.com? I wonder what your
position in that company is.
I can only find your posts back to '93, but obviously you may have had different
details. Computers, guns, baseball, etc. Yes, the argot of Usenet is continually
changing, and is very parochial. "Whoosh!" has been around for *ages* in
the bits I've frequented, but obviously that's not much of it!
Does ForumGarden exist solely because of smileglobal.com? I wonder what your
position in that company is.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Bill Sikes wrote: I can only find your posts back to '93, but obviously you may have had different
details.
google's archives become less and less reliable the further back you go. before '91, it's very spotty.
Computers, guns, baseball, etc. Yes, the argot of Usenet is continually
changing, and is very parochial. "Whoosh!" has been around for *ages* in
the bits I've frequented, but obviously that's not much of it!
i'm quite sure that various colloquialisms flourished in some parts of usenet while not being very active in others.
Does ForumGarden exist solely because of smileglobal.com? I wonder what your
position in that company is.
not sure what you mean by 'because of'. Smile Networks hosts forumgarden. it is one of our many different endeavors. i'm president of Smile. http://www.smileglobal.com/about.html .
as you might guess by my generally contentious nature, i'm not that actively involved in forumgarden other than as a user. if i was running it, i'd probably be a lot more polite. :yh_alien2
details.
google's archives become less and less reliable the further back you go. before '91, it's very spotty.
Computers, guns, baseball, etc. Yes, the argot of Usenet is continually
changing, and is very parochial. "Whoosh!" has been around for *ages* in
the bits I've frequented, but obviously that's not much of it!
i'm quite sure that various colloquialisms flourished in some parts of usenet while not being very active in others.
Does ForumGarden exist solely because of smileglobal.com? I wonder what your
position in that company is.
not sure what you mean by 'because of'. Smile Networks hosts forumgarden. it is one of our many different endeavors. i'm president of Smile. http://www.smileglobal.com/about.html .
as you might guess by my generally contentious nature, i'm not that actively involved in forumgarden other than as a user. if i was running it, i'd probably be a lot more polite. :yh_alien2
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
anastrophe wrote: google's archives become less and less reliable the further back you go. before '91, it's very spotty.here's the oldest one i can find, from 1989:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=theob ... 1&filter=0
of course, i knew details that only i knew to search on!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=theob ... 1&filter=0
of course, i knew details that only i knew to search on!
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
bald speculation, and quite meaningless. besides, that's not what GMC suggested. he suggested that if we had not assisted you, stalin would have.
I was being facetious, beginning to wish i hadn't bothered now. It's this idea that america won ww2 on it's own that is incredibly irritating. It shows a tremendous lack of knowledge as to what was happening at the time . like for instance the US did not want to get involved in any way period. We were not allies that only came later, one thing we were not counting on was US support. We could have sued for peace and left europe to it's own devices but did not, therein lies a tale
bald speculation, and quite meaningless.
I actually agree with you there, what if interpretations of history bore me to death,I find they are usually much favoured by people who know less than they think they do.
Key events in history are often as a result of apparently unconnected events and actions the significance of which only becomes apparent later. Nothing happens except as a consequence of what has gone before. Hitler did not come out of nowhere, neither did Saddam or the present crop of fundamentalist nutters.
Still haven't changed my mind about the war, I don't think there is any easy answer as to how to end it.
I have only hazy recollection of the reasons for the electoral colleges
What would happen now of it was simply one man one vote (one person) the one with the most votes becomes president. Who would be president now, bush or gore?
Who would get in next time?
I was being facetious, beginning to wish i hadn't bothered now. It's this idea that america won ww2 on it's own that is incredibly irritating. It shows a tremendous lack of knowledge as to what was happening at the time . like for instance the US did not want to get involved in any way period. We were not allies that only came later, one thing we were not counting on was US support. We could have sued for peace and left europe to it's own devices but did not, therein lies a tale
bald speculation, and quite meaningless.
I actually agree with you there, what if interpretations of history bore me to death,I find they are usually much favoured by people who know less than they think they do.
Key events in history are often as a result of apparently unconnected events and actions the significance of which only becomes apparent later. Nothing happens except as a consequence of what has gone before. Hitler did not come out of nowhere, neither did Saddam or the present crop of fundamentalist nutters.
Still haven't changed my mind about the war, I don't think there is any easy answer as to how to end it.
I have only hazy recollection of the reasons for the electoral colleges
What would happen now of it was simply one man one vote (one person) the one with the most votes becomes president. Who would be president now, bush or gore?
Who would get in next time?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
gmc wrote: It's this idea that america won ww2 on it's own that is incredibly irritating.
if you will reread what i have written, you will nowhere find that i have said 'america won ww2 on its own'.
my contention, which is not disputed by any historian i know of (besides perhaps the nutcases who believe that auschwitz never occurred), is that without our help - which was massive - world war 2 would likely not have been won by the allies.
It shows a tremendous lack of knowledge as to what was happening at the time .
speaking of incredibly irritating.
like for instance the US did not want to get involved in any way period.
seeing as we did, however, i don't see your point. opinion on the war changed. my father enlisted after being told by an elderly jewish man that jews were being exterminated by hitler. this was before the existence of auschwitz et al was discovered.
We were not allies that only came later, one thing we were not counting on was US support. We could have sued for peace and left europe to it's own devices but did not, therein lies a tale
'sued for peace'? neville chamberlain essentially tried that tack. apparently it did not work.
I actually agree with you there, what if interpretations of history bore me to death,I find they are usually much favoured by people who know less than they think they do.
so perhaps you'll understand why *I* find it irritating when you say things like Britain could have won the war without US help. i think it's highly unlikely, but we'll never know, and you're welcome. :yh_bigsmi
I have only hazy recollection of the reasons for the electoral colleges
What would happen now of it was simply one man one vote (one person) the one with the most votes becomes president. Who would be president now, bush or gore?
Who would get in next time?
gore won the popular vote, and lost the electoral college vote. the electoral college was created for two reasons: to dampen the potential for the tyranny of the majority, and concommittantly to give those states that have fewer people in them a fairer voice in the election of president.
the debate on the value of the electoral college continues. typically it is most vociferously argued against when the popular vote is trumped by the EC. funnily enough, the other half vociferously argue for it if their candidate lost the popular vote but won the EC vote. fancy that.
if you will reread what i have written, you will nowhere find that i have said 'america won ww2 on its own'.
my contention, which is not disputed by any historian i know of (besides perhaps the nutcases who believe that auschwitz never occurred), is that without our help - which was massive - world war 2 would likely not have been won by the allies.
It shows a tremendous lack of knowledge as to what was happening at the time .
speaking of incredibly irritating.
like for instance the US did not want to get involved in any way period.
seeing as we did, however, i don't see your point. opinion on the war changed. my father enlisted after being told by an elderly jewish man that jews were being exterminated by hitler. this was before the existence of auschwitz et al was discovered.
We were not allies that only came later, one thing we were not counting on was US support. We could have sued for peace and left europe to it's own devices but did not, therein lies a tale
'sued for peace'? neville chamberlain essentially tried that tack. apparently it did not work.
I actually agree with you there, what if interpretations of history bore me to death,I find they are usually much favoured by people who know less than they think they do.
so perhaps you'll understand why *I* find it irritating when you say things like Britain could have won the war without US help. i think it's highly unlikely, but we'll never know, and you're welcome. :yh_bigsmi
I have only hazy recollection of the reasons for the electoral colleges
What would happen now of it was simply one man one vote (one person) the one with the most votes becomes president. Who would be president now, bush or gore?
Who would get in next time?
gore won the popular vote, and lost the electoral college vote. the electoral college was created for two reasons: to dampen the potential for the tyranny of the majority, and concommittantly to give those states that have fewer people in them a fairer voice in the election of president.
the debate on the value of the electoral college continues. typically it is most vociferously argued against when the popular vote is trumped by the EC. funnily enough, the other half vociferously argue for it if their candidate lost the popular vote but won the EC vote. fancy that.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
I've read through the posts with keen interest. It's great to look back at any point in history and talk about it. But the war in Iraq continues...so I guess my question is this:
What do we do now? For those who support the war, what is the end goal? At what point should we bring the troops home, and what would you consider to be a decisive victory?
For those who never believed in the war in Iraq, what is the best solution now?
Thanks!
What do we do now? For those who support the war, what is the end goal? At what point should we bring the troops home, and what would you consider to be a decisive victory?
For those who never believed in the war in Iraq, what is the best solution now?
Thanks!
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
A Karenina wrote: I've read through the posts with keen interest. It's great to look back at any point in history and talk about it. But the war in Iraq continues...so I guess my question is this:
What do we do now? For those who support the war, what is the end goal? At what point should we bring the troops home, and what would you consider to be a decisive victory?
For those who never believed in the war in Iraq, what is the best solution now?
Thanks!
here's my problem with the current political rhetoric: mr. kerry says many things, often conflicting, about the war in iraq. he supported it. but he voted against funding for it. but it was right to remove saddam hussein, and given the same intel as the president had, he'd have taken the same action. but it is the wrong war at the wrong time. but most importantly, he says he would have done everything 'differently', and/or 'better'. he has a four-point plan - the same plan as the incumbent already has in place. he has said that his own goal is to have troops out of iraq in four years. four years! so, when he says he'd do it 'better', i'm extremely skeptical, particularly given that timetable.
many keep saying that the iraq war is 'going badly'. i contend that it is going normally - the unplanned for, the horrible, the terrible, the devastating - all of these things are 'normal' in war. i fail to see what mr. kerry would bring to the table that isn't already in play.
What do we do now? For those who support the war, what is the end goal? At what point should we bring the troops home, and what would you consider to be a decisive victory?
For those who never believed in the war in Iraq, what is the best solution now?
Thanks!
here's my problem with the current political rhetoric: mr. kerry says many things, often conflicting, about the war in iraq. he supported it. but he voted against funding for it. but it was right to remove saddam hussein, and given the same intel as the president had, he'd have taken the same action. but it is the wrong war at the wrong time. but most importantly, he says he would have done everything 'differently', and/or 'better'. he has a four-point plan - the same plan as the incumbent already has in place. he has said that his own goal is to have troops out of iraq in four years. four years! so, when he says he'd do it 'better', i'm extremely skeptical, particularly given that timetable.
many keep saying that the iraq war is 'going badly'. i contend that it is going normally - the unplanned for, the horrible, the terrible, the devastating - all of these things are 'normal' in war. i fail to see what mr. kerry would bring to the table that isn't already in play.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
which was massive - world war 2 would likely not have been won by the allies.
seeing as we did, however, i don't see your point. opinion on the war changed. my father enlisted after being told by an elderly jewish man that jews were being exterminated by hitler. this was before the existence of auschwitz et al was discovered.
Not till three years later, my point is that at the outbreak of war we were not allies. The decision to keep on fighting had nothing to do with the expectation of american help. If you hadn't got involved things would have been very different you would for one thing have been facing a europe dominated by Russia. Hitler might have developed his ballistic weapons in time or finally produved enough jets to win the air war, the permutaions are endless. whether we would have been invaded and defeated is a moot point but the implication that we would no longer exist if it was not for the US is incredibly irritating.
if you will reread what i have written, you will nowhere find that i have said 'america won ww2 on its own'.
I did
and, you're welcome. there is a Great Britain now only because of the US's winning world war II. GB would have been just another german state if we had not interceded. this isn't even open to debate.
The fact was on 1939 the US did not want to get involved, the peace movement had a lot of support and it was perceived as a purely european problem, attitudes changed as time went on. It was not simply a case that the US came riding in to save us all out of a sense of preserving world freedom, maybe that came later but at the beginning most americans did not want to know, personally I can't say i blame them. I used to have parent and uncles that felt the same way.
http://www.fetchbook.co.uk/Spitfires_Th ... _Beer.html
Good book if you want a sense of what am american thought of england at the time, culture shock both ways, he describes a world i don't recognise
For those who never believed in the war in Iraq, what is the best solution now?
I don't know except there does need to be more than america involved in this, strapping on your pistols and going out to sort out the world problems sounds great, doesn't work. It's not a conventional war with a clear enemy to defeat. The whole of the middle east does not want to destroy america. They are not out to destroy your way of life most just want to left alone by everybody includong their own governments
seeing as we did, however, i don't see your point. opinion on the war changed. my father enlisted after being told by an elderly jewish man that jews were being exterminated by hitler. this was before the existence of auschwitz et al was discovered.
Not till three years later, my point is that at the outbreak of war we were not allies. The decision to keep on fighting had nothing to do with the expectation of american help. If you hadn't got involved things would have been very different you would for one thing have been facing a europe dominated by Russia. Hitler might have developed his ballistic weapons in time or finally produved enough jets to win the air war, the permutaions are endless. whether we would have been invaded and defeated is a moot point but the implication that we would no longer exist if it was not for the US is incredibly irritating.
if you will reread what i have written, you will nowhere find that i have said 'america won ww2 on its own'.
I did
and, you're welcome. there is a Great Britain now only because of the US's winning world war II. GB would have been just another german state if we had not interceded. this isn't even open to debate.
The fact was on 1939 the US did not want to get involved, the peace movement had a lot of support and it was perceived as a purely european problem, attitudes changed as time went on. It was not simply a case that the US came riding in to save us all out of a sense of preserving world freedom, maybe that came later but at the beginning most americans did not want to know, personally I can't say i blame them. I used to have parent and uncles that felt the same way.
http://www.fetchbook.co.uk/Spitfires_Th ... _Beer.html
Good book if you want a sense of what am american thought of england at the time, culture shock both ways, he describes a world i don't recognise
For those who never believed in the war in Iraq, what is the best solution now?
I don't know except there does need to be more than america involved in this, strapping on your pistols and going out to sort out the world problems sounds great, doesn't work. It's not a conventional war with a clear enemy to defeat. The whole of the middle east does not want to destroy america. They are not out to destroy your way of life most just want to left alone by everybody includong their own governments
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
anastrophe wrote: here's my problem with the current political rhetoric: mr. kerry says many things, often conflicting, about the war in iraq. he supported it. but he voted against funding for it. but it was right to remove saddam hussein, and given the same intel as the president had, he'd have taken the same action. but it is the wrong war at the wrong time. but most importantly, he says he would have done everything 'differently', and/or 'better'. he has a four-point plan - the same plan as the incumbent already has in place. he has said that his own goal is to have troops out of iraq in four years. four years! so, when he says he'd do it 'better', i'm extremely skeptical, particularly given that timetable.
many keep saying that the iraq war is 'going badly'. i contend that it is going normally - the unplanned for, the horrible, the terrible, the devastating - all of these things are 'normal' in war. i fail to see what mr. kerry would bring to the table that isn't already in play.
Agreed! My favorite quote is "We will hunt down the terrorists and kill them." wtf? Kill them? Is that pre- or post-trial? Jeeezzz.
I don't think Kerry has any real plans to change anything about Iraq. He's so slippery about the topic, obviously trying to get everyone's votes without committing to anything. The man is rich - why can't he buy a spine? LOL.
Personally, I wish we had never gone into Iraq like we did. I can't help but feel we'd have been better off pursuing terrorists in every country they hide in - and assisting those who wanted to depose Hussein through financing and training. (I know we gave them a bit of help and they failed to get rid of him...but the help we gave was paltry, let's face it.)
But, now we're there, and I can't figure out what the best solution would be at this point.
many keep saying that the iraq war is 'going badly'. i contend that it is going normally - the unplanned for, the horrible, the terrible, the devastating - all of these things are 'normal' in war. i fail to see what mr. kerry would bring to the table that isn't already in play.
Agreed! My favorite quote is "We will hunt down the terrorists and kill them." wtf? Kill them? Is that pre- or post-trial? Jeeezzz.
I don't think Kerry has any real plans to change anything about Iraq. He's so slippery about the topic, obviously trying to get everyone's votes without committing to anything. The man is rich - why can't he buy a spine? LOL.
Personally, I wish we had never gone into Iraq like we did. I can't help but feel we'd have been better off pursuing terrorists in every country they hide in - and assisting those who wanted to depose Hussein through financing and training. (I know we gave them a bit of help and they failed to get rid of him...but the help we gave was paltry, let's face it.)
But, now we're there, and I can't figure out what the best solution would be at this point.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Personally, I wish we had never gone into Iraq like we did. I can't help but feel we'd have been better off pursuing terrorists in every country they hide in - and assisting those who wanted to depose Hussein through financing and training. (I know we gave them a bit of help and they failed to get rid of him...but the help we gave was paltry, let's face it.)
But, now we're there, and I can't figure out what the best solution would be at this point.
That's part of the problem in the middle east, it was the west that encouraged and supported saddam in to power. When he was fighting Iran he was the bees knees and was given lots of help with intelligence information (there are plenty pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking his hand as he passed on the info in the 1980's) and building his wmd factories. It was the west that financed and trained the taliban in afghanistan, at the beginning they were just a bunch of terrorists opposed to their secular government, but because they were perceived as being anti communist the west encouraged them. So we helped a bunch of terrorists overturn a legitimate government, however much you might have disapproved of its nature, putting in place one far worse.
Why is it so many people pretend there is no connection to western policy in the middle east and what is happening now. You can't justify the terrorism and now it's becoming even more perverted than it was but you can surely see the origins of it.
(I know we gave them a bit of help and they failed to get rid of him...but the help we gave was paltry, let's face it.)
When the sunni muslims rebelled post gulf war having been encouraged to do so everybody sat by and watched saddam crush them, then would have been the time to go in and get rid of him, in retrospect it was one of the worst decisions of the last decades although at the time any hint of action taken to depose saddam would have been opposed by the arab world-I think, regime change was not the point of the gulf war again in retrospect maybe it should have been.
But, now we're there, and I can't figure out what the best solution would be at this point.
That's part of the problem in the middle east, it was the west that encouraged and supported saddam in to power. When he was fighting Iran he was the bees knees and was given lots of help with intelligence information (there are plenty pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking his hand as he passed on the info in the 1980's) and building his wmd factories. It was the west that financed and trained the taliban in afghanistan, at the beginning they were just a bunch of terrorists opposed to their secular government, but because they were perceived as being anti communist the west encouraged them. So we helped a bunch of terrorists overturn a legitimate government, however much you might have disapproved of its nature, putting in place one far worse.
Why is it so many people pretend there is no connection to western policy in the middle east and what is happening now. You can't justify the terrorism and now it's becoming even more perverted than it was but you can surely see the origins of it.
(I know we gave them a bit of help and they failed to get rid of him...but the help we gave was paltry, let's face it.)
When the sunni muslims rebelled post gulf war having been encouraged to do so everybody sat by and watched saddam crush them, then would have been the time to go in and get rid of him, in retrospect it was one of the worst decisions of the last decades although at the time any hint of action taken to depose saddam would have been opposed by the arab world-I think, regime change was not the point of the gulf war again in retrospect maybe it should have been.
-
A Karenina
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
gmc wrote: That's part of the problem in the middle east, it was the west that encouraged and supported saddam in to power...
in retrospect it was one of the worst decisions of the last decades although at the time any hint of action taken to depose saddam would have been opposed by the arab world-I think, regime change was not the point of the gulf war again in retrospect maybe it should have been.
gmc, I agree that we should never have done a lot of things we've done. Retrospect for the purpose of assigning blame is not going to fix this issue. The only good that can come of retrospect is to gain some wisdom for future events.
But I can pretty much guarantee you that if you tell Americans a rebel group needs funding and training to overthrow a despotic government and begin their own democracy, we'll support it - particularly if we get horrific visuals of innocent children dying. What we aren't getting here is complete information or a real view of who the players are, what the history is, and what the end result will be. The fact is most of us don't know the history of places like Iraq (which wasn't even a country until the Brits made it one). Some of that is media, and some of that is our own laziness.
Good intentions pave the way to hell. But you can't overlook the good intentions without alienating the group you are trying to influence.
So, the question remains....what now?
in retrospect it was one of the worst decisions of the last decades although at the time any hint of action taken to depose saddam would have been opposed by the arab world-I think, regime change was not the point of the gulf war again in retrospect maybe it should have been.
gmc, I agree that we should never have done a lot of things we've done. Retrospect for the purpose of assigning blame is not going to fix this issue. The only good that can come of retrospect is to gain some wisdom for future events.
But I can pretty much guarantee you that if you tell Americans a rebel group needs funding and training to overthrow a despotic government and begin their own democracy, we'll support it - particularly if we get horrific visuals of innocent children dying. What we aren't getting here is complete information or a real view of who the players are, what the history is, and what the end result will be. The fact is most of us don't know the history of places like Iraq (which wasn't even a country until the Brits made it one). Some of that is media, and some of that is our own laziness.
Good intentions pave the way to hell. But you can't overlook the good intentions without alienating the group you are trying to influence.
So, the question remains....what now?
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle
Aristotle
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
anastrophe wrote: so perhaps you'll understand why *I* find it irritating when you say things like Britain could have won the war without US help. i think it's highly unlikely, but we'll never know, and you're welcome.
Yet earlier you said:
anastrophe wrote: there is a Great Britain now only because of the US's winning world war II. GB would have been just another german state if we had not interceded. this isn't even open to debate.
Yet earlier you said:
anastrophe wrote: there is a Great Britain now only because of the US's winning world war II. GB would have been just another german state if we had not interceded. this isn't even open to debate.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
gmc wrote: There is now real concern that british troops will be placed under american command, they have a whole different approach that doesn't involve flattening everything in sight when attacked. It's ironic, the Black Watch that were going to be home at christmas now look as though they are staying, when they come back they will be disbanded and combined with other regiments in a high tech modern army because they are not needed. pissed off is probably not an adequate description.
They're going to do it. With weasel words? the odious Hoon has told the
Commons that:
"British troops are to be re-deployed in western Iraq in line with a request
from the Americans.
The 850 Army personnel, mainly from the 1 Bn The Black Watch, will remain
under British control"
and then:
"The Black Watch will co-ordinate with the US chain of command, but will work
under British rules of engagement"
What does that mean, I wonder?
And oh, BTW, Benito, I'm sorry I mean Tony, has said they will be "home by
Christmas". So that's all right, then.
They're going to do it. With weasel words? the odious Hoon has told the
Commons that:
"British troops are to be re-deployed in western Iraq in line with a request
from the Americans.
The 850 Army personnel, mainly from the 1 Bn The Black Watch, will remain
under British control"
and then:
"The Black Watch will co-ordinate with the US chain of command, but will work
under British rules of engagement"
What does that mean, I wonder?
And oh, BTW, Benito, I'm sorry I mean Tony, has said they will be "home by
Christmas". So that's all right, then.
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 05,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/stor ... 16,00.html
And oh, BTW, Benito, I'm sorry I mean Tony, has said they will be "home by
Christmas". So that's all right, then.
"Recent intelligence reports have confirmed the existence of Santa at the North Pole"
Stated Tony Blair to the house of Commons. "There can now be little doubt that he has the capacity to drop presents down every chimney in Britain within a single night and an attack is expected on or around the 25th of December. Despite calls for the gnomes to be given more time to remove the presents it is now clear that a present attack is imminent and action should now be taken to melt the North Pole as soon as possible in order to prevent him getting his sledge out the garage. We know the sledge is a crucial part of his plans as the runners dig in to the slates and stop it sliding off the roof."
Despite opposition calls for the gnomes to be given more time and that the consequences for all the disillusioned children to be carefully considered and that such action would simply encourage the rise of cynicism amongst children the melting of the north pole seems certain to proceed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/stor ... 16,00.html
And oh, BTW, Benito, I'm sorry I mean Tony, has said they will be "home by
Christmas". So that's all right, then.
"Recent intelligence reports have confirmed the existence of Santa at the North Pole"
Stated Tony Blair to the house of Commons. "There can now be little doubt that he has the capacity to drop presents down every chimney in Britain within a single night and an attack is expected on or around the 25th of December. Despite calls for the gnomes to be given more time to remove the presents it is now clear that a present attack is imminent and action should now be taken to melt the North Pole as soon as possible in order to prevent him getting his sledge out the garage. We know the sledge is a crucial part of his plans as the runners dig in to the slates and stop it sliding off the roof."
Despite opposition calls for the gnomes to be given more time and that the consequences for all the disillusioned children to be carefully considered and that such action would simply encourage the rise of cynicism amongst children the melting of the north pole seems certain to proceed.