Due to no game on Saturday...
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Meerkat 2  1957 18 Feb 03 4.18pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote halfmanhalfslug at 18 Feb 2003 3:32pm
Is there some evidence you've seen that I haven't? Just curious.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
 Bexter By the Sea 18 Feb 03 4.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
in your absolutely honest opinion - do you think we are waging this war because we care about the treatment of the iraqis by saddam? why dont we sort out other nasty regimes - because there is no ££ gain - like how late did we finally go into yugoslavia? way too late to save millions. the un evidence is still not evidence enough for a bloody war. no way. i'm with the cheese and sausage eaters on that one - and nelson mandela, and even the darn pope i hate to say!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
eulalio  Girls just wanna have Funt 18 Feb 03 5.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Indeed. I wonder if we would have stood aside and done nothing if there was oil in Rwanda, for example. With the USA's history of meddling in other countries, causing military coups and civil wars, bombing civilian targets and so forth, don't you think we're entitled to be sceptical? Edited by halfmanhalfslug (18 Feb 2003 5:15pm)
face up to your share of the blame you filthy terrorist sympathiser - Petealiator 8/7/2005 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Meerkat 2 1957 18 Feb 03 5.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Bexter, no I don't think it is the Iraqi people's suffering which is the main reason for the UN to go after Saddam. Neither do I think it is purely oil rights. Yet the richest oil producing country in the world has one of the highest infant mortality rates, mostly through treatable diseases and malnutrition. And no that's not because of that sanctions, it's down to Saddam's way of dealing with the sanctions. The key reason for this 'war' is that Saddam is developing VX, anthrax, ricin, saran etc and sooner or later he WILL sell these substances to the highest bidder, and sooner or later they WILL be used by terrorists somewhere in the world, possibly here. This, to my mind, sets Iraq apart from North Korea, Syria, Israel, Saudi etc. So if Saddam isn't developing these agents then why is he openly obstructing UN weapons inspectors? Why are his goons following them around in radio cars? Why won't he say what happened to the missing Anthrax and VX gas from a decade ago? Why does he need mobile laboratories? Why won't he let his scientists be openly questioned by the inspectors? How long do you give him to put his house in order? a month? two? 5 years? 10 years? Too many questions left unanswered. Edited by Meerkat 2 (18 Feb 2003 5:29pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Meerkat 2 1957 18 Feb 03 5.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote halfmanhalfslug at 18 Feb 2003 5:11pm
Indeed. I wonder if we would have stood aside and done nothing if there was oil in Rwanda, for example. With the USA's history of meddling in other countries, causing military coups and civil wars, bombing civilian targets and so forth, don't you think we're entitled to be sceptical? Edited by halfmanhalfslug (18 Feb 2003 5:15pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Bexter By the Sea 18 Feb 03 5.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
and why is it you think we all know about his weapons of mass detruction and no one elses in the world? we find out what we are told to find out. what i don't understand is how america has got away with not only having weapons of mass destruction in abundance but also selling them to extremely dodgy regimes - such as the man himself, and not have any repercussions. how does israel get away with how it treats the palestinians? (another fine mess we created) and why have the un said saddam is being more co operative of late? that with more time they may sort this out peacefully? Edited by Bexter (18 Feb 2003 5:31pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Petealiator 1066 Country! 18 Feb 03 6.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Winston: We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. Bexter: Not in my name you won’t! War is not the answer! Where’s the proof? Hitler’s no real threat to Britain! He’s promised to stay out of Poland in any case, do we really care about Poland and what he’s doing to some German Jews or are we declaring war just for ££ and oil? Should we bomb all nasty places now? What about Stalin? He’s killed millions, should we bomb him next? Sod the Jews, send them back to Palestine where they come from! Winston: That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? Bexter: Oil! Money! Empire building. What is Hitler doing that makes him so much worse than say, Stalin? He clearly poses a serious threat to whom? If it’s not actually us, I don’t really care! Winston: I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Bexter: Oh yeah, let’s kill thousands of innocent German children, we’re really tough. We should’ve given Neville Chamberlain more time! How could Chamberlain do his job when he’s not being given the time he needs? He’s produced absolutely no evidence of any 'threat', I am all for Chamberlain having more time to find out before we go wading in. Winston: Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. Bexter: Good! I don’t care about the empire, or all that’s British! Who cares, we’re a multicultural society now. If we bomb every country we disagree with, we’re gonna be very busy. We may give a mandate to a government when we elect them to run our country, but when it comes to a war that no one wants which will cost lives - our troops and German citizens, when there is no evidence of any threat - then democracy has failed - it veers on dictatorship when one man makes such a decision with no backing from his people. Winston: But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. Bexter: But most people don’t want this war of yours. Why are you the only one who knows about Germany’s plans? How about all these security threats? If they can see a threat then I would like to see it too as I work in central London thanks! I mean, they must have evidence else they wouldn't be deploying tanks at Dover would they? I understand that they have to be careful with intelligence etc but by saying there is no specific threat of invasion they are either lying or deploying tanks for no good reason, or to make a stronger case for war.... who knows? A bit of honesty wouldn't go a miss at this stage, f*** the intelligence gatherers risking their lives for our sake. We should listen to Italy and Japan, I’m with the spaghetti eaters and the nips on this one. Maybe I just don't think bombing their homes is the answer? Do you think we should bomb every country who has an unsavoury leader just out of interest? Winston: At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "come then, let us go forward together with our united strength." Bexter: No way, there’s an anti-war march on Sunday in Brick Lane and I’ll be there, if you come, wear a black shirt! War is not the answer. Appeasement is where it’s at. Edited by Petealiator (18 Feb 2003 6:52pm)
My Rocksteady band... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Meerkat 2 1957 18 Feb 03 7.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
and why is it you think we all know about his weapons of mass detruction and no one elses in the world? we find out what we are told to find out. Of course, and I have no doubt that there are other's doing the same thing but if Dubya is true to his word about a war on terrorism we will no doubt hear about them in due course. Best not to fight on too many fronts at once maybe? what i don't understand is how america has got away with not only having weapons of mass destruction in abundance but also selling them to extremely dodgy regimes - such as the man himself, and not have any repercussions. A valid point although the US is hardly alone in profiting from the arms trade but that's a whole can of worms in itself. Still I don't believe uncle Sam sold Saddam any plutonium, VX or bacterial agents though.
It gets away with it because of the number of Jews in the US administration. It's s*** and Tony Boy should push this to the top of the agenda once Saddam is toppled.
It's because Saddam allowed one minor scientist to be interviewed privately and somebody with a large moustache held a door open for Hans Blix. I'm sorry, if they have nothing to hide then why has it taken over a decade to even begin cooperating?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Glad All Over Bath 19 Feb 03 8.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Meerkat 2 at 18 Feb 2003 7:21pm
Best not to fight on too many fronts at once maybe? Exactly - too many being one.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Glad All Over Bath 19 Feb 03 9.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
I wonder how Bush would take it if, say, China said "We've had a word with the UN and due to you being the worst global terrorists over the last few decades we want you to destroy all your weapons of mass destruction and having done that allow our inspectors free reign to investigate your most secret areas". Do you think he would say "O.K., no problem, we'll do it without a whimper"? Even if he went along with the resolutions, I think he might be tempted to be a little bit obstructive to try and prove that he was still able to assert his power in some way - don't you?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eulalio Girls just wanna have Funt 19 Feb 03 10.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Glad All Over at 19 Feb 2003 9:13am
I wonder how Bush would take it if, say, China said "We've had a word with the UN and due to you being the worst global terrorists over the last few decades we want you to destroy all your weapons of mass destruction and having done that allow our inspectors free reign to investigate your most secret areas". Do you think he would say "O.K., no problem, we'll do it without a whimper"? Even if he went along with the resolutions, I think he might be tempted to be a little bit obstructive to try and prove that he was still able to assert his power in some way - don't you? Quite. Meerkat -- the US did sell chemical weapons to Iraq, lots of them. It's well documented. Pete -- leave Hitler out of this please, there is no comparison.
face up to your share of the blame you filthy terrorist sympathiser - Petealiator 8/7/2005 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_the_eagle Tulse Thrill 19 Feb 03 11.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote halfmanhalfslug at 19 Feb 2003 10:45am
Quote Glad All Over at 19 Feb 2003 9:13am
I wonder how Bush would take it if, say, China said "We've had a word with the UN and due to you being the worst global terrorists over the last few decades we want you to destroy all your weapons of mass destruction and having done that allow our inspectors free reign to investigate your most secret areas". Do you think he would say "O.K., no problem, we'll do it without a whimper"? Even if he went along with the resolutions, I think he might be tempted to be a little bit obstructive to try and prove that he was still able to assert his power in some way - don't you? Quite. Meerkat -- the US did sell chemical weapons to Iraq, lots of them. It's well documented. Pete -- leave Hitler out of this please, there is no comparison. Isn't there?
I think Keith Murray said it best when he rapped I'm sure you'll agree. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.