--
McWhom
-----------------------------------------------------------------
:
: > http://www.racesimcentral.net/
:<snipped in an effort to take away David's first amendment rights>
--
McWhom
-----------------------------------------------------------------
:
: > http://www.racesimcentral.net/
:<snipped in an effort to take away David's first amendment rights>
>IMO the war didn't need to be 'sold' to us. The only people who were
>anti-war were very stupid (IMO) or pop singers who thought they could make
>a
>statement and get in the news for a bit more publicity.
How can being anti-war be very stupid? We don't appear to be under any
kind of threat, and never were, yet you seem to be of the opinion that,
if a country can't sort itself out according to the west's criteria for
what is acceptable, then it should go in and start killing people and
that'll solve everything.
Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to be of the opinion that the ***
powers should be allowed to invade any country that they didn't like,
just because they felt it would be a better place after being taken over
by the west. That sounds like some kind of roadmap for world
domination.
--
Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington)
Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email
If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :)
GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77
No, they just didn't mind somebody like Saddam Hussein doing tragic things
to his people. Which to my mind is pretty damn bad in itself.
No, just get rid of the leadership, who are causing the problem, as a last
resort. Surely it's not acceptable in the Mid-East to launch chemical
weapons on your own population?
No, I don't want it taken over by the West at all, we're not exactly great
examples, just the brutal dictators removed and replaced with people who can
stick to the good side of basic human rights is enough for me. We might not
be great but at least we have some rules to safeguard the population from
the government.
That sounds like something you heard on a TV show... ;-)
Nick
>No, they just didn't mind somebody like Saddam Hussein doing tragic things
>to his people. Which to my mind is pretty damn bad in itself.
>> How can being anti-war be very stupid? We don't appear to be under any
>> kind of threat, and never were, yet you seem to be of the opinion that,
>> if a country can't sort itself out according to the west's criteria for
>> what is acceptable, then it should go in and start killing people and
>> that'll solve everything.
>No, just get rid of the leadership, who are causing the problem, as a last
>resort. Surely it's not acceptable in the Mid-East to launch chemical
>weapons on your own population?
Which is all fine and dandy, but that is not why we invaded. We were
sold the idea that we were under threat. If the government(s) of the
time can convince us of this once, then who is to say they cannot do so
again, just because there is a regime in place that is anti the west and
some of the western powers get a little jumpy.
I have less qualms over a United National Agreement against human rights
atrocities on ones own people, with the aim to remove the dictator in
question, but this has to be the initial basis for invasion, not because
some countries are getting a little jittery and decide to take it upon
themselves to do something about it and then shout about human rights
atrocities after they struggle to come up with any proof for their
original invasion.
No. All my own work. I do prefer to make my own mind up on what I
accept as truth and how I put things across, rather than regurgitate
what I have heard from others. :)
Mind you, I can't resist just this one:
The first casualty of war is the truth.
--
Peter Ives (AKA Pete Ivington)
Remove ALL_STRESS before replying via email
If you know what's good for you, don't listen to me :)
GPLRank Joystick -50.63 Wheel -21.77
No, but we were in there non-preemptively when Saddam started a war back in
1991, and after it was all finished, we took the cowards way out and said
that we'd forget all the bad stuff he did and let him stay in power, *if* he
obeyed some UN defined rules. He has broken these rules so often that
eventually something has to be done, otherwise other rogue states could see
that the UN is just pointless and weak. But then thanks to some certain
countries, the UN dissolved it's own power and respect, leaving some
countries (US, UK, Aus, et al) to break off and do what the UN should have
done. I think there was an urgent need to get rid of Saddam, and we gave him
over a decade to prove that he was going to stop doing what he was doing,
which is a whole bunch of 'last chances', but he didn't change, so something
had to be done. Imagine if Hitler hadn't killed himself after all the
terrible things he did, and the Allies decided to leave him in power as long
as he 'changed his ways'...
I wasn't 'sold' anything. The fact is, war is bad, and there are a helluva
lot of people in the US and UK who don't really know (or have forgotten) all
the bad things Saddam has done, and trying to convince those people that a
pre-emptive war is the best course of action is pretty hard. I would have
just listed the bad things Saddam has done, compared him to Hitler and then
asked everybody to make up their own mind, but it's a lot easier to say "Do
you want another 9/11?" to get the public on your side.
That's fair enough, though the human rights issue was big enough that if
they didn't find any WMD as soon as they went in, they could 'fall back' on
it as still a perfectly valid reason for getting rid of Saddam. The news
media will have long forgotten about The Gulf War, 2003, before they
actually find any WMD, but they knew that before they went in. They don't
just leave chemical weapons lying around on street corners, even Hans Blix
might notice that...
It's not often people do that, so fair play to you.
Nick
> >It's not often people do that, so fair play to you.
> Anyway Nick, cheers for the discussion.
Nick
RASCAR is a good environment to learn N200X racing online
proper. Just drop a note in the forum on www.racesimcentral.com
to get yourself registered. Looking forward to seeing you on
the track!
Cheers,
uwe
PS: for ON-offtopic content: Please all read "Ishmael" by Dan
Quinn, but I think I pointed this book out to you before ;-)
--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61