Sickening tv coverage of anti-Bush protests.
owen
unwarranted mass-hysteria on our streets.
Nobody likes war. But if WWI and II hadn't happened, and Hitler was given
free reign over Europe, where would we be now? The point being, sometimes
war is the only option remaining, after all else fails.
I would have expected a more balanced view from the BBC (and the rest of 'em
for that matter). Instead they give hours of airtime to clueless
do-gooders on the streets, who between them have never been able to suggest
a viable alternative to war.
Burning the USA flag? toppling a fake statue of Bush? All totally uncalled
for and tasteless if you ask me. Especially in the light of recent events
(terror attacks). I'm not "pro-Bush" or "pro-War" by any means, but I can
at least appreciate that the alternatives are far, far worse. What would
the protestors have us do, sit back and let the Saddams and Bin Ladens of
this world run around the place unchallenged?
I am sure many people out there find this as sickening as I did, but the TV
news coverage has totally failed to reflect this. A few thousand people
marching around with placcards makes much more exciting television, I
suppose.
Owen
mike stone
> I'm not "pro-Bush" or "pro-War" by any means, but I can
>at least appreciate that the alternatives are far, far worse.
In what way?
>What would
>the protestors have us do, sit back and let the Saddams and Bin Ladens of
>this world run around the place unchallenged?
The US was quite happey to let Saddam "run arounds the place" for twenty years,
without finding him any particular problem
As for the Bin Liner, how has he been made one whit less dangerous because
there are some thousands of Yankee troops throwing their weight around in
Baghdad? Has he ever even _been_ there? As far as I can see, the crack-brained
escapades of Herr Busch, Von Rumsfeldt and Tony B Liar have if anything
increased his following
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
Crippen
> Not since the death of Princess Diana have we seen such distasteful
> and unwarranted mass-hysteria on our streets.
I doubt if anything could be a distasteful & unwarranted as that farce.
> Nobody likes war. But if WWI and II hadn't happened, and Hitler was
> given free reign over Europe, where would we be now? The point
> being, sometimes war is the only option remaining, after all else
> fails.
I cannot see any comparison other than the UK & USA happily sat on their
arses until it was too late with regard to Mr. Hilter? The US for a
remarkable amount of time (twice), even though their "special" friends were
at war?
> I would have expected a more balanced view from the BBC (and the rest
> of 'em for that matter). Instead they give hours of airtime to
> clueless do-gooders on the streets, who between them have never been
> able to suggest a viable alternative to war.
That perhaps there was no need for invasion/war in this particular case
(Iraq)? & before anybody takes the humanitarian argument, can we sort out
the Congo now?
> Burning the USA flag? toppling a fake statue of Bush? All totally
> uncalled for and tasteless if you ask me. Especially in the light of
> recent events (terror attacks).
Noticeably against the 'allies' of the US, in an easy to attack region.
Still, George Jr. did ask them to "bring it on".
> I'm not "pro-Bush" or "pro-War" by
> any means, but I can at least appreciate that the alternatives are
> far, far worse. What would the protestors have us do, sit back and
> let the Saddams and Bin Ladens of this world run around the place
> unchallenged?
Maybe if the US challenged the Saudi's it'd be more credible? Bin-laden is
still at large, in Afganistan/Pakistan though, wasn't George Jr. meant to
sort him out?
> I am sure many people out there find this as sickening as I did, but
> the TV news coverage has totally failed to reflect this. A few
> thousand people marching around with placcards makes much more
> exciting television, I suppose.
It's notable that there are no "Welcome George" placards, why is that?
Cigarsucker Clinton managed to have a chip supper in Blackpool.
<not wanting an argument>
--
ctc
Chris
>But if WWI and II hadn't happened...
I'm no history scholar, but wouldn't it be true to say that if WWI
hadn't happened then WWII wouldn't have happened either? Hitler was a
product of the chaos in Germany after the first world war. Hence: no
WWI -> no chaos, -> no Hitler.
And guess what? Now we have another chaotic mess out of which
something/one infinately worse than the previous incumbant could
easily arise. Extreme right wing theocracy anyone?
C
Davenalias
"mike stone" <mws...@aol.com> wrote in message >
> The US was quite happey to let Saddam "run arounds the place" for twenty
years,
> without finding him any particular problem
>
Thats a distortion of reality.
He was always a problem. But he was a lesser evil that needed to be kept on
side while other conflicts on the worldstage were progressing.
Quoting history out of context is a complete fraud.
Edward Cowling
news:Qvovb.531$Bu3.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> I would have expected a more balanced view from the BBC (and the rest of
'em
> for that matter). Instead they give hours of airtime to clueless
> do-gooders on the streets, who between them have never been able to
suggest
> a viable alternative to war.
Don't fall into the mind shutting trap of believing all those
who don't share your view of the World are clueless
do-gooders.
BNP to Tony Benn, they all have a right to speak and
no one has the monopoly on wisdom.
--
Edward Cowling - London - UK
Motor
> And guess what? Now we have another chaotic mess out of which
> something/one infinately worse than the previous incumbant could easily
> arise. Extreme right wing theocracy anyone?
This is how it goes with most sabre-rattlers:
If you're a protester, you're an ignorant do-gooder. If you give them any
news coverage (other than showing that they are a bunch of scruffy Trots
and anti-freedom types), then you are communist scum.
Ignore all the lies told about the reasons for the war... instead make
spurious comparisons with the great bogey-man of the twentieth century,
Adolf Hitler... yeah, that'll convince everyone.
Crippen
Excuse my ignorance/stupidity, but who placed Saddam in to power (disposing
of the Shah at the same time)?
--
ctc
Davenalias
"Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:9dqvb.745$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> Davenalias wrote:
> > "mike stone" <mws...@aol.com> wrote in message >
> >> The US was quite happey to let Saddam "run arounds the place" for
> >> twenty years, without finding him any particular problem
> >>
> >
> > Thats a distortion of reality.
> >
> > He was always a problem. But he was a lesser evil that needed to be
> > kept on side while other conflicts on the worldstage were progressing.
> >
> > Quoting history out of context is a complete fraud.
>
You are excused.
Crippen
So could you perhaps answer the question & remove some of my ignorance?
Who placed Saddam in to power (disposing of the Shah at the same time)?
--
ctc
Major ChrisB
can I just say I dont get this, why are we all supposed to hate bush?
NoSpamThanks
"Edward Cowling" <ec015...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:VWpvb.1106$au4...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "owen" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:Qvovb.531$Bu3.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > I would have expected a more balanced view from the BBC (and the rest of
> 'em
> > for that matter). Instead they give hours of airtime to clueless
> > do-gooders on the streets, who between them have never been able to
> suggest
> > a viable alternative to war.
>
> Don't fall into the mind shutting trap of believing all those
> who don't share your view of the World are clueless
> do-gooders.
>
What isn't clear is what they want, assuming they all want
the same thing anyway.
The time for anti-war protests was before the war, not now.
Presumably they don't want us to just up and leave because
that would trigger a blood-bath.
And if they hope Tony Blair can moderate future American
actions, then alienating Bush - and his supporters back home
watching television news reports - is plainly counterproductive.
So what do they want, and how was yesterday's march intended
to achieve it?
Davenalias
"Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> Davenalias wrote:
> > "Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> > news:9dqvb.745$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> >> Davenalias wrote:
> >>> "mike stone" <mws...@aol.com> wrote in message >
> >>>> The US was quite happey to let Saddam "run arounds the place" for
> >>>> twenty years, without finding him any particular problem
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Thats a distortion of reality.
> >>>
> >>> He was always a problem. But he was a lesser evil that needed to be
> >>> kept on side while other conflicts on the worldstage were
> >>> progressing.
> >>>
> >>> Quoting history out of context is a complete fraud.
> >>
> >> Excuse my ignorance.
> >
> > You are excused.
>
> So could you perhaps answer the question & remove some of my ignorance?
Your question was unnecessary as I had already given the reason.
Crippen
> "Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:nrqvb.759$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>> Davenalias wrote:
>>> "Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9dqvb.745$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>>>> Davenalias wrote:
>>>>> "mike stone" <mws...@aol.com> wrote in message >
>>>>>> The US was quite happey to let Saddam "run arounds the place" for
>>>>>> twenty years, without finding him any particular problem
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thats a distortion of reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> He was always a problem. But he was a lesser evil that needed to
>>>>> be kept on side while other conflicts on the worldstage were
>>>>> progressing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting history out of context is a complete fraud.
>>>>
>>>> Excuse my ignorance.
>>>
>>> You are excused.
>>
>> So could you perhaps answer the question & remove some of my
>> ignorance?
>
> Your question was unnecessary as I had already given the reason.
Sorry, I must have missed it. Could you please restate it for me?
--
ctc
Damot
You wait until the next big "911" happens. They'll be jumping up and
down blaming the war. These idiots forget who started all this.
mick
NoSpamThanks wrote:
> "Edward Cowling" <ec015...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VWpvb.1106$au4...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> "owen" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:Qvovb.531$Bu3.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>>>
>>> I would have expected a more balanced view from the BBC (and the rest of
>> 'em
>>> for that matter). Instead they give hours of airtime to clueless
>>> do-gooders on the streets, who between them have never been able to
>> suggest
>>> a viable alternative to war.
>>
>> Don't fall into the mind shutting trap of believing all those
>> who don't share your view of the World are clueless
>> do-gooders.
>>
>
> What isn't clear is what they want, assuming they all want
> the same thing anyway.
>
> The time for anti-war protests was before the war, not now.
> Presumably they don't want us to just up and leave because
> that would trigger a blood-bath.
These sort of realities don`t register with them. They like simple one
sentence solutions to complex problems. A lot of them are just students with
little life experience so I suppose we should cut them a bit of slack. I
remember the days when people used to think that the way to get the Soviets
to give up Nuclear Arms was for the UK to give up _it`s_ weapons first, and
they were just as convinced _they_ were right as these protesters today.
> And if they hope Tony Blair can moderate future American
> actions, then alienating Bush - and his supporters back home
> watching television news reports - is plainly counterproductive.
>
> So what do they want, and how was yesterday's march intended
> to achieve it?
Listening to some of them being interviewed this week they don`t seem to
have a clue themselves. All they seem to be able to do is go back to what
happened 30/40/50 years ago rather face up to what are the problems and
dangers are today and how you attempt to deal with them.
mick
Davenalias
"Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
Do you want me to wipe your botty for you too ?
> ctc
>
>
mick
Why restate what is still in the post? Bizzare.
mick
Crippen
> "Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:%Iqvb.773$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>> Davenalias wrote:
>>> "Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
>>> news:nrqvb.759$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>>>> Davenalias wrote:
>>>>> "Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:9dqvb.745$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>>>>>> Davenalias wrote:
>>>>>>> "mike stone" <mws...@aol.com> wrote in message >
>>>>>>>> The US was quite happey to let Saddam "run arounds the place"
>>>>>>>> for twenty years, without finding him any particular problem
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thats a distortion of reality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He was always a problem. But he was a lesser evil that needed to
>>>>>>> be kept on side while other conflicts on the worldstage were
>>>>>>> progressing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quoting history out of context is a complete fraud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excuse my ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are excused.
>>>>
>>>> So could you perhaps answer the question & remove some of my
>>>> ignorance?
>>>
>>> Your question was unnecessary as I had already given the reason.
A reason yes, an answer to my specific question I cannot seem to find.
>> Sorry, I must have missed it. Could you please restate it for me?
>
> Do you want me to wipe your botty for you too ?
Would you?
--
ctc
Motor
> What isn't clear is what they want, assuming they all want the same
> thing anyway.
>
> The time for anti-war protests was before the war, not now.
Which war? The invasion of Iraq, or the next one the Bush/Blair axis
launches. NOTE: I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-warmonger. I fully realise that
there are times when armed force needs to be used responsibly.
> So what do they want, and how was yesterday's march intended to achieve
> it?
To show that they don't support Bush and his actions -- well, that seemed
to be the main theme anyway. I'm sure different people had different
reasons.
Davenalias
"Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> Davenalias wrote:
> > "Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> > news:%Iqvb.773$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> >> Davenalias wrote:
> >>> "Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:nrqvb.759$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> >>>> Davenalias wrote:
> >>>>> "Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:9dqvb.745$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> >>>>>> Davenalias wrote:
> >>>>>>> "mike stone" <mws...@aol.com> wrote in message >
> >>>>>>>> The US was quite happey to let Saddam "run arounds the place"
> >>>>>>>> for twenty years, without finding him any particular problem
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thats a distortion of reality.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> He was always a problem. But he was a lesser evil that needed to
> >>>>>>> be kept on side while other conflicts on the worldstage were
> >>>>>>> progressing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Quoting history out of context is a complete fraud.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Excuse my ignorance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are excused.
> >>>>
> >>>> So could you perhaps answer the question & remove some of my
> >>>> ignorance?
> >>>
> >>> Your question was unnecessary as I had already given the reason.
>
> A reason yes, an answer to my specific question I cannot seem to find.
Need glasses ?
>
> >> Sorry, I must have missed it. Could you please restate it for me?
> >
> > Do you want me to wipe your botty for you too ?
>
> Would you?
And put your mum out of a job...
>
> --
> ctc
>
>
Mark A
>
> can I just say I dont get this, why are we all supposed to hate bush?
You prefer sausage?
Regards
Mark
Radiohead
"Damot" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:podsrvc9tbvkktd09...@4ax.com...
Well it wasn't Sadaam (friend of the West) was it?
Al Quaeda are now more effective than ever, and operating in Iraq where
previously they were not welcome.
All thanks to the USA and UK. Well done!
Crippen
Last nights Newsnight had interviews with several of the protestors, most of
whom were over 50 years of age.
Most of the Anti-war/Anti-bush ppl I know personally are pensioners,
including my parents. Who were both alive during WW2 (with my father being
involved in active fighting, my mother was just 14 when her brother (who's
body was never recovered) was shot down in his Wellington bomber in 1941,
are rather worried as they see many parallels in the actions of George Jr.
Perhaps they've already seen too much war, along with the death & trauma it
brings to all it's victims. Maybe that's why ppl don't like wars, especially
bad & unwarranted ones?
Tbh I'm rather confused by it all, Saddam is/was a very bad man, it's just
there seem to be other similar issues that should be dealt with for the same
stated motives. It leads me to believe that there _is_ a hidden agenda (or
not so hidden www.newamericancentury.org).
That nearly all the motives made for this latest 'war' have been (sadly)
proven false cannot be a good a thing for us in the 'free' western world? I
don't hate Bin-laden because of what he did to the US, rather what his
actions have brought the rest of us in restrictions and additional police
powers.
Bugger, I'm going to hide under the stairs now & never turn the TV on again.
;-|
--
ctc
Davenalias
"Radiohead" <ra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Dhrvb.7054$Vo6.60...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
>
> Al Quaeda are now more effective than ever, and operating in Iraq where
> previously they were not welcome.
Oh yes thats right, thats why they now have to resort to attacking soft
targets in third world countries.
Still dont let the facts get in the way of your fantasies.
Crippen
Just answer the fucking question arsewipe
Davenalias
"Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
I already did.
Crippen
No you didn't, the question is: _Who placed Saddam in to power?_
Your only comment in this thread, other than those niggling at me, was; "He
was always a problem. But he was a lesser evil that needed to be kept on
side while other conflicts on the worldstage were progressing."
Which in no way answers the question stated above. I just want you to say
who it was, I'm not going to make anything of it otherwise, nor make petty
jibes regarding your age.
(Jeez, & ppl complain about wasted bandwidth!).
--
ctc
"Arguing on the internet is like running in the special Olympics, even if
you win you're still retarded."
Davenalias
"Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> No you didn't, the question is: _Who placed Saddam in to power?_
>
You seem to have your own ideas as to who put Saddam in power, so you tell
me, provide the evidence to back up your theories and give your answer in
its correct historical and political context. And please no conspiracy
websites.
Damot
What relevance is the question?
Damot
<SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote:
><SNIP>
>That nearly all the motives made for this latest 'war' have been (sadly)
>proven false cannot be a good a thing for us in the 'free' western world? I
>don't hate Bin-laden because of what he did to the US, rather what his
>actions have brought the rest of us in restrictions and additional police
>powers.
"I don't hate Bin-laden because of what he did to the US"
I think you've just shown your true colours.
Crippen
As I've stated & you've accepted, I don't actually know. So please just tell
me? AFAIK the US did. Is that incorrect?
Just seeking some real, proper, valid facts, something in tragically short
supply in this particular world event. Is it okay to ask that?
--
ctc
Radiohead
"Davenalias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bplflv$1pjb57$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
Lol, twat. Ignorance is bliss eh?
They're not 'resorting' to anything, they're doing what they've always done,
except on a bigger scale and with more support.
Steven X Brown
Davenalias
"Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> Davenalias wrote:
> > "Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> > news:SArvb.826$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> >
> >> No you didn't, the question is: _Who placed Saddam in to power?_
> >>
> >
> > You seem to have your own ideas as to who put Saddam in power, so you
> > tell me, provide the evidence to back up your theories and give
> > your answer in its correct historical and political context. And
> > please no conspiracy websites.
>
> As I've stated & you've accepted, I don't actually know. So please just
tell
> me? AFAIK the US did. Is that incorrect?
I make no claim either way. but if you suggest the US did put Saddam in
power then you should as I say:- provide the evidence to back up your
theories and give your answer in its correct historical and political
context. And please no conspiracy websites
>
> Just seeking some real, proper, valid facts, something in tragically short
> supply in this particular world event. Is it okay to ask that?
Poor baby...
Davenalias
>
>
> They're not 'resorting' to anything, they're doing what they've always
done,
> except on a bigger scale and with more support.
First of all, 911 happened before Afghanistan and Iraq so that blows your
cause and effect theory out, and secondly since 911 the attacks by AQ and
their sympathisers have become more and more desperate, attacking soft
targets in third world countries. Sorry it doesnt fit in with your self
abuse fantasies but thats life.
Damot
wrote:
So we don't want them getting WMD then do we? So we must not take
*any* chances should we? Duh!
Damot
<davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:3Xrvb.845$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>> Davenalias wrote:
>> > "Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
>> > news:SArvb.826$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>> >
>> >> No you didn't, the question is: _Who placed Saddam in to power?_
>> >>
>> >
>> > You seem to have your own ideas as to who put Saddam in power, so you
>> > tell me, provide the evidence to back up your theories and give
>> > your answer in its correct historical and political context. And
>> > please no conspiracy websites.
>>
>> As I've stated & you've accepted, I don't actually know. So please just
>tell
>> me? AFAIK the US did. Is that incorrect?
>
>I make no claim either way. but if you suggest the US did put Saddam in
>power then you should as I say:- provide the evidence to back up your
>theories and give your answer in its correct historical and political
>context. And please no conspiracy websites
>
>>
>> Just seeking some real, proper, valid facts, something in tragically short
>> supply in this particular world event. Is it okay to ask that?
>
>Poor baby...
I wouldn't bother continuing this thread. The answer to the question
he seeks is totally irrelevant anyway. He'll be suggesting we fight
Germany next because we were once at war with them.
Major ChrisB
"Mark A" <m.annett...@rbgkew.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3FBE39...@rbgkew.org.uk...
> Major ChrisB wrote:
> >
> > can I just say I dont get this, why are we all supposed to hate bush?
>
> You prefer sausage?
>
funny...but seriously, I dont get why everyones so against blair meeting
with bush....I'd much rather they spend £5 million improving relations with
the USA than spend the billions they spend every year trying to cuddle up to
socialist europe.
Crippen
> "Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:3Xrvb.845$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>> Davenalias wrote:
>>> "Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
>>> news:SArvb.826$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
>>>
>>>> No you didn't, the question is: _Who placed Saddam in to power?_
>>>>
>>>
>>> You seem to have your own ideas as to who put Saddam in power, so
>>> you tell me, provide the evidence to back up your theories and
>>> give your answer in its correct historical and political context.
>>> And please no conspiracy websites.
>>
>> As I've stated & you've accepted, I don't actually know. So please
>> just tell me? AFAIK the US did. Is that incorrect?
>
> I make no claim either way. but if you suggest the US did put Saddam
> in power then you should as I say:- provide the evidence to back up
> your theories and give your answer in its correct historical and
> political context. And please no conspiracy websites
>
>>
>> Just seeking some real, proper, valid facts, something in tragically
>> short supply in this particular world event. Is it okay to ask that?
>
> Poor baby...
Answer my question then? Did he obtain power through accepted mechanisms?
Was he a leader of some revolutionary group? I don't 'honestly' know, but
if you/I type it into google the answers are, as you rightly suggest, open
to all sorts of political agenda. If I'm wrong then so be it. I'd just like
some truth. Is it such a bad thing to ask?
--
ctc
Crippen
Indeed, your are totally correct. I am the mad Islamic bomber.
Actually I'm not, I despise all violent conflict, especially those carried
out against innocents. Obviously my views will not stop these current acts
of violence being carried out. The point being, for what reasons is this
'war' really occurring? If the US wanted to strike at the perpetrators of
the WTC event, I doubt if attacking Iraq was the right place to start.
Cough-Saudi-cough?
I'm not a follower of Islam so I cannot speak for them nor their motives.
And, despite how it may appear, I don't wish to argue issues debated all
over Usenet & the WWW daily. But the sad events of that day effect all of us
in the UK, whether we wanted it to occur or otherwise. And it's certainly
not for the betterment of us UK subjects, or is it?
I never said I approved of the acts against the US either. So I apologise
for being vague in my previous post. Sorry, I should have been more
definitive.
--
ctc
Crippen
& they are?
mike stone
>
>The time for anti-war protests was before the war, not now.
The time for anti-war proteests is _all_ the time, until the idiots who began
the war (or their successors) call it off
>Presumably they don't want us to just up and leave because
>that would trigger a blood-bath.
You will have to up and leave _some_ day - and when you do there will be a
"blood-bath" of some kind whether you do it ten days from now or ten years.
That is not in your power to prevent. Indeed the longer you stay the bigger the
eventual reckoning will be, since there will have been time for more Iraqis to
compromise themselves by collaborating with the invader, so putting themselves
on the death list when their patrons finally leave
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
Call nothing true until it has been officially denied
matt
> unwarranted mass-hysteria on our streets.
>
> Nobody likes war. But if WWI and II hadn't happened, and Hitler was given
> free reign over Europe, where would we be now? The point being, sometimes
> war is the only option remaining, after all else fails.
>
'em
> for that matter). Instead they give hours of airtime to clueless
> do-gooders on the streets, who between them have never been able to
suggest
> a viable alternative to war.
>
uncalled
> for and tasteless if you ask me. Especially in the light of recent events
> (terror attacks). I'm not "pro-Bush" or "pro-War" by any means, but I
can
> at least appreciate that the alternatives are far, far worse. What would
> the protestors have us do, sit back and let the Saddams and Bin Ladens of
> this world run around the place unchallenged?
>
> I am sure many people out there find this as sickening as I did, but the
TV
> news coverage has totally failed to reflect this. A few thousand people
> marching around with placcards makes much more exciting television, I
> suppose.
>
If people just sit back and do nothing then more illegal and immoral wars
will follow.
Damot
Relevance?
Radiohead
Lol, how old are you?
You must be the last man standing who still believes there were WMDs in
Iraq.
Anyway, how can it be a good idea for your beloved Americans to pursue a
course of action which guarantees increased support for Al Qaeda?
Crippen
I just wanted to know, I feel as though I've been fed shite from _all &
every_ side. Newsnight told me that the US had put him into power, it
severely effects my views & opinions of current events. If 'we' knew the
real truth then we could form a more informed (sorry) opinion of recent
events.
As I've stated in another post I hate all conflict as I've seen what it does
to the survivors. I just wanted a smidgen of truth from those who maybe/are
better informed, especially from this, rather better than the rest, NG. The
moral seems to be a 'don't even ask cos we'll just take the piss'. A bad day
for questions, however stupid they seem, I fear.
--
ctc
"The only wrong question is the one you never ask."
Davenalias
"matt" <fa...@fake.net> wrote in message
news:pNsvb.11404$lm1....@wards.force9.net...
Do you think it 'moral' to leave Saddam in power ?
Damot
wrote:
>
>"Damot" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>news:d6ksrv04h4hulgq2g...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:30:00 GMT, "Radiohead" <ra...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Davenalias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:bplflv$1pjb57$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> >>
>> >> "Radiohead" <ra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:Dhrvb.7054$Vo6.60...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Al Quaeda are now more effective than ever, and operating in Iraq
>where
>> >> > previously they were not welcome.
>> >>
>> >> Oh yes thats right, thats why they now have to resort to attacking soft
>> >> targets in third world countries.
>> >>
>> >> Still dont let the facts get in the way of your fantasies.
>> >
>> >Lol, twat. Ignorance is bliss eh?
>> >
>> >They're not 'resorting' to anything, they're doing what they've always
>done,
>> >except on a bigger scale and with more support.
>> >
>>
>> So we don't want them getting WMD then do we? So we must not take
>> *any* chances should we? Duh!
>
>Lol, how old are you?
Guess you didn't understand my last sentence then. Read it again.
>
>You must be the last man standing who still believes there were WMDs in
>Iraq.
>
>Anyway, how can it be a good idea for your beloved Americans to pursue a
>course of action which guarantees increased support for Al Qaeda?
Question. Can Iraq continue it's weapon programs now?.
You really should try and look at the bigger picture. Al Qaeda
attacked the US and continues to attack the west. When they get WMD
they will attack again.
Tom
terms precisely what they would prefer the civilised world to do about Al
Quaeda?
Col
>
> Do you think it 'moral' to leave Saddam in power ?
>
Do you think it 'moral' to leave Mugabe in power ?
Col
--
I just know that something good is gonna happen.
Damot
Fair enough. I just didn't see the relevence thats all. There is
nothing unusual about countries changing alliances, history is full of
that.
I don't know much about the history of Iraq, but I do know I
considered him a risk. North Korea and Iran are also a concern but
hopefully they too will realise the risks in developing WMD.
I fear for anyone who has children. I'm glad I never plan to have any
because I think within the next 10 years we're going to see some major
dealth and destruction in the world.
Oh well, lets let the cockroaches have a go!
Davenalias
"Col" <Reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bplo30$1qhr1v$1...@ID-120826.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Davenalias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bplmgh$1l8qk2$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > Do you think it 'moral' to leave Saddam in power ?
> >
>
> Do you think it 'moral' to leave Mugabe in power ?
No, do you ?
Lee J. Moore
//
> I don't know much about the history of Iraq,
We were blessed with the place for quite a while. Queeny herself visited
Baghdad.
> but I do know I
> considered him a risk.
To you personally?
> North Korea and Iran are also a concern but
> hopefully they too will realise the risks in developing WMD.
And we'd have been more justified in invading NK and Iran because there's
more solid evidence (in fact, declarations) from both. I still don't
understand why the US hasn't invaded North Korea considering their reasons
for invading Iraq.
There was nothing but denial about WMD from Iraq and we seem to have backed
up their claims very nicely ourselves. The best excuse for the war *now*
is that we've toppled a vicious regime, but that wasn't the main aim for
going to war. It was WMD, and oh dear, it turns out there isn't any.
If there /is/ going to be war, let's at least go on more than guesswork, if
only so it doesn't look like we're finishing somebody's Dad's job off.
> I fear for anyone who has children. I'm glad I never plan to have any
> because I think within the next 10 years we're going to see some major
> dealth and destruction in the world.
There's nothing new about this feeling. It has been beheld not only by most
people, but by our own government - in very recent history. All of those
big thick-walled schools with extra-wide corridors were built for more than
just education. They're designed to double as hospitals in the event of a
nuclear attack.
Cold wars are as easily replaced as any other. And there is something very
cold about this 'war on terrorism'. When you don't know who your enemy is
(and the big picture amounts to far more than Osama Bin Laden), it's very
easy for those in charge to implement all kinds of Big Brother tactics, and
(shock horror) mislead the public about what they're doing.
--
Lee J. Moore
http://cafe-society.com
Damot
wrote:
>
>"Davenalias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bplmgh$1l8qk2$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
>> Do you think it 'moral' to leave Saddam in power ?
>>
>
> Do you think it 'moral' to leave Mugabe in power ?
No. We should remove him as well.
Crippen
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:45:37 -0000, "Crippen"
> <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>> Damot wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:07:15 -0000, "Crippen"
>>> <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote:
>>>
<some snippage>
>>>>
>>>> Answer my question then? Did he obtain power through accepted
>>>> mechanisms? Was he a leader of some revolutionary group? I don't
>>>> 'honestly' know, but if you/I type it into google the answers are,
>>>> as you rightly suggest, open to all sorts of political agenda. If
>>>> I'm wrong then so be it. I'd just like some truth. Is it such a bad
>>>> thing to ask?
>>>
>>> Relevance?
>>
>> I just wanted to know, I feel as though I've been fed shite from
>> _all & every_ side. Newsnight told me that the US had put him into
>> power, it severely effects my views & opinions of current events. If
>> 'we' knew the real truth then we could form a more informed (sorry)
>> opinion of recent events.
>>
>> As I've stated in another post I hate all conflict as I've seen what
>> it does to the survivors. I just wanted a smidgen of truth from
>> those who maybe/are better informed, especially from this, rather
>> better than the rest, NG. The moral seems to be a 'don't even ask
>> cos we'll just take the piss'. A bad day for questions, however
>> stupid they seem, I fear.
>
> Fair enough. I just didn't see the relevence thats all. There is
> nothing unusual about countries changing alliances, history is full of
> that.
It was relevant to me. Ppl can change views too & I was beginning to become
disturbed by my own views of the issues. And still am (are?).
> I don't know much about the history of Iraq, but I do know I
> considered him a risk. North Korea and Iran are also a concern but
> hopefully they too will realise the risks in developing WMD.
>
> I fear for anyone who has children. I'm glad I never plan to have any
> because I think within the next 10 years we're going to see some major
> dealth and destruction in the world.
>
> Oh well, lets let the cockroaches have a go!
If Dr. Rips is to be believed... I'm still in preparation for any
apocalypse, just need a human pancreas/month.
--
ctc
Crippen
Stop antagonising them?
<still being ignorant>
--
ctc
Crippen
> "Davenalias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bplmgh$1l8qk2$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
>> Do you think it 'moral' to leave Saddam in power ?
>>
>
> Do you think it 'moral' to leave Mugabe in power ?
>
> Col
<applause>
--
ctc
Davenalias
"Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
What are you applausing for you donut ?
Damot
<l...@cafe-society.com> wrote:
>Damot wrote:
>//
>> I don't know much about the history of Iraq,
>
>We were blessed with the place for quite a while. Queeny herself visited
>Baghdad.
Really. Didn't know she had.
>
>> but I do know I
>> considered him a risk.
>
>To you personally?
To everyone I meant. :-)
>
>> North Korea and Iran are also a concern but
>> hopefully they too will realise the risks in developing WMD.
>
>And we'd have been more justified in invading NK and Iran because there's
>more solid evidence (in fact, declarations) from both. I still don't
>understand why the US hasn't invaded North Korea considering their reasons
>for invading Iraq.
They may still. But there is no need as long as they're co-operating.
Iraq wasn't. It had thousands of people involved in "fooling" the
inspectors. Strange if they didn't have anything to hide.
>
>There was nothing but denial about WMD from Iraq and we seem to have backed
>up their claims very nicely ourselves. The best excuse for the war *now*
>is that we've toppled a vicious regime, but that wasn't the main aim for
>going to war. It was WMD, and oh dear, it turns out there isn't any.
Not yet. But they have evidence of a weapon's program. So in the long
run it is better to have removed him now.
>
>If there /is/ going to be war, let's at least go on more than guesswork, if
>only so it doesn't look like we're finishing somebody's Dad's job off.
>
>> I fear for anyone who has children. I'm glad I never plan to have any
>> because I think within the next 10 years we're going to see some major
>> dealth and destruction in the world.
>
>There's nothing new about this feeling. It has been beheld not only by most
>people, but by our own government - in very recent history. All of those
>big thick-walled schools with extra-wide corridors were built for more than
>just education. They're designed to double as hospitals in the event of a
>nuclear attack.
>
>Cold wars are as easily replaced as any other. And there is something very
>cold about this 'war on terrorism'. When you don't know who your enemy is
>(and the big picture amounts to far more than Osama Bin Laden), it's very
>easy for those in charge to implement all kinds of Big Brother tactics, and
>(shock horror) mislead the public about what they're doing.
Very true I suppose (I hate kids anyway :-) ).
But I consider the future very very different from any kind of cold
war with Russia.
With the cold war, the east and west had an understanding of MAD,
Mutually Assured Destruction. Both sides realised that a war would
destroy as all. These Islamic madman think they're going to paradise.
So they will not hesitate at taking a few million people with them.
Davenalias
Still waiting to know if you think it moral to leave Saddam or Mugabe in
power...
Come on please do tell.
Richard Brooks
> Not since the death of Princess Diana have we seen such distasteful
> and unwarranted mass-hysteria on our streets.
>
> Nobody likes war. But if WWI and II hadn't happened, and Hitler was
> given free reign over Europe, where would we be now? The point
> being, sometimes war is the only option remaining, after all else
> fails.
Look, USA had to do this to see if Viet Nam was a fluke!
They saw us do Ireland and thought that they'd go for a longer and
bigger number.
Richard.
Damot
9-11 ?
Davenalias
"Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
> Tom wrote:
> > Perhaps one of the protesters could explain in clear, concise and
> > unemotional terms precisely what they would prefer the civilised
> > world to do about Al Quaeda?
>
> Stop antagonising them?
You really are a complete moron.
Col
>
> "Davenalias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bplopa$1q4f58$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Col" <Reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:bplo30$1qhr1v$1...@ID-120826.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> >
> > No, do you ?
>
> Still waiting to know if you think it moral to leave Saddam or Mugabe in
> power...
>
> Come on please do tell.
Huh?!
Give me a chance, it's been less than an hour since you asked me!
Crippen
& you're a blinkered, naive fool.
Tim Gowen
> Tom wrote:
>> Perhaps one of the protesters could explain in clear, concise and
>> unemotional terms precisely what they would prefer the civilised
>> world to do about Al Quaeda?
>
> Stop antagonising them?
The problem is, the very existence of non-Muslims will upset a certain
cell of Islam. It's the equivalent of the loony Christian fringe which
believes that Bush has God's mandate to protect the state of Israel.
Religious lunacy on both sides is a fundamental problem.
As for the protesters, well if they want to get politically engaged then
they need to go about it correctly. If they're marching against Bush
then that's fine, but if they're marching against America then they
didn't ought to be wearing Gap, drinking Coke, or eating McDonalds. I
realise that these protests aren't anti-America per se, but it'd be a
shame if they're just marching because they don't like Bush because the
Western way of life is exemplified by America in the minds of a lot of
people...
This problem started before Bush and will go on for a long time after
he's gone. Toppling a statue of him was a stupid move because anyone
who did that in Iraq when Saddam was in power would have been shot - and
people need to remember that. Meanwhile, the prospect of mass protest
was so hyped up before the visit happened that the result was a
successful visit - because nothing happened here. Unfortunately it all
happened in Turkey.
Tim
--
Tim Gowen
Lee J. Moore
//
>>And we'd have been more justified in invading NK and Iran because there's
>>more solid evidence (in fact, declarations) from both. I still don't
>>understand why the US hasn't invaded North Korea considering their reasons
>>for invading Iraq.
>
> They may still.
Who said?
> But there is no need as long as they're co-operating.
> Iraq wasn't. It had thousands of people involved in "fooling" the
> inspectors. Strange if they didn't have anything to hide.
Indeed. Strange we had evidence of these evasive tactics if they had
nothing to hide. Of course, one dissenting weapons inspector wasn't too
happy and bumped himself off when the MoD hung him out for the vultures; oh
but hang on, he was a bit of a Walter Mitty character wasn't he? A bit
mad.
//
>> It was WMD, and oh dear, it turns out there isn't any.
>
> Not yet. But they have evidence of a weapon's program. So in the long
> run it is better to have removed him now.
Under a false pretext? No it's not. There was no imminent danger, they
could've taken their time, but chose not too, and went against the UN by
acting so soon.
What has arisen since, completely justifies the UNs position and gives that
nation you detest so much all the excuses it needs to say "told you so!"
//
> Very true I suppose (I hate kids anyway :-) ).
>
> But I consider the future very very different from any kind of cold
> war with Russia.
Russia had/has a much larger and more destructive nuclear arsenal than all
current terrorist organisations put together. In fact, Russian technology
(everything from biological material to SAMs, radioactive material and
nuclear weapons) are the basis of worst case scenarios today. Why is the
future so much different when the WMD are the very same ones which were a
threat during the Cold War?
> With the cold war, the east and west had an understanding of MAD,
> Mutually Assured Destruction. Both sides realised that a war would
> destroy as all. These Islamic madman think they're going to paradise.
>
> So they will not hesitate at taking a few million people with them.
MAD was always a good euphemism for the word mad, because it relied on
things like perfect detection, no false positives, no possibility of
camoflauging an attack, no alternate means of delivery other than missile,
etc.
What you're seeing with the WMD situation now is the fallout of MAD. It's
not wise to create more and more nuclear weapons because you "have an
understanding of MAD" if there's a risk of imperfect rationality: rogue
breakaway states, rogue commanders, etc. getting hold of the weapons.
Exactly what has happened.
MAD *is* mad and certainly no justification for considering the world safer
12+ years ago.
Davenalias
Still evading the question I see...
Col
>
> "Col" <Reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:bplsbb$1oj19s$1...@ID-120826.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Davenalias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > >
> > > power...
> > >
> > > Come on please do tell.
> >
> > Huh?!
> >
> > Give me a chance, it's been less than an hour since you asked me!
> >
>
> Still evading the question I see...
LOL!
You were just poised waiting for me to reply weren't you?
Col - Yes, I know I was too :)
Davenalias
"Crippen" <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote in message
Tell me Crippen, do you believe in democracy, free speech, freedom to
practise the religion of your choice, equal rights to men and women ?
Bin laden is antagonised by all of the above, do you suggest we give that
all up to appease him ?
Davenalias
>
> "Davenalias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bplshc$1qhjeq$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Col" <Reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:bplsbb$1oj19s$1...@ID-120826.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Davenalias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > Still waiting to know if you think it moral to leave Saddam or
Mugabe in
> > > > power...
> > > >
> > > > Come on please do tell.
> > >
> > > Huh?!
> > >
> > > Give me a chance, it's been less than an hour since you asked me!
> > >
> >
> > Still evading the question I see...
>
> LOL!
>
> You were just poised waiting for me to reply weren't you?
Well done Col, you have succesfully shown that your stance is morally
bankrupt.
Unless of course you do think Mugabe should be kicked out, in which case you
are merely a hypocrite. Hmm, touch choice no wonder you cant bring yourself
to answer the question.... HAHA!!
Col
>
> "Col" <Reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:bplsm7$1pt0a9$1...@ID-120826.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >
> > You were just poised waiting for me to reply weren't you?
>
> Well done Col, you have succesfully shown that your stance is morally
> bankrupt.
>
Oh come on, can't you tell I was just having a bit of a laugh there?
But fair enough, I think it's about time I seriously answered your question.
Mugabe is a brutal dictator. I think we can both agree on that.
However the question as to whether it is 'moral' that we leave him in
power is a complex one. Who decides what is 'moral' anyway?
The US? and because they have by far the most military might, what
they consider to be 'moral' goes?
We cannot simply go waltzing into other people's countries simply
because we (The West) do not like their governments, no matter how
objectionable they might be. Supposing France decided to invade the
UK because they didn't like Blair's stance on Iraq?
Most of the regimes in Africa are pretty nasty in one way or another but
we do not suggest invading all those. At the end of the day it is up to
the people in those countries to make their own way in the world. Though
of course the West should give them every encouragement in the move
toward democracy.
Action like the US has taken in Iraq is only justified if there is a clear and
present and imminent danger. I supported the war in Afganistan because
it was known that the Taliban were sheltering Al-Quaeda. Al-Quaeda
attacked the US. The US attack them. A justifiable war.
Iraq is completely different. No WMD's have been found, let alone the
45 mins to impact ones. Iraq was greatly weakened after the first Gulf War.
They were barely a threat to Israel, let alone the US.
Bush may have gone in for several reasons, oil, protecting Israel or even
sorting out Daddy's unfinished business but it was certainly *not* for the
moral reasons of liberating the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator.
Otherwise, why have they not subsequently sorted out Mugabe and all the
other nasty dictators in the world?
So finally in answer to your question, I think it is 'moral' to do everything
we can short of direct militat intervention to remove Mugabe from power.
Do you think we should invade Zimbabwe?
Col
Izo Mezzo
what I was and then Damot spoke and this is what they said to me.......
>I don't know much about the history of Iraq, but I do know I
>considered him a risk. North Korea and Iran are also a concern but
>hopefully they too will realise the risks in developing WMD.
>
>I fear for anyone who has children. I'm glad I never plan to have any
>because I think within the next 10 years we're going to see some major
>dealth and destruction in the world.
How about 4 million dead in the Congo.
--
Izo
"I can say, and I am responsible for what
I am saying, that they have started to commit
suicide under the walls of Baghdad.
We will encourage them to commit more
suicides quickly."
- Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf,
Iraqi Minister of Information
Izo Mezzo
>Not since the death of Princess Diana have we seen such distasteful and
>unwarranted mass-hysteria on our streets.
I think you're exaggerating a bit.
>
>Nobody likes war. But if WWI and II hadn't happened, and Hitler was given
>free reign over Europe, where would we be now? The point being, sometimes
>war is the only option remaining, after all else fails.
Sometimes there is, yes. Do you think the latest Iraq war was one of
them? I don't. Comparing WW1+2 to the Iraq war is ludicrous.
>
>I would have expected a more balanced view from the BBC (and the rest of 'em
>for that matter). Instead they give hours of airtime to clueless
>do-gooders on the streets, who between them have never been able to suggest
>a viable alternative to war.
>
>Burning the USA flag? toppling a fake statue of Bush? All totally uncalled
>for and tasteless if you ask me. Especially in the light of recent events
>(terror attacks). I'm not "pro-Bush" or "pro-War" by any means, but I can
>at least appreciate that the alternatives are far, far worse. What would
>the protestors have us do, sit back and let the Saddams and Bin Ladens of
>this world run around the place unchallenged?
I didn't much like the burning of the US flag either, but I'm fine with
toppling a fake statue of Bush. Bush should be the target of the
protest, not the US. Plenty of Americans hate Bush as much as those
protesters.
As for Saddam and Bin Laden, neither have been caught and still seem to
be causing much trouble, you have to ask yourself if Bush & Blair have
made things worse, never mind any better.
>
>I am sure many people out there find this as sickening as I did, but the TV
>news coverage has totally failed to reflect this. A few thousand people
>marching around with placcards makes much more exciting television, I
>suppose.
100,000 (or 200,000 if you believe the organisers rather than the
police) is a fair few people if you ask me.
Izo Mezzo
>
>You wait until the next big "911" happens. They'll be jumping up and
>down blaming the war. These idiots forget who started all this.
None of them were Iraqi or Afghani. Explain that.
Izo Mezzo
me.......
>Damot wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:49:28 -0000, "Crippen"
>> <SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>> That nearly all the motives made for this latest 'war' have been
>>> (sadly) proven false cannot be a good a thing for us in the 'free'
>>> western world? I don't hate Bin-laden because of what he did to the
>>> US, rather what his actions have brought the rest of us in
>>> restrictions and additional police powers.
>>
>>
>>
>> "I don't hate Bin-laden because of what he did to the US"
>>
>> I think you've just shown your true colours.
>
>Indeed, your are totally correct. I am the mad Islamic bomber.
>
>Actually I'm not, I despise all violent conflict, especially those carried
>out against innocents. Obviously my views will not stop these current acts
>of violence being carried out. The point being, for what reasons is this
>'war' really occurring? If the US wanted to strike at the perpetrators of
>the WTC event, I doubt if attacking Iraq was the right place to start.
>Cough-Saudi-cough?
They started in Afghanistan. Didn't make the slightest difference to
terrorism by the looks of it. Got rid of the Taliban though, although
some papers are saying they are re-emerging there too.
Izo Mezzo
me.......
>And if they hope Tony Blair can moderate future American
>actions, then alienating Bush - and his supporters back home
>watching television news reports - is plainly counterproductive.
>
They won't show those protests on US news.
Davenalias
>
> "Davenalias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bplt8l$1pl0ve$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Col" <Reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:bplsm7$1pt0a9$1...@ID-120826.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> So finally in answer to your question, I think it is 'moral' to do
everything
> we can short of direct militat intervention to remove Mugabe from power.
Without military intervention Mugabe will stay where he is and thousands of
people will continue to be starved, intimidated, tortured, maimed, and
killed.
Just how many people need to die before you think intervention is moral ?
Col
>
> "Col" <Reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:bplv0o$1pu4qv$1...@ID-120826.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> everything
> > we can short of direct militat intervention to remove Mugabe from power.
>
> Without military intervention Mugabe will stay where he is and thousands of
> people will continue to be starved, intimidated, tortured, maimed, and
> killed.
>
> Just how many people need to die before you think intervention is moral ?
So you think we should invade Zimbabwe and 'liberate' them?
Fair enough. What about Nigeria, they've got a pretty nasty Moslem
fundamentalist regime there, and they've got oil, too :)
There's still a civil war going on in Sudan, so let's get them as well.
Can you imagine the carnage in Africa if Western powers decided to
invade every country whose regime they didn't like the look of?
And moving further afield...........
What about Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy with a particularly
woeful human rights record. But wait a minute, the US needs their
support in the Middle East.
And good old Israel with their treatment of the Palestinians.
But mention 'Jewish lobby' and nuff said.
There are human rights abuses in Turkey, but they are a key ally
in the Moslem world and in a strategic position, so we will draw a
veil over that.
There are human rights abuses in China, but they are a nuclear
power and much too strong for the US to take on without those
pesky bodybags coming back home. Besides, they want their trade.
What I am trying to say here is that countries tend to act in a
manner that preserves their own interests rather than in a purely
alturistic sense of what is 'morally' right, even if they tend to dress
it up as such. And it's not just the US that behaves in this manner.
All countries do so, to a greater or lesser degree.
The world is a messy place. Nobody holds an absolute moral high
ground over another and even if somebody appears to be acting
selflessly, there will probably be some kind of self-interest behind it.
There are no goodies and baddies, just different shades of grey.
Mushu
"Izo Mezzo" <I...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cmYSMwFVznv$Ew...@enqvburnqvfnphag.com...
Quite happy to negotiate regarding the oil-pipeline with the Taliban
though - they weren't so bad then maybe? I know it's comforting to think
that you can still believe that everything's okay, your life's not going to
have to change, that the President of the dominant nation in the world isn't
blatantly lying through his teeth to everyone, etc. It's far more difficult
to open your eyes and see beyond the spin and the utter contempt in which
the leaders of our two countries treat us. I admire the people that
protested - their aim wasn't to stop the war, it was to show the rest of
this country that they weren't alone in their disapproval of the motives of
this President. The effigy and burning of US flags was pathetic though and
destroyed the reason for them being there in the first place - a bad move.
Jo
Steven X Brown
> Steven X Brown wrote:
>
>>Damot wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:49:28 -0000, "Crippen"
>>><SPAMc...@SPAMntlworldSPAM.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>><SNIP>
>>>>That nearly all the motives made for this latest 'war' have been
>>>>(sadly) proven false cannot be a good a thing for us in the 'free'
>>>>western world? I don't hate Bin-laden because of what he did to the
>>>>US, rather what his actions have brought the rest of us in
>>>>restrictions and additional police powers.
>>>
>>>"I don't hate Bin-laden because of what he did to the US"
>>>
>>>I think you've just shown your true colours.
>>
>>He has indeed.
>
> & they are?
"I don't hate Bin-laden because of what he did to the US" says it
all doesn't it?
--
Steven X Brown
http://www.vomit.com/foo.html
Izo Mezzo
>>
>
>Quite happy to negotiate regarding the oil-pipeline with the Taliban
>though - they weren't so bad then maybe?
True, but you could say that about France building Iraq a nuclear power
plant, Britain selling Hawk jets to Mugabe, Indonesia etc. In fact
Britain is the second largest arms exporter in the world.
>I know it's comforting to think
>that you can still believe that everything's okay, your life's not going to
>have to change, that the President of the dominant nation in the world isn't
>blatantly lying through his teeth to everyone, etc. It's far more difficult
>to open your eyes and see beyond the spin and the utter contempt in which
>the leaders of our two countries treat us.
I'm perfectly aware of the bullshit being spread around and have a read
a fair few books on Bush and Blair and their dealings. I'm sure you
didn't mean that to sound quite so patronising.
> I admire the people that
>protested - their aim wasn't to stop the war, it was to show the rest of
>this country that they weren't alone in their disapproval of the motives of
>this President. The effigy and burning of US flags was pathetic though and
>destroyed the reason for them being there in the first place - a bad move.
I think you read something into what I said that wasn't there. I never
said I approved of either war or Bush, just that the Taliban had been
removed, which is (or was) true. The motives don't change the outcome of
the war, no matter how dodgy they are. I agree about the flag burning
and I'm not sure about the effigy being pulled, at first I wasn't too
fussed but thinking about it, the original Saddam statue toppling was
pretty much a contrived PR stunt anyway. But there's always people who
take things too far and it always makes the news for exactly that
reason.
Davenalias
>
> "Davenalias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bpm2s6$1q3455$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Col" <Reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:bplv0o$1pu4qv$1...@ID-120826.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > > So finally in answer to your question, I think it is 'moral' to do
> > everything
> > > we can short of direct militat intervention to remove Mugabe from
power.
> >
> > Without military intervention Mugabe will stay where he is and thousands
of
> > people will continue to be starved, intimidated, tortured, maimed, and
> > killed.
> >
> > Just how many people need to die before you think intervention is moral
?
>
> So you think we should invade Zimbabwe and 'liberate' them?
I certainly think there is a moral case for overthrowing vicious and brutal
dictators. It doesnt matter how many brutal regimes and dictators you list
it does not diminish the morality of the action taken against the one or the
few.
Mushu
any of the points you made, rather an addition to the comments you made. I
in no way meant to sound patronising to you and didn't disagree with a word
you said.
Apologies if this wasn't clear.
Jo
Col
>
> They started in Afghanistan. Didn't make the slightest difference to
> terrorism by the looks of it. Got rid of the Taliban though, although
> some papers are saying they are re-emerging there too.
How on earth do you know?
We will never know how many terrorist attacks were thwarted because
of the US attacks on Afganistan. The attacks clearly cannot have helped
Al-Quada and by disrupting their power base can reasonably be assumed
to have hindered them, at least in the short term.
mick
Izo Mezzo wrote:
> Meanwhile lurking by a stone in the mud, two eyes looked to see
> what I was and then NoSpamThanks spoke and this is what they said to
> me.......
>
>
>> And if they hope Tony Blair can moderate future American
>> actions, then alienating Bush - and his supporters back home
>> watching television news reports - is plainly counterproductive.
>>
>
> They won't show those protests on US news.
They have.
mick
Col
>
> "Col" <Reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:bpm67g$1ojqu6$1...@ID-120826.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > So you think we should invade Zimbabwe and 'liberate' them?
>
> I certainly think there is a moral case for overthrowing vicious and brutal
> dictators. It doesnt matter how many brutal regimes and dictators you list
> it does not diminish the morality of the action taken against the one or the
> few.
Do you think we should invade China?
Kurious Oranj
owen wrote:
> Not since the death of Princess Diana have we seen such distasteful and
> unwarranted mass-hysteria on our streets.
>
Hardly the same thing. One was people getting upset over the death of a
celebrity as though it were a member of their family (people would
rather live by following someone else's life). The other is a matter of
gravest concern.
Even if I disagreed with the protestors, I'm glad they are doing what
they are doing. I didn't agree with the May Day marchers but they help
me think about politics.
> Nobody likes war. But if WWI and II hadn't happened, and Hitler was given
> free reign over Europe, where would we be now? The point being, sometimes
> war is the only option remaining, after all else fails.
>
So, all wars are justified because WW2 was a justifiable war. I could
just as easily say, all wars are a terrible waste of life, look at Vietnam.
We don't always fight in the name of right. Thankfully, Churchill was
right and most people were wrong. But just because Blair had a minority
backing, doesn't automatically mean he was right.
Hitler and Saddam are in no way the same thing. After gulf war 1, how
many countries has Saddam Hussein attacked? None. Is there any hard
evidence of him supporting terrorism to a major extent? No. Does he have
WMDs? No.
The Hitler situation was that his power was unchecked. We allowed him to
put troops in the Rhine against the ceasefire agreement, annex Austria
and large parts of Czechoslovakia, and only took action once he went
into Poland. The parallel would have been "saddam invades Kuwait, west
does nothing. saddam invades syria, west does nothing. saddam invades
Saudi, west attacks".
Anytime anyone tries to draw a Hitler parallel, I always get suspicious.
That is the game Blair has played with to scare them into supporting his
adventure.
> I would have expected a more balanced view from the BBC (and the rest of 'em
> for that matter). Instead they give hours of airtime to clueless
> do-gooders on the streets, who between them have never been able to suggest
> a viable alternative to war.
>
Dead right. They should give support to non-do-gooders - murderers,
thieves etc.
As for a viable alternative, how about giving Blix the time to
investigate (who felt co-operation was moving in the right direction).
How about working through the procedures of the UN?
> Burning the USA flag? toppling a fake statue of Bush? All totally uncalled
> for and tasteless if you ask me. Especially in the light of recent events
> (terror attacks). I'm not "pro-Bush" or "pro-War" by any means, but I can
> at least appreciate that the alternatives are far, far worse. What would
> the protestors have us do, sit back and let the Saddams and Bin Ladens of
> this world run around the place unchallenged?
>
What do you mean "unchallenged"? What had Saddam Hussein done that
warranted an attack, and certainly what had he done to warrant an attack
that wasn't justified 5 minutes after Bush was elected.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who tortured his people. So, if
that justifies war, where's the war on Saudi who use torture? Where's
the war on Equatorial Guinea? Or Zimbabwe?
This is the serious question - why go after one country because of their
oppressive regime whilst propping up others? And how can you trust
people who justify war on such basis?
I don't have a problem with turning over dictators, but when it's not
done across the board, I am suspicious of the motives.
Of course, this war WAS about WMDs. But Bush and Blair have moved off
that into "well, would you rather have him back". Had they used that
argument for the war, they know it would have been considered against
international law, so they used WMDs.
Blair is a crook. Sadly I voted for him believing that he was just a
smokescreen for getting a true labour party elected who would turn him
out once elected. I now realise that Labour have their snouts in the
trough of power, they will do anything to keep hold of it, even if that
means becoming neocon fanatical tories.
> I am sure many people out there find this as sickening as I did, but the TV
> news coverage has totally failed to reflect this. A few thousand people
> marching around with placcards makes much more exciting television, I
> suppose.
>
If people support Bush, get out there with a US flag and show your
support. The fact is there were thousands of people who marched against
him, and not many who were out there for him.
Kurious Oranj
NoSpamThanks wrote:
> "Edward Cowling" <ec015...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:VWpvb.1106$au4...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>>"owen" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:Qvovb.531$Bu3.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>>
>>>I would have expected a more balanced view from the BBC (and the rest of
>>
>>'em
>>
>>>for that matter). Instead they give hours of airtime to clueless
>>>do-gooders on the streets, who between them have never been able to
>>
>>suggest
>>
>>>a viable alternative to war.
>>
>>Don't fall into the mind shutting trap of believing all those
>>who don't share your view of the World are clueless
>>do-gooders.
>>
>
>
> What isn't clear is what they want, assuming they all want
> the same thing anyway.
>
> The time for anti-war protests was before the war, not now.
> Presumably they don't want us to just up and leave because
> that would trigger a blood-bath.
>
How about holding government to account for the complete lack of WMDs found?
> And if they hope Tony Blair can moderate future American
> actions, then alienating Bush - and his supporters back home
> watching television news reports - is plainly counterproductive.
>
That is a really naive attitude... that by Tony Blair being there, he
can influence Bush.
Bush has not done one thing based on anything Blair wanted. Sure, he
went to the UN, and when the UN didn't approve what he wanted, he just
went in anyway. He said he supported the roadmap in the middle east
which was Blair's pet project, and then did nothing to support it. Camp
X-Ray - Blair did what about this? How about steel tariffs? Nope, still
in place.
Kurious Oranj
> destroyed the reason for them being there in the first place - a bad move.
>
toppling of the statue of Saddam.
As for what you said - there's one thing I've learnt. Writing to MPs
generally achieves nothing. Smashing things up and killing people makes
the politicians and media sit up. Sad fact, but true.
Mushu
"Kurious Oranj" <asda...@asdasdad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3fbeaa5b$0$13354$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
Maybe, but it also makes the people that may have believed in your cause
think you're a fanatic and no longer take what you say seriously
unfortunately :-(
Kurious Oranj
Major ChrisB wrote:
> "Mark A" <m.annett...@rbgkew.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:3FBE39...@rbgkew.org.uk...
>
>>Major ChrisB wrote:
>>
>>>can I just say I dont get this, why are we all supposed to hate bush?
>>
>>You prefer sausage?
>>
>
>
> funny...but seriously, I dont get why everyones so against blair meeting
> with bush....I'd much rather they spend £5 million improving relations with
> the USA than spend the billions they spend every year trying to cuddle up to
> socialist europe.
>
Improving relations? As in being fucked over by the Bush administration?
When we've stopped being useful, they'll treat us like shit again. At
least in Europe, we have the chance of working together to create an
economic force as powerful as the US. Britain working outside of that
and sucking up to the US means we all get screwed by them.
Davenalias
No China is way to poweful, a full scale invasion would be too costly in
terms of life loss.
Kurious Oranj
Damot wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:31:12 -0000, "owen" <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Not since the death of Princess Diana have we seen such distasteful and
>>unwarranted mass-hysteria on our streets.
>>
>>Nobody likes war. But if WWI and II hadn't happened, and Hitler was given
>>free reign over Europe, where would we be now? The point being, sometimes
>>war is the only option remaining, after all else fails.
>>
>>I would have expected a more balanced view from the BBC (and the rest of 'em
>>for that matter). Instead they give hours of airtime to clueless
>>do-gooders on the streets, who between them have never been able to suggest
>>a viable alternative to war.
>>
>>Burning the USA flag? toppling a fake statue of Bush? All totally uncalled
>>for and tasteless if you ask me. Especially in the light of recent events
>>(terror attacks). I'm not "pro-Bush" or "pro-War" by any means, but I can
>>at least appreciate that the alternatives are far, far worse. What would
>>the protestors have us do, sit back and let the Saddams and Bin Ladens of
>>this world run around the place unchallenged?
>>
>>I am sure many people out there find this as sickening as I did, but the TV
>>news coverage has totally failed to reflect this. A few thousand people
>>marching around with placcards makes much more exciting television, I
>>suppose.
>>
>>Owen
>
>
> You wait until the next big "911" happens. They'll be jumping up and
> down blaming the war. These idiots forget who started all this.
>
Yes, Osama Bin Laden.
Saddam had NOTHING to do with it.
But of course, a western army maching into an arabian country with no
justification, taking over the control of the oil, and trying to put a
puppet government in charge is really going to stop people feeling
powerless, and take up arms.
I hope I'm wrong. I'm hoping the neocon plan of creating a democratic
middle east, starting with Iraq works and we get a free area of the
world. But I think they are wrong, and that we have created fertile
territory for Al-Qaeda.
Kurious Oranj
Davenalias wrote:
> "Radiohead" <ra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sYrvb.7093$EH6.60...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
>>
>>They're not 'resorting' to anything, they're doing what they've always
>
> done,
>
>>except on a bigger scale and with more support.
>
>
> First of all, 911 happened before Afghanistan and Iraq so that blows your
> cause and effect theory out, and secondly since 911 the attacks by AQ and
> their sympathisers have become more and more desperate, attacking soft
> targets in third world countries. Sorry it doesnt fit in with your self
> abuse fantasies but thats life.
>
Turkey is not a third world country. Indonesia is not a third world country.
They've always gone for soft targets - embassies, religious temples,
civilian posts. Would you as a terrorist start attacking well defended
military compounds? Of course you wouldn't.
Also, it's less effective than a bomb in a tourism area. How much damage
has the Bali bomb done to its tourist industry? It's going to take years
to get back to where they were before. And what other industry is there
in Bali?
Kurious Oranj
Tom wrote:
> Perhaps one of the protesters could explain in clear, concise and unemotional
> terms precisely what they would prefer the civilised world to do about Al
> Quaeda?
>
Al-Qaeda have precisely what to do with the war on Iraq?
Kurious Oranj
Davenalias wrote:
> "Col" <Reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:bplo30$1qhr1v$1...@ID-120826.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>>"Davenalias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:bplmgh$1l8qk2$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> >
>>
>>>Do you think it 'moral' to leave Saddam in power ?
>>>
>>
>> Do you think it 'moral' to leave Mugabe in power ?
>
>
> No, do you ?
>
But that's part of the view of many anti-war protestors. Precisely that
we don't do much about Mugabe.
If being a dictator, crushing the free press and torturing political
opponents is wrong, then it's wrong in Zimbabwe as much as in Iraq.
And yet, the actions being taken are different. Mugabe is continuing his
torture and we are doing nothing.
So, the question is why? Which suggests that the reasons for attacking
Iraq are not to liberate the people as "why aren't we also doing it in
Zimbabwe?", but have an alterior motive (either burying the spectre of
9/11 for the American people, oil, raising Bush and Blair's profile or a
combination of all 3).
Kurious Oranj
Damot wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 19:18:41 -0000, "Col" <Reddw...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Davenalias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:bplmgh$1l8qk2$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>>>Do you think it 'moral' to leave Saddam in power ?
>>>
>>
>> Do you think it 'moral' to leave Mugabe in power ?
>
>
> No. We should remove him as well.
>
Have you considered why the government isn't doing so, though?
Kurious Oranj
Tim Gowen wrote:
> In <ZYtvb.963$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net> Crippen wrote:
>
>>Tom wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps one of the protesters could explain in clear, concise and
>>>unemotional terms precisely what they would prefer the civilised
>>>world to do about Al Quaeda?
>>
>>Stop antagonising them?
>
>
> The problem is, the very existence of non-Muslims will upset a certain
> cell of Islam. It's the equivalent of the loony Christian fringe which
> believes that Bush has God's mandate to protect the state of Israel.
> Religious lunacy on both sides is a fundamental problem.
>
> As for the protesters, well if they want to get politically engaged then
> they need to go about it correctly. If they're marching against Bush
> then that's fine, but if they're marching against America then they
> didn't ought to be wearing Gap, drinking Coke, or eating McDonalds. I
> realise that these protests aren't anti-America per se, but it'd be a
> shame if they're just marching because they don't like Bush because the
> Western way of life is exemplified by America in the minds of a lot of
> people...
>
I hate hearing about this overhyped anti-Americanism. I did not support
the war on Iraq, so therefore I'm an anti-American.
And yet, I am friends with two families who live there, enjoyed a
holiday there, have plenty of US movies, believe the US constitution is
the finest political document ever written, changed my desktop wallpaper
to the US flag for a time after 9/11. Respected the minute's silence for
9/11, gave money to the NYFD, accepted that the war on Afghanistan was
the only realistic response, and signed a book of condolence for the US
Embassy. Heck, I can tolerate that Saving Private Ryan only had
Americans in it, or that most US movies nowadays portray the bad guys as
Brits and rewrite history accordingly.
But, I'm anti-American.