Biggest Display of Public Ignorance in British History

[blitz]

Originally posted by sling322
So now its the US abusing UN sanctions and not Iraq?

I sure am glad we have you to set us all straight blitz.  

How hard is it to understand that we need to disarm Iraq?  Period.  Until that is done, nothing can be done for the starving people there.  If disarming them includes removing Saddam then that is what has to be done.  Nobody wants war to happen, but if something isnt done about Saddam thumbing his nose at UN sanctions then its just a matter of time until he decides to use a chemical weapon on someone again.....the only question then is will it be on his own people or on some other people of the world?

It's not the the destination that is different, it's the way George & Tony  tryin to reach it with all tricks.

 Regards Blitz


America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.

[beet1e]

Seeker -

The point is there's a huge wave of feeling that refuses to follow Bush into war, on his time table, to his agenda.

Ah, I see you're one of the ones for whom 911 is a fading memory. What actually happened was that al qa'eda orchestrated the destruction of the WTC and damage to the Pentagon. Immediately afterwards, GWB announced that the US was going into Afghanistan to disable the Taliban and to try to root out OBL. The first part was successful, and Afghanistan was liberated. The second is a work in progress. In Sept. 2001, GWB also said that he was declaring war on terror, and that this would not be limited to al qa'eda, but would extend to other terror groups. In the time since, the CIA has been gathering intelligence on Iraq, weapons inspectors have returned, and a large military force has been deployed to the Gulf region.

So please advise me how GWB's timetabling had anything to do with it. It was the terrorists who chose 911, and all other events have unfolded naturally in the time since.

But they've never shown us the proof.

Al qa'eda was definitely behind the WTC attacks - both on 911, and the earlier attack in 1993. I will post in another thread how the US revealed the identity of Ramsey Youssef - 1993 WTC bomber.

Then it shifted to "a war on Terrorism";

See above. I thought GWB made it plain in Sept 2001, so when did this shift occur?

What makes you think a million marchers are less informed than yourself?

I don't have and cannot have access to sensitive information pertaining to national security any more than you or the marchers. That's why we have governments to do it for us. How do you suggest our governments should promulgate this information to the general public? Newspapers? Saddam and al qa'eda read the papers too. As to holding a balanced view - I HAVE sat down and talked about this whole Iraq thing with a couple of Iraqis - perhaps not a representative sample, I hear you say - but most probably two more than most people. And there was the somewhat convincing message from an Iraqi woman interviewed on Ch4 News yesterday.

We are told that Saddam, out of the kindness of his heart, donated $25,000 to each of the families of the 911 suicide pilots. That is enough to tell me that despite differences between Saddam & OBL, the day might come when Iraqi oil wealth would be channelled into al qa'eda coffers. The purpose of this war, or one purpose at least, is to do what we can to ensure that day never arrives.

Seeker, I can't prove that Iraqis hate Saddam. Let's wait for the day of liberation, and the TV pictures that appear, and then we'll know.

[X2Lee]

Originally posted by blitz
Hats off to those who crowded London to express their feelings about an upcomin war that is decided a year ago in pentagon.


Regards Blitz

Yup, helluva lot of courage to stand outside and wave a sign.
Biggest waste of time in a long while.

It stopped nothing.

[Dowding]

To me, the CIA and British intelligence are distancing themselves from the path the governments are taking and are resentful of the data they have being used to prop up a case for war. They seem to leak reports whenever other intelligence is used to back up the pro-War argument. Strangely, they reach completely different conclusions compared to our elected officials - and that seems to revolve around that the Iraq-AQ link in not a threat.

[X2Lee]

Originally posted by Seeker
The point is there's a huge wave of feeling that refuses to follow Bush into war, on his time table, to his agenda.

Yup its all about euro not letting us call the shots on when to go to war.
Guess what? Bush is the commander in chief of the USA,
his finger is on the trigger and none others need to be.

GHo ahead and debate among yourselfs, it wont change the fact we fixing to boot sodoms arse out of power.
Take it to the bank.

[blitz]

Originally posted by X2Lee
Yup, helluva lot of courage to stand outside and wave a sign.
Biggest waste of time in a long while.

It stopped nothing.

Never thought it would my friend


Regards Blitz



America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.

[Curval]

Originally posted by blitz
It isn't even able to feed his people.

Right Blitz, but Iraq still continues to build its military and remains in "material breach" of the UN mandated ban on weapons.

That should tell you something about his priorities.

[blitz]

Originally posted by Curval
Right Blitz, but Iraq still continues to build its military and remains in "material breach" of the UN mandated ban on weapons.

That should tell you something about his priorities.

Ahoi curval,


i have absolutely no doubts about his priorities.
He's a powerhungry bloody amazinhunk and i would like to know him dead.

But this 'Kanonenbootpolitik' and 'Who's not with us is against us'
makes me scarry.


Regards Blitz


America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.

[Seeker]

Originally posted by beet1e
Seeker -  Ah, I see you're one of the ones for whom 911 is a fading memory.  

Not at all. It's the biggest single act of terrorism I've ever seen.

But it's not the only one. I've seen terrorists, American backed terrorists, attack Britain's aremed forces and civilians for years.

 

GWB announced that the US was going into Afghanistan to disable the Taliban

And pretty much the whole world was with him.

In Sept. 2001, GWB also said that he was declaring war on terror, and that this would not be limited to al qa'eda, but would extend to other terror groups

And this is where it goes wrong.

As far as I know:

1) GWB can't declare war on anybody. The American Congress does, and they haven't.

2) Should the Americans declare war, that is binding on thier people alone, I fail to see why you are quoting the American President as a pretext for the commitment of HM armed forces; or any one elses. Should any one go along, it's a result of diplomacy, not superpower bullying. Frankly, this whole march thing is the world telling the Whitehouse "Your courtship sucks, cowboy". I've not heard one of the chattering classes it's so popular to villefy right now actually propose the Saddam should be kept in power in any way. It's not what's being done, it's the preposterous way it's being marketed.

3) Who is "terrorism"; and where does he live? I can accept a thousand different reasons of striking out at tens of nations, but I expect a clear game plan from our leaders. So far, this "war" has been a war led by politicians, and not by warriors. This, in my experience; has always gone badly. I want to hear generals tell me how war is won, not draft dodgers. Why are the generals silent? What's the plan?; other than the apparant  picking out of targets easy to sell to the American home public? What of the very real questions being raised right now by Belgium about formerly suposed "good guys" such as Pinochet and Sharon? Who's terrorist are the SAS being committed to in our name, terrorists that would liberate some of our former client states such as Brunei?

4) Has GWB given a public commitment not to sponsor terrorism himself? To remove protection from the promotors of terrorism? Will Gerry Adams still enjoy American patronage? And if the Whitehouse thinks (quite possible correctly, after all) that the British Government must have a policy of dialog with the Northern Island terrorists rather than a policy or eradication, why is it wrong for we to ask the Americans to open dialog rather than eradication?


So far, it's been the Americans telling this world:

"This is our war. We're gonna fight it wiether you like it or not; wiether you're with us or not. But you'd better be with us. Or else; Allies".

And this from a nation that thinks it knows how to sell?

Where's the "me" value in that?

[Turdboy]

Great! We now have German tree huggers telling us we are wrong for wanting to protect ourselfs!

Doesn't really matter what you say or do we will still do what WE think is right.

So go ahead with all your gay protest for all the good it will do.

[blitz]

Originally posted by Seeker
Not at all. It's the biggest single act of terrorism I've ever seen.

But it's not the only one. I've seen terrorists, American backed terrorists, attack Britain's aremed forces and civilians for years.

 

And pretty much the whole world was with him.

 

And this is where it goes wrong.

As far as I know:

1) GWB can't declare war on anybody. The American Congress does, and they haven't.

2) Should the Americans declare war, that is binding on thier people alone, I fail to see why you are quoting the American President as a pretext for the commitment of HM armed forces; or any one elses. Should any one go along, it's a result of diplomacy, not superpower bullying. Frankly, this whole march thing is the world telling the Whitehouse "Your courtship sucks, cowboy". I've not heard one of the chattering classes it's so popular to villefy right now actually propose the Saddam should be kept in power in any way. It's not what's being done, it's the preposterous way it's being marketed.

3) Who is "terrorism"; and where does he live? I can accept a thousand different reasons of striking out at tens of nations, but I expect a clear game plan from our leaders. So far, this "war" has been a war led by politicians, and not by warriors. This, in my experience; has always gone badly. I want to hear generals tell me how war is won, not draft dodgers. Why are the generals silent? What's the plan?; other than the apparant  picking out of targets easy to sell to the American home public? What of the very real questions being raised right now by Belgium about formerly suposed "good guys" such as Pinochet and Sharon? Who's terrorist are the SAS being committed to in our name, terrorists that would liberate some of our former client states such as Brunei?

4) Has GWB given a public commitment not to sponsor terrorism himself? To remove protection from the promotors of terrorism? Will Gerry Adams still enjoy American patronage? And if the Whitehouse thinks (quite possible correctly, after all) that the British Government must have a policy of dialog with the Northern Island terrorists rather than a policy or eradication, why is it wrong for we to ask the Americans to open dialog rather than eradication?


So far, it's been the Americans telling this world:

"This is our war. We're gonna fight it wiether you like it or not; wiether you're with us or not. But you'd better be with us. Or else; Allies".

And this from a nation that thinks it knows how to sell?

Where's the "me" value in that?

100 points on this.  


Regards Blitz

[bounder]

Originally posted by Hortlund
The fact that they were out there marching is evidence enough...

As for arguments like that, let me just say this:
Millions of flies eat toejam...can they all be wrong?

Well, if you happen to be a fly they actually have a very good point, toejam is nutritous and delicious. Cheapo BK/MacD burgers have toejam in them too you know, so it's not only flies.

But to skin that arguemnt, it reads
'Just because lots of people do something doesn't mean it's right'

- which is absolutely true.

But just because millions of people do something doesn't mean it's wrong either.

All it means is that there are millions of people who hold a broadly similar view, and are prepared to go to some trouble and expense to make their views known to a government that is not currently accounting for their opinions. And this from a government that pathologically devises policy from opinion polls tells me that Blair is in a very dicey position. He's banking on a short clean war, rather than a messy long drawn out one; so he can ride through Bagdhad on Georges shoulder being garlanded by grateful dusky eastern maidens.

We have made our views known. It won't stop a war if the US and the UK administrations want one, since that is out of my hands and yours.

But it should clearly underline for Tony Blair the feelings of his electorate that swept him to power on rhetoric about 'ethical foreign policy' and 'sowing harmony (a direct quote from thatcher no less).

And yeah, whatever happened to NORAID?

[bounder]

Originally posted by X2Lee
Yup, helluva lot of courage to stand outside and wave a sign.
Biggest waste of time in a long while.

It stopped nothing.

X2Lee, you don't really get the point of a demo do you.

Some people may have believed that they could change the world by standing around listening to Rhymin Man.

Most just wanted to stand up and be counted. I had a great time, certainly not a wasted time.

[X2Lee]

Originally posted by bounder
X2Lee, you don't really get the point of a demo do you.

Some people may have believed that they could change the world by standing around listening to Rhymin Man.

Most just wanted to stand up and be counted. I had a great time, certainly not a wasted time.

Oh I am sorry, it was a big partay!
You are right its never wasted time to partay!

[beet1e]

Here they are, the anti war protesters...

 

There was a very good opinion page in the Telegraph today. The first three paragraphs are here:

The most revealing aspect of the anti-war march in London was what you did not see. You did not see any messages to Saddam Hussein or criticism of Iraqi policy.

These earnest seekers of peace, with so many signs denouncing George W Bush and Tony Blair, had nothing to say to Saddam Hussein; no request to please co-operate with the UN inspectors. Not one small poster asking Saddam to disarm or destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps somewhere in that million people there were some bravely asking him to "Leave Iraq and prevent war", but I could not find them.

If this were a genuine anti-war demonstration, why, along with demands on the British and Americans, would there be no demands of the other party to the conflict - Iraq? Commentators on the march were taken by the good order of it. I was taken by the sheer wickedness or naivete.

My sentiments exactly. No calls for Saddam to stop torturing/murdering/starving. Totally blinkered fools. Sorry Bounder - it's just my opinion, but I feel strongly about it.

Full article here.