View Poll Results: Should we go to war?
Yes!
49
32.67%
No!
87
58.00%
Don't Know !
14
9.33%
Voters: 150. This poll is closed
Should we go to war?Just visit and vote
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SENSEless
Your mention of Iraq and Norther Ireland in the same breath shows a degree of insight I hadn't credited you with:
Both places have been / continue to be under British rule and into both places the US has poured arms and funds resulting in the deaths of thousands of men, women and children, many of whom were 'non-combatant' innocents.
Still feeling smug?
Then as you mentioned Israel can I ask this, (Any anti-Semitic jibes that follow can take their place alongside any anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-whatever. As an atheist I regard them all with equal degrees of contempt and cynicism), why does the US continue to veto motions brought before the Security Council condemning this particular state which is also in possession of WMDs and in breach of UN resolutions? Is the fact that their nukes aren't pointed in your direction the governing factor? Or are the 3 wise monkeys of Capitol Hill, Pentagon and White House fulfilling their roles of hear/see/speak not when it doesn't suit? Or is it simply that the life of a ten year old Palestinian boy whose head was blown in half for having the audacity to throw a stone at a main battle tank not worth that of a similarly poor soul murdered in the events of 9/11?
You tell me 'cause I sure as hell can't work it out!
Rgds
T3
Your mention of Iraq and Norther Ireland in the same breath shows a degree of insight I hadn't credited you with:
Both places have been / continue to be under British rule and into both places the US has poured arms and funds resulting in the deaths of thousands of men, women and children, many of whom were 'non-combatant' innocents.
Still feeling smug?
Then as you mentioned Israel can I ask this, (Any anti-Semitic jibes that follow can take their place alongside any anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-whatever. As an atheist I regard them all with equal degrees of contempt and cynicism), why does the US continue to veto motions brought before the Security Council condemning this particular state which is also in possession of WMDs and in breach of UN resolutions? Is the fact that their nukes aren't pointed in your direction the governing factor? Or are the 3 wise monkeys of Capitol Hill, Pentagon and White House fulfilling their roles of hear/see/speak not when it doesn't suit? Or is it simply that the life of a ten year old Palestinian boy whose head was blown in half for having the audacity to throw a stone at a main battle tank not worth that of a similarly poor soul murdered in the events of 9/11?
You tell me 'cause I sure as hell can't work it out!
Rgds
T3
Swounger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*not commenting on Palestinians who send drugged up catatonic Palestinian children to be used as war fodder*. . . . .yet.
however, re the UN, since Libya is chair of the Human Rights Commission, who cares what iota what that racist, barbaric organization thinks or "votes"?
however, re the UN, since Libya is chair of the Human Rights Commission, who cares what iota what that racist, barbaric organization thinks or "votes"?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB
Okay, so perhaps not my final word - but Israeli MBT vs "drugged up catatonic Palestinian children" is justified?
Next thing you'll be saying that Chinese T62 vs 'Hyped-up, unarmed pro-democracy activist' is also justified!
Give me a ******* break!!!! You can't have it all ways otherwise the stench of hypocrisy will choke you to death. An abuse of power is an abuse of power - pure and simple. It shows a contempt for human life equal to that of any terrorist group or dictator you care to mention.
If the UN is so corrupt, trivial and packed with special (anti-US) interest groups, why does the current US administration put so much store in what the UN concludes in justifying its own actions? Answer, because in a world where threats of econonic and military action coupled with blatant double standards are the currency of the last great Super-Power and self-appointed 'Global Cop', it can!
Rgds
T3
Okay, so perhaps not my final word - but Israeli MBT vs "drugged up catatonic Palestinian children" is justified?
Next thing you'll be saying that Chinese T62 vs 'Hyped-up, unarmed pro-democracy activist' is also justified!
Give me a ******* break!!!! You can't have it all ways otherwise the stench of hypocrisy will choke you to death. An abuse of power is an abuse of power - pure and simple. It shows a contempt for human life equal to that of any terrorist group or dictator you care to mention.
If the UN is so corrupt, trivial and packed with special (anti-US) interest groups, why does the current US administration put so much store in what the UN concludes in justifying its own actions? Answer, because in a world where threats of econonic and military action coupled with blatant double standards are the currency of the last great Super-Power and self-appointed 'Global Cop', it can!
Rgds
T3
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB
It is the very freedom our governments are about to send thouands to supposedly defend that promotes such principles as participation for all, including those with whom we may not agree. How can you bemoan the presence of any country at the UN? If it was only permissable for friends and allies of the US to take part it would be a pretty small club. If history is anything to go by the membership would be completely different every 30 years or so. Even Iraq had a 'Special Relationship' when Iran was out of favour and many would argue that, given its record of support for various terrorist groups, Libya was merely a convenient 'patsy' for Clipper 103.
However, a degree in politics and international affairs I don't have so here endeth my contribution. Feel free to discuss, ridicule, insult, whatever. We have the freedom to do so - might as well enjoy it!
Rgds
T3
It is the very freedom our governments are about to send thouands to supposedly defend that promotes such principles as participation for all, including those with whom we may not agree. How can you bemoan the presence of any country at the UN? If it was only permissable for friends and allies of the US to take part it would be a pretty small club. If history is anything to go by the membership would be completely different every 30 years or so. Even Iraq had a 'Special Relationship' when Iran was out of favour and many would argue that, given its record of support for various terrorist groups, Libya was merely a convenient 'patsy' for Clipper 103.
However, a degree in politics and international affairs I don't have so here endeth my contribution. Feel free to discuss, ridicule, insult, whatever. We have the freedom to do so - might as well enjoy it!
Rgds
T3
Guest
Posts: n/a
How in the name of F**K did we get to Israel again?
The question is "Should we go to War" NOT
"Shall we have another pointless headbanging discussion about the Middle East, and Israel in particular"
All of us, who are likely to be involved in the sharp end of muscular US diplomacy, would like to know what our peers, colleagues and assorted camp followers think on this very very very important issue.
Bubbette, why don't you go and start a "Israeli election result, will it be good or bad for Israel and the future?" thread in JB, and try and discuss it , with well researched arguements and FACTS.
The question is "Should we go to War" NOT
"Shall we have another pointless headbanging discussion about the Middle East, and Israel in particular"
All of us, who are likely to be involved in the sharp end of muscular US diplomacy, would like to know what our peers, colleagues and assorted camp followers think on this very very very important issue.
Bubbette, why don't you go and start a "Israeli election result, will it be good or bad for Israel and the future?" thread in JB, and try and discuss it , with well researched arguements and FACTS.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Solotk, no we shouldn't go to war because it's nothing more than a US centric, political, oil and probably military-industrial complex stitch up.
The cant thrown in by SASless and Bubbette demonstrates just how far removed a large section of US population is from sharing any experience or knowledge of the rest of the world. These are the very people that will vote in a pillock like George W. Bush who of course shares their US centric and utterly warped world view.
The West is wild and full of cowboys looking for injuns.
The cant thrown in by SASless and Bubbette demonstrates just how far removed a large section of US population is from sharing any experience or knowledge of the rest of the world. These are the very people that will vote in a pillock like George W. Bush who of course shares their US centric and utterly warped world view.
The West is wild and full of cowboys looking for injuns.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB
Having just checked out your website...
http://www.mrmurrayhill.com
I'm surprised you didn't throw homophobic, anti-'drag queen' and all round 'party-poopers' at the UN. It would be no more ridiculous than your existing list!
Rgds
T3
Having just checked out your website...
http://www.mrmurrayhill.com
I'm surprised you didn't throw homophobic, anti-'drag queen' and all round 'party-poopers' at the UN. It would be no more ridiculous than your existing list!
Rgds
T3
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Methinks there may be some sort of contest going on between Jews and Maori, to determine who can claim to be the most put-upon race in history.
I can claim bloodline of one and lifetime national experience of the other, and I would humbly suggest that both pull their heads out of their a$$es and smell the coffee.
This thread is entitled "Should We Go To War".
It is not entitled "Should Bubbette Hijack Every Thread Going In An Attempt To Win More Sympathy For The Israelis?"
I'm absolutely sure that Israel is more than capable of looking after itself without the dubious assistance of such distracting sycophants as appear hell-bent on perverting the course of debate without making any constructive or relevant contribution to it.
So, the Yids have had a bum deal these past few centuries. For crying out loud, get over it, harden up, and grow up. You want us to feel sorry for you, be apologetic, tug forelock, and spend the rest of eternity doing you favours and feeling guilty? Whiff the mocha, sunshine, it ain't gonna happen.
I would bet the farm on the average Israeli warrior reading posts on this forum of the type you seem to favour, cringing away in embarassment. These guys are hardass fighters, not sympathy-seeking pooftahs in need of mollycoddling.
"Ooh, I'm not going to let them blaspheme..." What are you?? For Fvucks sakes Bubbette, what a big girl you are.
My Danish uncles in the resistance during the war were actively and proudly involved in helping smuggle my Jewish family out of occupied Denmark and into neutral Sweden. Which side am I more proud of? Both of them, you moron. Neither side of me appreciates the gutless, sympathy-begging garbage you promulgate here.
For your information, the topic of this thread is a question as to whether "we" (meaning Britain in particular, and the USWEST in general) should go to war with Iraq, at this time, and for the stated purpose.
It has Jack Schidt to do with Israel or your weird philosophy concerning her, and maybe you could make a better contribution to the forum, and to the Jewish people, by bearing that in mind, and only making comments where they have relevance.
I can claim bloodline of one and lifetime national experience of the other, and I would humbly suggest that both pull their heads out of their a$$es and smell the coffee.
This thread is entitled "Should We Go To War".
It is not entitled "Should Bubbette Hijack Every Thread Going In An Attempt To Win More Sympathy For The Israelis?"
I'm absolutely sure that Israel is more than capable of looking after itself without the dubious assistance of such distracting sycophants as appear hell-bent on perverting the course of debate without making any constructive or relevant contribution to it.
So, the Yids have had a bum deal these past few centuries. For crying out loud, get over it, harden up, and grow up. You want us to feel sorry for you, be apologetic, tug forelock, and spend the rest of eternity doing you favours and feeling guilty? Whiff the mocha, sunshine, it ain't gonna happen.
I would bet the farm on the average Israeli warrior reading posts on this forum of the type you seem to favour, cringing away in embarassment. These guys are hardass fighters, not sympathy-seeking pooftahs in need of mollycoddling.
"Ooh, I'm not going to let them blaspheme..." What are you?? For Fvucks sakes Bubbette, what a big girl you are.
My Danish uncles in the resistance during the war were actively and proudly involved in helping smuggle my Jewish family out of occupied Denmark and into neutral Sweden. Which side am I more proud of? Both of them, you moron. Neither side of me appreciates the gutless, sympathy-begging garbage you promulgate here.
For your information, the topic of this thread is a question as to whether "we" (meaning Britain in particular, and the USWEST in general) should go to war with Iraq, at this time, and for the stated purpose.
It has Jack Schidt to do with Israel or your weird philosophy concerning her, and maybe you could make a better contribution to the forum, and to the Jewish people, by bearing that in mind, and only making comments where they have relevance.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the off chance that the more gung ho may yet moderate their views in light of the likely human costs that will result from a war on Iraq the following is an offering from the Guardian newspaper today.
Counting the dead
In the event of war, how many Iraqi civilians will die? And how many will starve, or be displaced? In secret, the UN has been doing the sums
Jonathan Steele
Wednesday January 29, 2003
The Guardian
With as much secrecy as the Pentagon, the United Nations has been busily counting the likely casualty toll of a war on Iraq. While the Pentagon focuses on its troops, the network of UN specialist agencies is trying to estimate what would happen to Iraqis.
The assessments are dramatic, though for reasons of internal diplomacy or because of American pressure the UN is unwilling to go public with the figures. But a newly leaked report from a special UN taskforce that summarises the assessments calculates that about 500,000 people could "require medical treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries", according to the World Health Organisation.
WHO estimates that 100,000 Iraqi civilians could be wounded and another 400,000 hit by disease after the bombing of water and sewage facilities and the disruption of food supplies.
"The nutritional status of some 3.03 million people will be dire and they will require therapeutic feeding," says the UN children's fund. About four-fifths of these victims will be children under five. The rest will be pregnant and lactating women.
Although Iraq's population at 26 million is almost the same as Afghanistan's, UN agencies say the effect of war in Iraq would be far worse. Afghanistan is largely rural so that people have long traditions of coping mechanisms.
By contrast, Iraq has "a relatively urbanised population, with the state providing the basic needs of the population". Some 16 million depend on the monthly "food basket" of basic goods such as rice, sugar, flour, and cooking oil, supplied for free by the Iraqi government.
The expected bombing of Iraq's infrastructure would disrupt these supplies and the UN would struggle to send in food from outside Iraq. The electricity network "will be seriously degraded", the UN says, leaving millions without proper drinking water because treatment plants will be unable to function. At the moment 70% of the urban population has access to water from treatment plants with standby generators, but if these are also hit, the numbers at risk would escalate. Only 10% of the sewage pumping stations have generators so bombing could quickly provoke cholera and dysentery.
The United Nations high commission for refugees estimates at least 900,000 Iraqi refugees will go to Iran. No figures have been given for those who may go to Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, or Turkey. Another 2 million could be displaced inside the country.
The UN report makes no estimate of likely Iraqi war deaths. In Afghanistan it is calculated that bombing killed about 5,000 civilians directly. Up to 20,000 other Afghans died through the disruption of drought relief and the bombing's other indirect effects, according to a Guardian investigation of death rates at camps for the internally displaced. Bombing in Iraq would probably produce similar proportions of direct and indirect fatalities.
The UN estimates that city dwellers who lose their homes will be able to move to partially destroyed buildings nearby but it foresees that hundreds of thousands will escape to the countryside and be forced to sleep in the open. It says 3.6 million will need "emergency shelter".
The UN report does not make any distinction on whether the war is authorised by the security council or not, since a bomb is just as lethal whoever orders it to drop. It is taken for granted that the United States will be in charge of the targeting, and the UN will not have any influence. The report was leaked to an American non-governmental organisation and posted on the website of the UK-based anti-war group, Campaign against Sanctions in Iraq. UN officials have not challenged its authenticity. Nathaniel Hurd, who obtained it, said yesterday: "The UN may have updated some assessments but this is only likely to affect estimates of refugee flows and not the figures on damage and destruction."
Other NGOs have been conducting their own assessments. Oxfam, which has sent water specialists to the region, says half of Iraq's sewage treatment plants already do not work because of shortages of spare parts caused by sanctions. "We are particularly concerned about water and sanitation and the problems of pumping. There is no normal economy because people rely on state food distribution on a massive scale", says Barbara Stocking, Oxfam's director.
Medact, the UK affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, estimates casualties could be five times higher than in the 1991 Gulf war. "The avowed US aim of regime change means any new conflict will be much more intense and destructive, and will involve more deadly weapons developed in the interim," it says in a report available on the first Gulf war, the UN calculated that between 3,500 and 15,000 civilians died during the war (plus between 100,000 and 120,000 Iraqi troops). A new war of the kind projected by the US could kill between 2,000 and 50,000 in Baghdad and between 1,200 and 30,000 on the southern and northern fronts in Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul. If biological and chemical weapons were used, up to 33,000 more people could die.
Medact examines detailed recent analyses by other specialists on the various tactics the US may use. The wide range of figures comes from different estimates of the degree of Iraqi resistance and the length of the war.
The leaked UN report is at www.casi.org.uk
Counting the dead
In the event of war, how many Iraqi civilians will die? And how many will starve, or be displaced? In secret, the UN has been doing the sums
Jonathan Steele
Wednesday January 29, 2003
The Guardian
With as much secrecy as the Pentagon, the United Nations has been busily counting the likely casualty toll of a war on Iraq. While the Pentagon focuses on its troops, the network of UN specialist agencies is trying to estimate what would happen to Iraqis.
The assessments are dramatic, though for reasons of internal diplomacy or because of American pressure the UN is unwilling to go public with the figures. But a newly leaked report from a special UN taskforce that summarises the assessments calculates that about 500,000 people could "require medical treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries", according to the World Health Organisation.
WHO estimates that 100,000 Iraqi civilians could be wounded and another 400,000 hit by disease after the bombing of water and sewage facilities and the disruption of food supplies.
"The nutritional status of some 3.03 million people will be dire and they will require therapeutic feeding," says the UN children's fund. About four-fifths of these victims will be children under five. The rest will be pregnant and lactating women.
Although Iraq's population at 26 million is almost the same as Afghanistan's, UN agencies say the effect of war in Iraq would be far worse. Afghanistan is largely rural so that people have long traditions of coping mechanisms.
By contrast, Iraq has "a relatively urbanised population, with the state providing the basic needs of the population". Some 16 million depend on the monthly "food basket" of basic goods such as rice, sugar, flour, and cooking oil, supplied for free by the Iraqi government.
The expected bombing of Iraq's infrastructure would disrupt these supplies and the UN would struggle to send in food from outside Iraq. The electricity network "will be seriously degraded", the UN says, leaving millions without proper drinking water because treatment plants will be unable to function. At the moment 70% of the urban population has access to water from treatment plants with standby generators, but if these are also hit, the numbers at risk would escalate. Only 10% of the sewage pumping stations have generators so bombing could quickly provoke cholera and dysentery.
The United Nations high commission for refugees estimates at least 900,000 Iraqi refugees will go to Iran. No figures have been given for those who may go to Kuwait, Syria, Jordan, or Turkey. Another 2 million could be displaced inside the country.
The UN report makes no estimate of likely Iraqi war deaths. In Afghanistan it is calculated that bombing killed about 5,000 civilians directly. Up to 20,000 other Afghans died through the disruption of drought relief and the bombing's other indirect effects, according to a Guardian investigation of death rates at camps for the internally displaced. Bombing in Iraq would probably produce similar proportions of direct and indirect fatalities.
The UN estimates that city dwellers who lose their homes will be able to move to partially destroyed buildings nearby but it foresees that hundreds of thousands will escape to the countryside and be forced to sleep in the open. It says 3.6 million will need "emergency shelter".
The UN report does not make any distinction on whether the war is authorised by the security council or not, since a bomb is just as lethal whoever orders it to drop. It is taken for granted that the United States will be in charge of the targeting, and the UN will not have any influence. The report was leaked to an American non-governmental organisation and posted on the website of the UK-based anti-war group, Campaign against Sanctions in Iraq. UN officials have not challenged its authenticity. Nathaniel Hurd, who obtained it, said yesterday: "The UN may have updated some assessments but this is only likely to affect estimates of refugee flows and not the figures on damage and destruction."
Other NGOs have been conducting their own assessments. Oxfam, which has sent water specialists to the region, says half of Iraq's sewage treatment plants already do not work because of shortages of spare parts caused by sanctions. "We are particularly concerned about water and sanitation and the problems of pumping. There is no normal economy because people rely on state food distribution on a massive scale", says Barbara Stocking, Oxfam's director.
Medact, the UK affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, estimates casualties could be five times higher than in the 1991 Gulf war. "The avowed US aim of regime change means any new conflict will be much more intense and destructive, and will involve more deadly weapons developed in the interim," it says in a report available on the first Gulf war, the UN calculated that between 3,500 and 15,000 civilians died during the war (plus between 100,000 and 120,000 Iraqi troops). A new war of the kind projected by the US could kill between 2,000 and 50,000 in Baghdad and between 1,200 and 30,000 on the southern and northern fronts in Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul. If biological and chemical weapons were used, up to 33,000 more people could die.
Medact examines detailed recent analyses by other specialists on the various tactics the US may use. The wide range of figures comes from different estimates of the degree of Iraqi resistance and the length of the war.
The leaked UN report is at www.casi.org.uk
The Weekly Standard....
Clearly sane and balanced. Frankly, Bubbette, I can't even begin to image how you read this stuff without laughing or cutting your throat. British tabloids are bad enough, but at least they don't have this combination of pseudo-seriousness and cashgrabbing share pusher ads. There is a Russian proverb about the difference between a summer fool and a winter fool. The summer fool goes staggering and yelling down the street, and everyone sees he's a fool. The winter fool knocks on the door, you let him in, he takes off his coat and boots, and only then do you see he's a fool. That is the difference between the Sun and - say - this Standard. But - credit where credit's due, at least it's not as bad as some of the nutter sites certain other PPRuNers reference.
At bottom, I suspect that most Americans don't realise that Palestine is a squalid poverty-stricken hellhole, under constant curfew and blockade. The situation has been so bad since last spring that any form of normal life is impossible. You can't fight urban terrorists by sending a full armoured battalion group with AH64 top cover into a slum, as the Israelis regularly do. You are very unlikely to catch anyone and you are certain to kill people who have no connection to terrorists. What you will do is waste ammunition and terrorise everyone in a wide radius. It is futile and deadly. Britain has fought by my reckoning 6 major anti-terrorist or counter-insurgency campaigns since 1945, (feel free to mention any more you can think of) and the lessons of each have been that success can only be achieved by offering a political solution which is better for the majority than whatever the extremists can promise, by maintaining the maximum degree of normality and security for all sections of the civil population, and by using an absolute minimum of force and maximum of intelligence. Before you start shouting about Bloody Sunday, you should consider that it proves the point - the killings set back the campaign in Northern Ireland more than anything the IRA could have done. 2 of those campaigns ended in absolute failure (Palestine and Aden), both because - you guessed it - the political track of policy broke down. In Aden, there was effectively no political answer; the solution offered to the people was unacceptable and they were told to like it. Then it was decided to get out, meaning that the Army had to suffer through a period of escalating violence until the evacuation date for nothing. In Palestine, though, the political solution on offer was offered to only some of the political leaders - i.e. the ones WE liked. This gave the extremists the ability to collapse the process simply by blowing up another policeman. Does that sound familiar?
To recap - you can only finally deal with terrorism by psycho-political means. It's necessary to keep the pressure on the terrorists, but with the proviso that the minimum force is used and the greatest possible normality for all sections of the population is maintained. You have to offer a better future than the terrorist, in order to separate the terrorists from popular support. And you must choose the negotiating partner who was chosen by the people - you cannot declare "We don't like your leader. We'll just appoint one."
Once again, the president has come through, and rallied the nation.
Don Murphy explains the reasons he sees gold trading at $550 an ounce, and could go as high as $850! Find out why!
THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE is gone--or so it seems. Why does it seem reasonable to bet against the resurgence of a Russian Empire anytime soon?
Obviously the analogy between Poland and Israel is rough.
At bottom, I suspect that most Americans don't realise that Palestine is a squalid poverty-stricken hellhole, under constant curfew and blockade. The situation has been so bad since last spring that any form of normal life is impossible. You can't fight urban terrorists by sending a full armoured battalion group with AH64 top cover into a slum, as the Israelis regularly do. You are very unlikely to catch anyone and you are certain to kill people who have no connection to terrorists. What you will do is waste ammunition and terrorise everyone in a wide radius. It is futile and deadly. Britain has fought by my reckoning 6 major anti-terrorist or counter-insurgency campaigns since 1945, (feel free to mention any more you can think of) and the lessons of each have been that success can only be achieved by offering a political solution which is better for the majority than whatever the extremists can promise, by maintaining the maximum degree of normality and security for all sections of the civil population, and by using an absolute minimum of force and maximum of intelligence. Before you start shouting about Bloody Sunday, you should consider that it proves the point - the killings set back the campaign in Northern Ireland more than anything the IRA could have done. 2 of those campaigns ended in absolute failure (Palestine and Aden), both because - you guessed it - the political track of policy broke down. In Aden, there was effectively no political answer; the solution offered to the people was unacceptable and they were told to like it. Then it was decided to get out, meaning that the Army had to suffer through a period of escalating violence until the evacuation date for nothing. In Palestine, though, the political solution on offer was offered to only some of the political leaders - i.e. the ones WE liked. This gave the extremists the ability to collapse the process simply by blowing up another policeman. Does that sound familiar?
To recap - you can only finally deal with terrorism by psycho-political means. It's necessary to keep the pressure on the terrorists, but with the proviso that the minimum force is used and the greatest possible normality for all sections of the population is maintained. You have to offer a better future than the terrorist, in order to separate the terrorists from popular support. And you must choose the negotiating partner who was chosen by the people - you cannot declare "We don't like your leader. We'll just appoint one."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well said the Blue Fellah
I would have liked to steam in remorseless, unfortunately, ny current crop of warning points prohibits a weapons-free stance
Bubbette, do us a favour here, and try , for the love of God to either stay on topic, or deploy elsewhere smartly.
PS Blue, got the PM, ta muchly, but I shall still continue to cast an avaricious gaze over certain NZ assets. Unfortunately, I have been informed I'm not the only one -lol
I would have liked to steam in remorseless, unfortunately, ny current crop of warning points prohibits a weapons-free stance
Bubbette, do us a favour here, and try , for the love of God to either stay on topic, or deploy elsewhere smartly.
PS Blue, got the PM, ta muchly, but I shall still continue to cast an avaricious gaze over certain NZ assets. Unfortunately, I have been informed I'm not the only one -lol
Steamchicken
Very well said. Yours are intelligent points well made.
By extension, since there is a terrorist threat from Pan Islamic forces which have nothing to do with Iraq, any solution should also not be something which will increase general Arab/Islamic hostility to the USA and the West, unless we're willing to accept that that threat will increase.
The unwillingness or inability of the US to see this is puzzling.
One interpretation could be that this is nothing to do with freedom for the oppressed Iraqi, nor even about dealing with a threat, and instead is all to do with US hegemony and economic, 'coca cola imperialism'. If the aim is to actually take over in Iraq, or to install a puppet regime and run the country in our interests coercively, then one might accept that Iraqi public acquiescence is unnecessary.
A more generous interpretation may be that the 'frontier spirit' and the resistance to 'big Government' and 'state interference' that goes with it is translated in international affairs into a national distaste and resistance to the UN, which represents the kind of prescriptive Government that the more right wing Americans cannot stomach. This interpretation of the US national psyche might also explain the appeal of a fairly gung-ho, fairly unintelligent, vigilanteeism in lieu of proper foreign policy and diplomatic relations, and might also account for the US Government's apparent distaste for due procedure and for 'pansy-assed' liberal concepts like justice and morality.
And while we prepare for an operation which will lead to increased hostility within the Arab and Islamic world, the failure to express even token disapproval for what is going on in Israel seems to be incredible. Action now on this would defuse much of the increase in hostility which will otherwise be inevitable. To act (ostensibly on the basis of non-compliance with UN resolutions) in Iraq, while ignoring non-compliance by Israel seems to be a short-sighted way of ensuring that we will be accused of self interest, double standards and rank hypocrisy.
Apart from that, it's fine.....
Very well said. Yours are intelligent points well made.
By extension, since there is a terrorist threat from Pan Islamic forces which have nothing to do with Iraq, any solution should also not be something which will increase general Arab/Islamic hostility to the USA and the West, unless we're willing to accept that that threat will increase.
The unwillingness or inability of the US to see this is puzzling.
One interpretation could be that this is nothing to do with freedom for the oppressed Iraqi, nor even about dealing with a threat, and instead is all to do with US hegemony and economic, 'coca cola imperialism'. If the aim is to actually take over in Iraq, or to install a puppet regime and run the country in our interests coercively, then one might accept that Iraqi public acquiescence is unnecessary.
A more generous interpretation may be that the 'frontier spirit' and the resistance to 'big Government' and 'state interference' that goes with it is translated in international affairs into a national distaste and resistance to the UN, which represents the kind of prescriptive Government that the more right wing Americans cannot stomach. This interpretation of the US national psyche might also explain the appeal of a fairly gung-ho, fairly unintelligent, vigilanteeism in lieu of proper foreign policy and diplomatic relations, and might also account for the US Government's apparent distaste for due procedure and for 'pansy-assed' liberal concepts like justice and morality.
And while we prepare for an operation which will lead to increased hostility within the Arab and Islamic world, the failure to express even token disapproval for what is going on in Israel seems to be incredible. Action now on this would defuse much of the increase in hostility which will otherwise be inevitable. To act (ostensibly on the basis of non-compliance with UN resolutions) in Iraq, while ignoring non-compliance by Israel seems to be a short-sighted way of ensuring that we will be accused of self interest, double standards and rank hypocrisy.
Apart from that, it's fine.....
Swounger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
solotk, bluewolf, I was not the first to bring up Israel---where's your castigation against tug3, who did? I'm waiting. . .
In any case, when others do, I will not fail to point out the lies they invariably post.
jackonicko, again, Israel acts in its own self defense, and shall continue to do so. How much more hostility can the Arab and Islamic world have toward the west? Their official line seems to be hate and destroy the west, isn't it?
Er, blaspheme comment was a joke guys.
In any case, when others do, I will not fail to point out the lies they invariably post.
jackonicko, again, Israel acts in its own self defense, and shall continue to do so. How much more hostility can the Arab and Islamic world have toward the west? Their official line seems to be hate and destroy the west, isn't it?
Er, blaspheme comment was a joke guys.
Bubbette,
The concept of self defence assumes a proportionate response against the aggressor, not a disproportionate response against innocent civilians.
Most of the Arab and Islamic world isn't fundamentalist. Most of the Arab and Islamic world doesn't care that much about infidel forces in Saudi Arabia. Most of the Arab and Islamic world doesn't support Al Qaeda and didn't support 9/11.
Much of the Arab and Islamic World was 'with us' last time, during Operation Desert Storm. With us enough to contribute forces and money, and to provide basing without demur.
Most of the Arab World, and many in Europe are profoundly uncomfortable about the extent and brutality of the ongoing Israeli repression of the indigenous Arab population in Palestine. Stopping this does not have to mean denying Israel's right to security or existence. It does demand that Israel gives up its insistence on having carte blanche to do whatever it likes in the entire area of 'Biblical Israel' and to stay within its own legally agreed borders.
The Arabs have compromised. It's Israel's turn now, and if it won't do so without coercion, then the West should apply the necessary pressure, and win back its friends in the region, and take the opportunity to be seen as being even handed in its enforcement of UN resolutions.
The concept of self defence assumes a proportionate response against the aggressor, not a disproportionate response against innocent civilians.
Most of the Arab and Islamic world isn't fundamentalist. Most of the Arab and Islamic world doesn't care that much about infidel forces in Saudi Arabia. Most of the Arab and Islamic world doesn't support Al Qaeda and didn't support 9/11.
Much of the Arab and Islamic World was 'with us' last time, during Operation Desert Storm. With us enough to contribute forces and money, and to provide basing without demur.
Most of the Arab World, and many in Europe are profoundly uncomfortable about the extent and brutality of the ongoing Israeli repression of the indigenous Arab population in Palestine. Stopping this does not have to mean denying Israel's right to security or existence. It does demand that Israel gives up its insistence on having carte blanche to do whatever it likes in the entire area of 'Biblical Israel' and to stay within its own legally agreed borders.
The Arabs have compromised. It's Israel's turn now, and if it won't do so without coercion, then the West should apply the necessary pressure, and win back its friends in the region, and take the opportunity to be seen as being even handed in its enforcement of UN resolutions.
Swounger
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York, NY USA
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er, um, no that's not exactly how self defense works. For instance, Al Qaeda murdered 3000 here in the US. Whether it takes the killing of 3, or 30,000 to wipe out that terrorist group, it will be done---in self defense. Same with Israel. And please note---Israel doesn't murder civilians--the Palestinian terrorist scum do that--blowing up weddings, discos, and their latest--sending doped up teenagers to blow themselve up.
The Arabs have made absolutely no compromise--from not resettling the "refugees" who they created, to not giving Israel *anything* in return for its territorial concessions, Israel's given all, and the Arabs and its other Muslim enemies--nothing.
Enough is enough!
Check your mailbox.
Heliport
The Arabs have made absolutely no compromise--from not resettling the "refugees" who they created, to not giving Israel *anything* in return for its territorial concessions, Israel's given all, and the Arabs and its other Muslim enemies--nothing.
Enough is enough!
Check your mailbox.
Heliport
Last edited by Heliport; 30th Jan 2003 at 14:03.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Please, can you shut up about the "I" word. I'm sick to death of it, and you've both made you're views known elsewhere. It's nothing to do "Should we go to war". I see no reason why this thread should end up locked just because, yet again, you've hijacked it.
As to the point about why the U.S.A. feels differently, it's because it has a different track record to the U.K.
The defining points for the U.S.A. were the results they achieved in Germany and Japan after WWII, where they moved into what hostile defeated countries and imposed their rule. The result has been, as they see it, flourishing friendly democracies. They see no reason why they cannot achieve the same result in Iraq.
And, possibly, they may be right. The reconstruction of a conquered nation may be a more applicable guide than that of winning a "hearts and minds" campaign against a guerilla force. And if they managed it with the Japanese mind-set of 1945, I can't see any intrinsic reason they can't do it in Iraq now.
As to the point about why the U.S.A. feels differently, it's because it has a different track record to the U.K.
The defining points for the U.S.A. were the results they achieved in Germany and Japan after WWII, where they moved into what hostile defeated countries and imposed their rule. The result has been, as they see it, flourishing friendly democracies. They see no reason why they cannot achieve the same result in Iraq.
And, possibly, they may be right. The reconstruction of a conquered nation may be a more applicable guide than that of winning a "hearts and minds" campaign against a guerilla force. And if they managed it with the Japanese mind-set of 1945, I can't see any intrinsic reason they can't do it in Iraq now.
