Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I liked it better when a war was a war. Didn't have to worry about collateral damage, just blow them all to smithereens.

It would have been over in no time and, once the radioactivity had settled down, we could have helped ourselves to all their natural resources


I should be PM.

......of course you should....I lot of patients on your ward ......feel the same way....

[Dishevelled Den]

I have been watching the threads on the Iraq war enquiry with interest.  Noted has been the obsession with the legality of it or not, which I do fully understand.

However, I am a supporter of Machiavellian practice, as the means can be justified by the end result, and Bentham / Mills belief in utilitarianism and action taken for the greater good.  This theology is apparent in much of world history,  especially in recent times.  Example - bombing of Germany in WW2 1943-1945 - sacrifice of troops, such as on the D-Day 1944 when around 5,000 casualties (but not the 10,000 expected) were sustained - dropping of 'the bomb' on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.

I therefore celebrate the demise of Saddam Hussein, the bloody dictator who killed en-mass his opposition, killed by WMD and oppression 50-100,000 Kurds - who invaded Kuwait - and who oppressed and killed 10's of thousands of his own people.  Good ridence to this evil despot and his evil family who would kill for fun and power.

I am not a Labourite, but I salute Tony Blair for his courage in making a  very, very difficult and lonely decision, that he as a Prime Minister had to take and now shoulders the responsibilty for, as Winston Churchill had to during WW2.

Saddam would have grown ever more dangerous if he had been left alone, and we can now only speculate as to how dangerous now as thank God he is no longer with us.  A situation that I for one rejoice about!

as the means can be justified by the end result,


That's quite a blank cheque there E, and such thinking has been responsible for more than a few momentous errors of judgement in the past - speaking from first hand experience in a place not too far away, for one. 


Good ridence to this evil despot and his evil family who would kill for fun and power.


A very reasonable statement but I wish that if regime change had been the intention of G W Bush he would have had the guts to say so. In the same vein it also would have been helpful for ex Premier Blair to have had the decency to inform parliament and the people of this country of just what was being planned.


very, very difficult and lonely decision, that he as a Prime Minister

Is that really the case or did he not have plenty of support from the main drivers for this action in the United States or the faceless people within his kitchen cabinet - whether unelected or not?  No, I'm afraid that the behaviour of that New Labour administration suggested that no one person seemed to make the decisions as the preferred method appears have been by select group, focus group or quango.


Saddam would have grown ever more dangerous if he had been left alone, and we can now only speculate as to how dangerous now as thank God he is no longer with us.

Is that not in itself highly speculative E?  We certainly don't appear to have had the regional resources in place at that particular time which would have provided the intelligence necessary to support such an assertion.  Having accepted that there was a potential problem developing, by basing our judgement on the performance by Colin Powell in the United Nations, has now been revealed as a colossal error of judgement.


Example - bombing of Germany in WW2 1943-1945 - sacrifice of troops, such as on the D-Day 1944 when around 5,000 casualties (but not the 10,000 expected) were sustained - dropping of 'the bomb' on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.


For whose greater good however - surely not for the people of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, or the thousands slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan?  When decisions are made by the few that affect so many the question of morality is reduced to one of who – in terms of military power - is right and who is wrong, and the answer to that depends of course upon whatever side of the tracks your caravan rests.

[STMO999]

A frightening scenario:

China grows to be the biggest power (economic and military) in the world. The US can only afford to look after it's own interests. The Chinese take umbrage at what a jumped-up little island is doing in the regions of the world where it has no business. They decide that a regime change would be of benefit........getting worried yet?

[Martin_1962]

A frightening scenario:

China grows to be the biggest power (economic and military) in the world. The US can only afford to look after it's own interests. The Chinese take umbrage at what a jumped-up little island is doing in the regions of the world where it has no business. They decide that a regime change would be of benefit........getting worried yet?

They will not touch us Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant, & Vengeance are a deterrent

[STMO999]

A frightening scenario:

China grows to be the biggest power (economic and military) in the world. The US can only afford to look after it's own interests. The Chinese take umbrage at what a jumped-up little island is doing in the regions of the world where it has no business. They decide that a regime change would be of benefit........getting worried yet?

They will not touch us Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant, & Vengeance are a deterrent

 

There's only ever one at sea. They're clapped out.

Shhh....dont tell Ahmadinajad.

[Martin_1962]

A frightening scenario:

China grows to be the biggest power (economic and military) in the world. The US can only afford to look after it's own interests. The Chinese take umbrage at what a jumped-up little island is doing in the regions of the world where it has no business. They decide that a regime change would be of benefit........getting worried yet?

They will not touch us Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant, & Vengeance are a deterrent

 

There's only ever one at sea. They're clapped out.

Shhh....dont tell Ahmadinajad.

Nor Peking

[cem_devecioglu]

I have been watching the threads on the Iraq war enquiry with interest.  Noted has been the obsession with the legality of it or not, which I do fully understand.

However, I am a supporter of Machiavellian practice, as the means can be justified by the end result, and Bentham / Mills belief in utilitarianism and action taken for the greater good.  This theology is apparent in much of world history,  especially in recent times.  Example - bombing of Germany in WW2 1943-1945 - sacrifice of troops, such as on the D-Day 1944 when around 5,000 casualties (but not the 10,000 expected) were sustained - dropping of 'the bomb' on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.

I therefore celebrate the demise of Saddam Hussein, the bloody dictator who killed en-mass his opposition, killed by WMD and oppression 50-100,000 Kurds - who invaded Kuwait - and who oppressed and killed 10's of thousands of his own people.  Good ridence to this evil despot and his evil family who would kill for fun and power.

I am not a Labourite, but I salute Tony Blair for his courage in making a  very, very difficult and lonely decision, that he as a Prime Minister had to take and now shoulders the responsibilty for, as Winston Churchill had to during WW2.

Saddam would have grown ever more dangerous if he had been left alone, and we can now only speculate as to how dangerous now as thank God he is no longer with us.  A situation that I for one rejoice about!

as the means can be justified by the end result,


That's quite a blank cheque there E, and such thinking has been responsible for more than a few momentous errors of judgement in the past - speaking from first hand experience in a place not too far away, for one. 


Good ridence to this evil despot and his evil family who would kill for fun and power.


A very reasonable statement but I wish that 1.if regime change had been the intention of G W Bush he would have had the guts to say so. In the same vein it also would have been helpful for ex Premier Blair to have had the decency to inform parliament and the people of this country of just what was being planned.


very, very difficult and lonely decision, that he as a Prime Minister

Is that really the case or did he not have plenty of support from the main drivers for this action in the United States or the faceless people within his kitchen cabinet - whether unelected or not?  No, I'm afraid that the behaviour of that New Labour administration suggested that no one person seemed to make the decisions as the preferred method appears have been by select group, focus group or quango.


Saddam would have grown ever more dangerous if he had been left alone, and we can now only speculate as to how dangerous now as thank God he is no longer with us.

Is that not in itself highly speculative E?  2.We certainly don't appear to have had the regional resources in place at that particular time which would have provided the intelligence necessary to support such an assertion.  Having accepted that there was a potential problem developing, by basing our judgement on the performance by Colin Powell in the United Nations, has now been revealed as a colossal error of judgement.


Example - bombing of Germany in WW2 1943-1945 - sacrifice of troops, such as on the D-Day 1944 when around 5,000 casualties (but not the 10,000 expected) were sustained - dropping of 'the bomb' on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.


For whose greater good however - surely not for the people of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, or the thousands slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan?  When decisions are made by the few that affect so many the question of morality is reduced to one of who – in terms of military power - is right and who is wrong, and the answer to that depends of course upon whatever side of the tracks your caravan rests.
 

phew..impressive..

1. Bush had no intention about regime change at the moment.. all the (not his)  idea was the control of region and oil fields..

And for Blair , I'm afraid he realized he had no choice against the storm..

and the truth , system used both and sacrifice them when the wind turns..

2. intelligencies (of course not the public)  know the reality what was happening actually ..  and its a known fact sometimes they dont share their complete knowledge with the govt (in many countries) :-/

For Iraq I can say , another box of Pandora..  Very different groups..  And actually they were never a nation..lines drawn by ruler  and you will see the actual proof when the troops leave..

Saddam may be was a dictator, but keep them together and prevent them killing each other (instead he kills them ) however everyone will see that now the box is completely open and all evil out..

and now the worse part, whole country will be a bed for religious extremes    abused by Iran..

and a note : dont think Kurds were all peacefull and clean like they come from milk , god knows what they have done to other minorities..

[Dishevelled Den]

phew..impressive..

1. Bush had no intention about regime change at the moment.. all the (not his)  idea was the control of region and oil fields..

And for Blair , I'm afraid he realized he had no choice against the storm..

and the truth , system used both and sacrifice them when the wind turns..

2. intelligencies (of course not the public)  know the reality what was happening actually ..  and its a known fact sometimes they dont share their complete knowledge with the govt (in many countries) :-/

For Iraq I can say , another box of Pandora..  Very different groups..  And actually they were never a nation..lines drawn by ruler  and you will see the actual proof when the troops leave..

Saddam may be was a dictator, but keep them together and prevent them killing each other (instead he kills them ) however everyone will see that now the box is completely open and all evil out..

and now the worse part, whole country will be a bed for religious extremes    abused by Iran..

and a note : dont think Kurds were all peacefull and clean like they come from milk , god knows what they have done to other minorities..

Bush had no intention about regime change at the moment.. all the (not his)  idea was the control of region and oil fields..


I think there's more than a grain of truth to that cem - in addition, the excuse to go to war over 'WMD' was the perfect excuse to have American 'boots on the ground' in a region where the centralisation of a viable counter force to any perceived aggression from any one of a number of countries surrounding it, was perhaps considered to be of a very distinct advantage.



For Iraq I can say , another box of Pandora..  Very different groups..  And actually they were never a nation..lines drawn by ruler  and you will see the actual proof when the troops leave..

Saddam may be was a dictator, but keep them together and prevent them killing each other (instead he kills them ) however everyone will see that now the box is completely open and all evil out..


I certainly agree with you cem.  When Saddam was warring with Iran he was deemed to be of use to the west (the United States)  Now that he has been removed from power a dangerous vacuum exists and furthermore but for the American presence there at the moment the country and perhaps the near region would implode into conflict.


and now the worse part, whole country will be a bed for religious extremes    abused by Iran..


Exactly cem and these unpalatable facts have been made the more obvious by this ill advised war

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I have been watching the threads on the Iraq war enquiry with interest.  Noted has been the obsession with the legality of it or not, which I do fully understand.

However, I am a supporter of Machiavellian practice, as the means can be justified by the end result, and Bentham / Mills belief in utilitarianism and action taken for the greater good.  This theology is apparent in much of world history,  especially in recent times.  Example - bombing of Germany in WW2 1943-1945 - sacrifice of troops, such as on the D-Day 1944 when around 5,000 casualties (but not the 10,000 expected) were sustained - dropping of 'the bomb' on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.

I therefore celebrate the demise of Saddam Hussein, the bloody dictator who killed en-mass his opposition, killed by WMD and oppression 50-100,000 Kurds - who invaded Kuwait - and who oppressed and killed 10's of thousands of his own people.  Good ridence to this evil despot and his evil family who would kill for fun and power.

I am not a Labourite, but I salute Tony Blair for his courage in making a  very, very difficult and lonely decision, that he as a Prime Minister had to take and now shoulders the responsibilty for, as Winston Churchill had to during WW2.

Saddam would have grown ever more dangerous if he had been left alone, and we can now only speculate as to how dangerous now as thank God he is no longer with us.  A situation that I for one rejoice about!

as the means can be justified by the end result,


1. That's quite a blank cheque there E, and such thinking has been responsible for more than a few momentous errors of judgement in the past - speaking from first hand experience in a place not too far away, for one. 




Good ridence to this evil despot and his evil family who would kill for fun and power.


2. A very reasonable statement but I wish that if regime change had been the intention of G W Bush he would have had the guts to say so. In the same vein it also would have been helpful for ex Premier Blair to have had the decency to inform parliament and the people of this country of just what was being planned.




very, very difficult and lonely decision, that he as a Prime Minister

3. Is that really the case or did he not have plenty of support from the main drivers for this action in the United States or the faceless people within his kitchen cabinet - whether unelected or not?  No, I'm afraid that the behaviour of that New Labour administration suggested that no one person seemed to make the decisions as the preferred method appears have been by select group, focus group or quango.




Saddam would have grown ever more dangerous if he had been left alone, and we can now only speculate as to how dangerous now as thank God he is no longer with us.

4. Is that not in itself highly speculative E?  We certainly don't appear to have had the regional resources in place at that particular time which would have provided the intelligence necessary to support such an assertion.  Having accepted that there was a potential problem developing, by basing our judgement on the performance by Colin Powell in the United Nations, has now been revealed as a colossal error of judgement.




Example - bombing of Germany in WW2 1943-1945 - sacrifice of troops, such as on the D-Day 1944 when around 5,000 casualties (but not the 10,000 expected) were sustained - dropping of 'the bomb' on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.


5. For whose greater good however - surely not for the people of Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, or the thousands slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan?  When decisions are made by the few that affect so many the question of morality is reduced to one of who – in terms of military power - is right and who is wrong, and the answer to that depends of course upon whatever side of the tracks your caravan rests.
 

1. But also many many victories have transpired which has resulted in our democracy still being intact.  Remember the SAS motto; he who dares wins!

2. I don't know where you were at the time Zulu, but I remember well that these issues were being broadcast by the politicians concerned regularly in the media.

3.  Blair was the PM.  He was the key politician to make the decision and take responsibility.  In power one can take full consultation, brief and recommendation by commitee or not.  But, when it comes to the final decision, it is the leader who must make it one way or another.


4.  No, not when you take into account Saddam's form - a first world war type engagement against Iran - wiping out his opposition - taking out the Kurds - invading Kuwait - running a family regime that was an aggressive dictatorship -  99% of the regional Arab nations feared him, as the west did.  Why?  Saddam represented a Hitler type character who had to be stopped before he became a mini version of that devil.

5. No, but they are measured in thousands; without such action  such as the Allied bombing raids on Germany, WWII would have continued longer, with possibly millions more killed.  Sometimes in life's political actions 1 life X unit has to be sacrificed to save1000 life X units.  Ask the Russian survivors of the Battle for Stalingrad and the onward battles to the centre of Berlin.  Russia, and Europe, is today what it is due to all of this type of sacrifice.


I am sure I do not have to remind you Zulu that life is neither black nor white, but a muddy grey!

[Amigo]

terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired Too little too late. Jeremy Drone embraced this today because he's duller than grey paint. Saddam & his sons needed sorting. We did that, now it's illegal so we should'nt have.
   This will never be resolved because of the feelings on each side who both have a point but it's done now right or wrong so can everyone including the press/media stop dragging it out please?


   Yes i sympathise with the lives lost in the call of duty, they're ALL tougher men & women than i am but it's pointless hounding his "Tonyness" or that Bush pillock because you'll NEVER get a straight answer.
    6 hrs wasted chat today... Tony evaded everything perfectly & we're no further ahead. Nothing else will happen.
   Wasted news.

[cem_devecioglu]

terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired Too little too late. Jeremy Drone embraced this today because he's duller than grey paint. Saddam & his sons needed sorting. We did that, now it's illegal so we should'nt have.
   This will never be resolved because of the feelings on each side who both have a point but it's done now right or wrong so can everyone including the press/media stop dragging it out please?


   Yes i sympathise with the lives lost in the call of duty, they're ALL tougher men & women than i am but it's pointless hounding his "Tonyness" or that Bush pillock because you'll NEVER get a straight answer.
    6 hrs wasted chat today... Tony evaded everything perfectly & we're no further ahead. Nothing else will happen.
   Wasted news.

 :-?

AmigoV6, all these lifes are lost and many will be in the future because some cartels may profit more..

and now you think we are wasting time by talking/discussing the facts before and after..

go get some sleep

[Nickbat]

The most valuable commodity in the world is hindsight.

Of course, many have been slaughtered in various wars but, equally, it must be said that many of them laid down their lives that future generations should be free.

I really don't think that revisiting Hiroshima or Dresden is particularly useful. I don't think there are many on here that experienced WWII. If you lost loved ones during the Blitz, you'd have no hesitation in supporting the Dresden raids.

The problem, as always, is down to power and the corruption thereof. If there had been no Hitler, there would have been no WWII. If there had been no Saddam, there would not have been the Gulf Wars. The problem is that when fanatics are able to assume power, violence will ensue. To ensure peace in the future, it is necessary to maintain power with the people. That is why the political elites of this day and age are so dangerous. They may not look like Hitler or Saddam or Pol Pot, but when they assume total executive power, the ramifications are hugely frightening. The current disconnect between the masses and the political class is therefore a worry.

That said, sometimes wars are just necessary. It's a fact of life. The same logic applies, albeit on a much simpler level, when law enforcement officers are required to resort to violence themselves when dealing with psychopaths. Violence is rarely the answer, but sometimes it is the only valid response.

Just my two-penneth.        

[Amigo]

Evening Cem. I did say i sympathise with loss of serving lives & those of the innocent citizens. I can't say whether this war was morally correct/legal or other wise i just think it's a bit late in the day to waste more time & money on an inquiry now.
  The damage is done, this won't bring anyone back. The whole thing's a bit of a mess really.

[cem_devecioglu]

Evening Cem. I did say i sympathise with loss of serving lives & those of the innocent citizens. I can't say whether this war was morally correct/legal or other wise i just think it's a bit late in the day to waste more time & money on an inquiry now.
  The damage is done, this won't bring anyone back. The whole thing's a bit of a mess really.

Good evening AmigoV6

I'm afraid another war is knocking the door and some parents will still have to send their children for another one..

I think its much better for people to understand whats going on in reality which is not told by media.. :-/

[Amigo]

I admit my opinions are based on limited knowledge & total lack of experience of living in such conditions for which i consider myself fortunate. I don't have a solution, niether do the powers that be, i just think enough's enough, nothing more to be gained.

   Yes i do need some sleep!!!