I've had a great day today, my football team has beaten their bigest rivals, My countrys rugby team has won,Ive had a good night out, and will no doubt suffer in the morning.
While I've been enjoying all this something much bigger and important has been going on, nearly a million people have been marching in London against the war with iraq, there have been similar marches all around the world, yet the powers to be seem intent on conflict.

I have never been against any conflict my country has been involved in in my lifetime, but I feel in this case that my goverment is totally ignoring the views of millions of its citizens by going to war with Iraq. I personally do not feel threatened by Iraq .

I do however feel threatened by terrorists,and have grown to live with the terror that the IRA have brought to London and the rest of Britain for as long as I remember, I now fear Al queda and the different threat that they bring.

I realise Iraq has some dealings with this organisation, but as far as i know terrorisom has no state, most of the terrorists in the uk arrested so far have been from north Africa, should we attack them too, Bin laden and some of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, are they next on the list, where does it stop! Atacking Iraq will kill thousands of innocent people, create thousand of refugees, and thousands of new terrorists, and to me it all smacks of revenge, I'm all for a war on terrorism but not for terrorising innocents.
.
The fact that I've had a good drink tonight has possibly helped me post the above, and I know that it's not as articulate as some who post here, but it comes from the heart, and the feeling will remain tommorow it's the same feeling I've had for the last month or so.

So there you go I've said my bit, I feel better for it , and if this upsets anyone it was not my intention but tough shit.. it's the way I feel.

hear hear!! im in 10th grade, and we have conversations in most of my classes about how we dont need to go to war, and we are only going to inspire more terrorism by bombing them. If i was old enough, ide go out and protest.

I live in the USA, so i know all too much about the terrorism against us. My dad was on that runway on 9/11 in NY, he took off about 5-10 min before the first plane that him the WTC. Thats scary. it could of been him so easily on that plane, and i would have never seen him again. im ALL for the war on terrorism, but we need to fight the terrorists.. not the country they are living in.

Xero

im sure all if not most of us feel the same way... [img]smile.gif[/img] its nice for you to speak it out loud. no harm done in speaking your thoughts as long as its civil and not racist and within the bouderies of law of IW [img]smile.gif[/img]

My country's rugby team has lost ;) but I nonetheless heartily agree with you, Lanesra. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

I stood up to be counted yesterday, and had a fantastic time. Biggest protest I've ever been on (and I've been on a few ;) )

And then I went and got very very drunk [img]redface.gif[/img]

In terms of giving peace a chance in Iraq, think of it this way:

You're a senior student, walking around your high-school grounds. You see a younger student kicking the s**t out of another one. You walk up to the bully and say 'hey punk, get the hell off've that kid!', the attacking kid then replies 'go mind your own business asshole! this is between me and him'. So, being bigger and tougher than the bully, you take measures into your own hands and proceed to beat him to the ground in order to save his victim from this abuse.
Now, you have the bully firmly disabled on the concrete and are giving him a few tried-and-true shots in the ribs for his troubles. He's unable to do anything against you or the kid he was picking on, and he's hurting bad. Now, a high school teacher sees you dealing to the bully and says 'That's enough! He's learned his lesson, leave him alone!'. By now the bully is squirming and crying, hyped up on adrenhaline and humiliation screaming at the top of his lungs "I'll kill you! I hate you! I'll kill you I swear!!". The teacher is urging you to let the kid go, while you know that the bully is so incensed with hatred.
This bully has a reputation for carrying a concealed knife around school, although he openly denies carrying such a weapon around. In recent weeks the school authorities have made a brief search of his locker and schoolbag for any sign of a deadly knife, but have come up with nothing. But you still can't be sure that he doesn't have it hidden away somewhere. If you let him go now he may very well stab you in the back as you walk away. In fact he's so pissed off right now that you are almost certain that that is what he will do should you release him.
But the teacher is getting more and more impatient of your refusal to let the kid go. The teacher does not believe that physical force is necessary in restraining this proven bully under the current circumstances, and prefers to look further into the matter of the bullies concealed knife in order to possibly press legal charges against him and get him detained in juvenile prison should a knife be found. But such a search could take a long time, and you have no guarantee that the kid will not wait until an opportune moment to stab you from behind before the inquiry is over. If you were to just knock the kid out now with a hard punch to the head there is a good chance that you could get away and into a safe position before he is able to regain consciousness. But to do so will almost certainly anger the teacher, and you may face expulsion from school.

So what do you do? What do you do??!!??

[ 02-16-2003, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Totally oblitirate the school, making more enemys seeking revenge ?.

Think of the school as the political world of nations and states, and the bullying kid as the nation of Iraq. Some people have said that the kid has quite alot of friends, some of whom don't attend school, they dropped out of school because they hated the rules and regulations. They themselves would have no trouble with doing a drive-by shooting on the whole school, regardless of who got killed. The kid denies associating himself with these guys, but he may just be saying that to keep the principle off've his back. Who knows? But if you let the kid go, and he does hang out with these guys, then you'd better be watching your back as you walk home from school!

[ 02-16-2003, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

I agree with your post Lanesra.

I wonder if 9.11 hadn't happened would we be going into Iraq. I no longer know what terrorist represents what.

Seems like all the terror threats have escalated since the Iraq thing. I dunno.

Good post, Heirophant. We, the USA, are at war with terrorists, specifically with Al-Qaeda, since they attacked us and kiled quite a few of our citizens and others living here. They have no qualms about proclaiming that they are going to do it again, when they have the opportunity. Several nation-states, at first, most notably Afghanistan, harbored and supported the terrorists, refusing demands to extradite them, and allowing training camps to exist on their soil. We took out Afghanistan, over protests, and found, whaddaya know, they had the terror camps, etc., they claimed not to have. Now, Iraq is harboring terrorist camops in the north (didn't any of you read Colin Powell's speech to the Security Council?) and he is a known supplier of money and arms to terrorists. He is in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions, as well as the treaty that ended the Gulf War. So, he is next on the list. Give war a chance.

Hmmm. So if the teacher doesn't like it, to hell with them? You have to look out for your own safety right? You'll make some waves in the classroom that's for sure. Hope you are prepared to weather the storm. But when all is said and done, if you can show that taking the punk out was in the school's benefit, they'll forgive you. Only thing is that once the teacher has their authority undermined, and are unable to force their authority back, well they are pretty much made redundant as an order-keeping entity. People start looking to the tough students to look after them in the schoolyard instead of the official school authorities, which can lead to some very ugly situations.

Something to think over at least.

WE the USA are at war with terrorists !! . Let me tell you something, the whole of the civilised world is at war with terrorists, a large part of the civilised world has lived with terrorism for many years, it's not just something thats happened since 9/11. And lets face it up untill 9/11 most of the funding for the Provisinal IRA or freedom fighters, as I heard them descibed on american television after the canary wharf bombings, came from the Usa, where was the war on terrorism then ? Also on the subject of suppling arms, who supllied the arms to sadam in the first place, who supplied the arms to Al Queda i'll tell you who the USA, Britain, france , and the rest of the western world so we probabally know what they've got it'll have the stars and stripes or the union jack printed on it.

Another question what would we be doing if China or russia were harbouring terrorists would we be saying give war a chance then ?

WE will not beat these people by destroying iraq we will only make the situation worse, take a look at the middle east for proof, we need convesation not obliteration.

True.
But it's too late for that now I'm afraid. This ball started rolling decades ago. Stop worrying and just roll with it. Everything's going to hell.

Well, if conversation with people who are ready to die to destroy you awere possible, I would be all for it, but just listen to what they are saying. They will not rest until the whole world is under the banner of Islam. Pretty tough deal-breaker! And, by saying we, I was just trying to not include anyone unwilling. As for the IRA, I have been against them all of my life, and have no plans of changing my position.

So then, if I follow your logic, either all people in Iraq are terrorists (included civilian men, women and children) or after the war is over, all the Iraqian non-terrorist population will have a very legitimate reason to make war to the USA since "they attacked us and killed quite a few of our citizens and others living here" ... :(

How do you plan to stop the cycle of aggression and retaliation ?

This really belongs in the War Forum. Unfortunately, the only way to change the regime in Iraq is by making war on them. If they want to make war on us, as well, fine. That's what war is. If we win we get the result we desire, regime change and one less haven for the terrorists. That's what victory is.

<font color=plum><font color=red>Lanesra</font>, <font color=silver>Moiraine</font>, <font color=yellow>Epona</font>, et al -

We have given peace in Iraq a chance. Saddam Hussein has had 12 years to comply with Article 1441. That's the U.N. Article that was signed by ALL U.N. members (including France and Germany) demanding that Saddam Hussein disarm and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Fortunately for Saddam, the world's attention turned away from him right after the Gulf War, so nobody paid any attention to the fact that he refused to comply. In the first round of "weapons inspections" 12 years ago - Saddam was openly defiant. Instead of playing an elaborate game of "hide-n-seek" - he simply refused to allow inspectors to visit certain sites. And the U.N. and Security Council did absolutely nothing to enforce his compliance. Instead, they chose to "give him another chance to comply" and to "allow more time" for weapons inspectors to find these weapons that Saddam suddenly claimed did not exist. How has that worked so far?

<font color=red>Lanesra</font> - you used the schoolground example to show that "standing up to the bully" and going for a knockout punch would undermine the authority of the U.N. I'll agree that it could do that....if the U.N. hadn't already undermined their own authority. They have proven time and time again just how UNwilling they are to take ANY direct action against rogue nations. And when the do take action, it usually involves sending in troops from the U.S. You and several others are also talking about how the U.S. is wanting to "wipe out" the country of Iraq and kill thousands of innocent citizens.

Look again at the results of the Gulf War. How many civilian casualties occurred then. How many non-military targets were destroyed by errant missiles and bombs. VERY FEW. This isn't WWII where we go in and "carpet bomb" the nation. We have computer and satellite guided weapons that can be programmed to strike a specific target. Still - I will grant you that thousands of Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the war. They have been tortured, executed, and outright slaughtered by Saddam Hussein because we failed to take him out the first time around. Some of you have participated in anti-war demonstrations. That's great. You have a right to make your voice heard and I admire you for standing up for your convictions. Unfortunately, in Iraq...speaking out against the government or Saddam Hussein is punishable by death...and the sentence is carried out swiftly and brutally.

As Colin Powell, told the council on Friday...Saddam Hussein is playing the same game he always has. The longer he can delay action against him..the more likely the world will eventually forget about him again. If he can just keep delaying the inspectors long enough, the internal pressures of the American/British alliance will begin to create it's own strain. The longer the U.N. sits on it's hands and does nothing except say "Let's wait a little longer", Saddam Hussein can continue on with business as normal.

The ONLY thing that will change the way Iraqi citizens are treated on a daily basis is the death or forced removal of Saddam Hussein. There can't be any "half-hearted" measures with him. Hussein finally signed a Presidential Mandate on Friday banning the production and importation of ballistic missiles in Iraq. That's great...except that action came 10 years after he was first told to do it...and he ONLY did it once the U.S. started thier military build-up on his borders. Even so, I doubt the mandate is worth the paper it's written on. If America pulled it's troops back right now....Saddam would begin or continue construction of these weapons tomorrow.

Saddam Hussein has been given several years to comply with U.N. stipulations put in place after the Gulf War. So far, he has ignored all of them...until he threatened with direct force. There is no negotiating with him because he will not keep his word. He has proven it over and over. He continuously claims to have NO weapons of mass destruction, yet he turns around and threatens to use these "non-existent" weapons as soon as he feels threatened.

We have given peace a chance and it just didn't work.</font>

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
[QB]<font color=plum><font color=red>Lanesra</font>, <font color=silver>Moiraine</font>, <font color=yellow>Epona</font>, et al -

We have given peace in Iraq a chance. Saddam Hussein has had 12 years to comply with Article 1441. That's the U.N. Article that was signed by ALL U.N. members (including France and Germany) demanding that Saddam Hussein disarm and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Fortunately for Saddam, the world's attention turned away from him right after the Gulf War, so nobody paid any attention to the fact that he refused to comply. In the first round of "weapons inspections" 12 years ago - Saddam was openly defiant. Instead of playing an elaborate game of "hide-n-seek" - he simply refused to allow inspectors to visit certain sites. And the U.N. and Security Council did absolutely nothing to enforce his compliance. Instead, they chose to "give him another chance to comply" and to "allow more time" for weapons inspectors to find these weapons that Saddam suddenly claimed did not exist. How has that worked so far?

You've said what I wanted to. How many more chances should we give Sad-dam?

It's not about giving Saddam more chances. I think it's more like giving the people of Iraq a chance for peace. There seems to be only two roads here War or let Saddam get away. I don't think those are the only options. Since when does peace mean Saddam can do anything he wants?

Mark

First of all Cerek, it wasn't me that used the playgound example that was someone else, I wouldn't trivialise it so.

Next these lazer guided bombs you mention, are these the ones that destroyed the chinese embassy, the hopital in Bagdhad, and killed the 18 Brtish troops in 2 personel carriers marked with large white chevrons ? or will they be new ones. If its only about saddam and his cronies, then one of them nice sniper rifles, as advertised on ironworks [img]smile.gif[/img] could achieve this? .

Mods: someone has stated that this should be in the war forum, they're probabally right, I was a little tired and emotional when I posted so if it needs to go, fair enough, sorry for my poor aim [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-16-2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Lanesra ]

Well, we were trying. But, given Saddam's policy of placing military targets in direct proximity to civilian and religious areas, some civilian casualties are probably inevitable. Don't you think 12+ years of inspections and peace was giving it a chance?

<font color="#ffccff">Just wondering...ummm shouldn't this be in the War Forum?

As for standing up and being counted, more than 60% of the people polled in the US think Saddam needs to be taken out with military action, and GWB has an approval rating of 60 to 70% right now which is way above what you normally see for a president........But again, I think this needs to be in the War Forum, but thats just my opinion. </font>

You are right, MagiK, I shall stop posting on it until it is moved. Nice chatting with you, Lanesra, you are a civil kind of guy. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

No rational person WANTS war. Saddam has had sufficiet time to comply with the UN (not the US's) demands for getting rid of hiw weapons of mass destruction.. I mean no offense to any of the people here that are not Americans or residing in the US, but shouild Saddam be allowed to keep his biological and chemical weapons, I don't think he will be using them against Europe or Asia or Australia---he will be attacking the US.

I cannot see the wisdom of waiting until he slaughters thousands of Americans to try to put a stop to him. Let us not forget: the ball is in his court. He can very simply avoid war----comply with the UN resolutions, disarm and let it be verified.

I will tell you this. If anyone thinks he will stop at the US, I believe they are sorely mistaken. Europe let Hitler get out of control thinking he would stop and he didn't and then it was too late.

I believe the responsibility to avoid war rests with Iraq. Thet are not being asked to do anything harmful to their people, they are being asked to get rid or weapons of mass destruction. It is in their hands.

Since without force, the UN can't make Saddam submit, they can only ask. IF they can only ask, then he can say no, so he can choose to do whatever he wants. Hans Blix has been perfectly clear about the answer Saddam has been giving regarding disarmament.

It is completely about giving Saddam more chances. Although it's not the intention, it's the end result. He is the one who benefits from a lack of action. He is allowed to stay in power and continue doing exactly what he's wanted to for the past dozen years.

The sanctions remain in place, so his people continue to suffer, but he is able to illegally sell oil and purchase anything he wants. What's the next step? Lift the sanctions to help the Iraqi people despite the lack of cooperation? No force, lift the sanctions, then what? Withdraw the inspectors whether they've overseen a disarmament or not? Why did anyone bother, if nothing was going to be done?

If Iraq came out tomorrow and said it would be expelling the inspectors, and it would be reactivating all it's weapons programs, but then the US, the UK, Australia, et al say we refuse to act in any direct or indirect way. What would the UN do? Of course it could field the force, but would it? Would it really field a force the size and scope required?

Yep, definite War Forum stuff.

Edit - The final question was meant as an honest one for everyone and not as a derogatory one. ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-16-2003, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Yep! Me too - on both points! :D

I liked Heirophant's hypothetical analogy a lot - even though I think you could draw some distinctions and argue how it's different. Nevertheless, I'll buy it - for a turnip. ;)

I certainly support whirled peas, peas in the middle ease, a giving peas a chance. :D But I also support ousting Hussein. I don't think I support baby-sitting the country afterwards and I think Iraq should determine its destiny on its own - within the strictures of the UN-imposed resolutions that is.

I must say that the budget for this war has gotten out of hand though. Sooner or later we're going to start having our taxes affected in drastic ways. Whether it be a renig on the proposed accelerated tax cuts or an actual backpedaling from tax cuts already made, or a huge tax whallop in 3 years once the budget has reached a 5 trillion deficit again. A nation, just like a person, must keep its fiscal house in order.

I saw 3 hours of budget footage on CSPAN the other day - all floor speeches and committee debates. The budget surplus is spent and every program that can be cut has been cut. Every new dollar investment in this "war" comes straight from my pocket at this point - either in this year's or another year's taxes.

<font color="plum">I apologize <font color="red">Lanesra</font>. In reading the thread, I came across a second post by <font color=palegreen>Heirophant</font> in which he expanded on his "school ground analogy" to say that the teacher's authority would eventually be undermined by their inaction and the rest of the "students" would look to the student who took the bully out to help solve any problems they had of a similar nature.

I mistakenly thought you had made that post and was arguing against the example because it would eventually lead to the "teacher/U.N." authority would be undermined - which it has.

I don't mean to ramble. But I did make a mistake and falsely attributed comments to you that you had not made. Again, I offer my apologies. I do not agree with your view, but I did admire your opening comments in this thread. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] </font>

Barry, I didn't see you there mate, I'm surprised ;)

I did actually run into a contingent from another board I visit surprisingly enough, but for once I didn't run into any of the usual suspects - you know how it is usually!

Couldn't believe it when I got to Hyde Park and it was wall to wall (or should that be fence to fence) with people.

I've had a hangover all day - and a huge bruise on my shin where I walked into one of those stone benches on Oxford Street - and that was on the way *to* the pub LOL. Ended up in the Dog & Duck on Frith Street.

Barry and Epona, it sounds like there was a lot of "after" fun! If I ever get to visit, I'll expect both of you to try to "out party" the other one. [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

<font color=orange>Funny, when I was there in 1991, seems like all the weaponary I saw in the Iraq army was Soviet or Chicom made stuff... Ummm let me think... Yeap, that was what it was! I never saw any US or British stuff there. I do understand that they had some French Mirages in the Air Force, but I believe that soon after the air war started they flew many of them to Iran. What a coup for them (Iran)! They got a whole new air force for free. They never gave the planes back! Can you say STUPID!

I believe that we provided intelligence to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war and possibly even some advise, but that was as far as it went.

Edit: I realize I failed to give an answer to the subject at hand. Well you can count me in among the blood thirsty hords! While I do not like war, I see the need in this one. Colin Powell convinced me of the need, but then again I didn't really need a lot of convincing.</font>

[ 02-16-2003, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

Peace! [img]graemlins/hippysmile.gif[/img]

I too was counted among the millions around the world who came out in the cold for a good cause. Not a bad turn-out in Boston considering the high temperature was in the single digits.

It is refreshing to see so many people motivated to have their reasoning and passion heard. The sheer number of people willing to demonstrate about this issue is unprecendented and speaks volumes about the rationale of the cause itself.

Good show!

LOL Ronn! Can't help feeling age catching up with me these days, hangovers are worse than they used to be and I get tired earlier in the evening than I used to, so I suspect Barry would win - he'd have the edge on me in that respect!

Barry, I didn't see you there mate, I'm surprised ;)

I did actually run into a contingent from another board I visit surprisingly enough, but for once I didn't run into any of the usual suspects - you know how it is usually!

Couldn't believe it when I got to Hyde Park and it was wall to wall (or should that be fence to fence) with people.

I've had a hangover all day - and a huge bruise on my shin where I walked into one of those stone benches on Oxford Street - and that was on the way *to* the pub LOL. Ended up in the Dog & Duck on Frith Street.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, me and my mates just had a house party that night - so in theory I should have been able to get absolutely hammered. But it wasn't to be as my girlfriend challenged two of my housemates to a drinking competition. She "won", but I then had to look after her until she passed out, and then clear the vomit out of my carpet. So I didn't really get the chance to drink much, but I had a go - and its the thought that counts. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

No problem Cerek. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I don't think that we need a war, so can't we all just forget about it?
What would the world be like if everyone fought evryone else?
Just wondering

We could forget about it - except that Saddam and his son have openly threatened the US. That would make me feel a bit uneasy.