Your running for prime minister

[SuitsBlueX2]

Still sounds like utter tosh to me.

There are European countries where that line said in public will see you in prison. Research that.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

I cannot get onside with that. The crimes Saddam commit were due to different areas at conflict with each other and his was the biggest stick and he punished accordingly to him. He was not right to do what he did, but the power vacuum provided by ousting the person (Saddam) the British and the US put in place to be the Wests man in the East has cost the real sufferers far more than having one maniac trying to be the big boss. On top of all that, Iraqs neighbour Iran has got itchy feet and allegedly been pushing nuclear capability. Why should anyone else have and not them? See how easy it is to divide and conquer? Present injustice, present hypocrisy, present a picture of your enemy and use it to gather support.

Obviously, I can't disagree with that but get beyond the intentions of war (or indeed, typical tactics to gather support)- you really dont think the Iraqi people have benefited?

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

if maggie hadn't cosied up to saddam in the first place and armed him to the teeth, then the iranians would've got rid of him and there would've been no need for us to go there and do it for the americans.

suprised nobody has added this to her c.v. tbh

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

Oh deary me. For your own sake, do some reading.

Don't be so patronising.

You suggest we should have gone to war earlier than we did as an intervention, a pre-emptive strike as it were - if you think they should have acted sooner, wouldn't a simple assassination have made more sense?

As I asked before : What do you think the reason should be for any Government to go to war?

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

There are European countries where that line said in public will see you in prison. Research that.

Why would I want to research which European countries will imprison you for saying "Still sounds like utter tosh to me."?

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

Obviously, I can't disagree with that but get beyond the intentions of war - you really dont think the Iraqi people have benefited?

Reading around, there are all sorts of figures for the amounts that have died during the war and since its end. What has been reported more is that the Iraqi forces have commit atrocities in the name of Democracy. Death squads are death squads. And allegedly it has been based on ethnicity. So the US has given 'police' status out to so many and they have ran around avenging old debts because they can. Terrorist attacks have increased, I believe more western soldiers have died during the transferal of power compared to the actual taking. How many Iraqis go to Pakistan and Iran for terrorist training no one knows. The area is not stable, and a very old problem is still sat festering in Israel.

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

Originally Posted by DuncIrkSpirit View Post
Britain knew of the horror of the holocaust, the persecution, the ethnic cleansing. And Britains hand was forced, the Polish borders were guaranteed and when they goose stepped over them it was war. Regardless of how wronged they had been during WWI. (Heavens, the French knew they were on the way for over a decade, hence the 'defensive wall' they built that the Nazis went round.)
Still sounds like utter tosh to me.

Denial, or the perceived denial of the holocaust is a prisonable offence.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

Denial, or the perceived denial of the holocaust is a prisonable offence.

Who's denying the Holocaust?

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Don't be so patronising.

You suggest we should have gone to war earlier than we did as an intervention, a pre-emptive strike as it were - if you think they should have acted sooner, wouldn't a simple assassination have made more sense?

Its not me personally who suggests that, its history. There was a television programme a few months ago that had the delay of the second world war as its biggest mistake in a top 50 countdown of mistakes. As I said, do some reading. On the back of WW1, we waited until we were forced - for the reasons Dunc illustrated to you, reasons widely accepted as much as the sky is Blue. Yet, you for some absolutely bizarre reason claim it to be "utter tosh". Beggars belief - so much so that I'm reluctant to spend any more time discussing any issue in this thread with you.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Thats never going to happen though is it? But that doesn't mean all wars are pointless, does it?

Sure, I appreciate that the whole world peace thing is some kind of utopian fantasy and there will probably always be someone willing to take what they feel they deserve by force.

The thing is, both the number of wars and the bloodshed they cause is on the increase. If they were falling you could argue that we're getting somewhere. We may never have that world peace thing but we are at least getting more peaceful.

That's what would get my goat if I had lost a relative. Losing people in conflict is perhaps acceptable the first time but politicians march up and down on Remembrance Day partaking in the charade of giving a damn. They couldn't care less. If they did they would move heaven and earth before sending another person to their death in a war. It's all too easy for politicians to use the armed forces to stroke their own power driven egos.

My history isn't great but havn't Germany and Japan been largely pacifist since WWII? That's the 2nd and 4th largest economies in the world. They havn't felt the need to dictate their will militarily, yet both are still hugely influential on global affairs because of their economic prowess. Scandanavia likewise does very well despite being pretty much a pacifist region.

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

Britain knew of the horror of the holocaust,

Still sounds like utter tosh to me.

Not difficult to pick what you want from a post.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

Not difficult to pick what you want from a post.

Not to have it twisted to mean something different.

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

Sure, I appreciate that the whole world peace thing is some kind of utopian fantasy and there will probably always be someone willing to take what they feel they deserve by force.

The thing is, both the number of wars and the bloodshed they cause is on the increase. If they were falling you could argue that we're getting somewhere. We may never have that world peace thing but we are at least getting more peaceful.

That's what would get my goat if I had lost a relative. Losing people in conflict is perhaps acceptable the first time but politicians march up and down on Remembrance Day partaking in the charade of giving a damn. They couldn't care less. If they did they would move heaven and earth before sending another person to their death in a war. It's all too easy for politicians to use the armed forces to stroke their own power driven egos.

My history isn't great but havn't Germany and Japan been largely pacifist since WWII? That's the 2nd and 4th largest economies in the world. They havn't felt the need to dictate their will militarily, yet both are still hugely influential on global affairs because of their economic prowess. Scandanavia likewise does very well despite being pretty much a pacifist region.

'War is the continuation of politics by other means'
And "utopian fantasy" is out of order. Lets not tell untruths about warmongers happy to get rich of war that provides them with a living.
(PS. There are more people in the world and more guns, so can numbers of dead be used are a tool to identify trends? Can increased numbers be blamed for increased tensions? No politicians do not care, that is why their children never go to war but the Monarchies children get trained to.)

 

[SuitsBlueX2]

Not to have it twisted to mean something different.

I gave you that! What were you disagreeing with? Because now, it does not look like all of it.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

My history isn't great but havn't Germany and Japan been largely pacifist since WWII? That's the 2nd and 4th largest economies in the world. They havn't felt the need to dictate their will militarily, yet both are still hugely influential on global affairs because of their economic prowess. Scandanavia likewise does very well despite being pretty much a pacifist region.

not sure about japan, but the germans have been hit by sanctions that have only just been relaxed.

buildings used by the nazi's were taken over, and the army was confined to it's borders, it was a 50 year thing, and it was only recently that the german troops were in service outside of their homeland for the 1st time since the war. obviously in the 50 years, the german people were educated about just what went on there, so they have a very different view and can see why they had to be stopped back then. there have been more foreign troops on german soil than german ones since the war ended.