Hostile wrote:

Metal Iain wrote:As for the War in Iraq: do you all not get seriously pissed off with hyper-liberal anti-war protesters? I can't stand people who protest against the decisions of government yet do nothing to propose a feasible alternative.

Uh, how about we don't invade sovereign nations without provocation, causing a bloody civil war and destabilising the region? How about we pull our troops out before another dumb kid gets killed? Blair is a war criminal with the blood of 655,000 people on his hands, 2.5% of the Iraqi population. He has nothing to be praised for and in a just world he'd be prosecuted for his crimes.

Hyper-liberal? Yeah, god forbid anyone should stand up for liberties these days.

hahaha well said!

its statements like 'blair is a war criminal' that annoys me,im not a fan of blair or labour, but personaly, he got rid of a horrible tyrancal regime, and its also a hard fact that democracy doesnt come cheap, surely we should no that by now most of us probably have relatives that have died for it, in a war people die, lots of people die! if we pull out without considering the security of the country it'l be a failure to the Iraqi people, im behind the troops 100% always have been.

amok wrote:its statements like 'blair is a war criminal' that annoys me,im not a fan of blair or labour, but personaly, he got rid of a horrible tyrancal regime, and its also a hard fact that democracy doesnt come cheap, surely we should no that by now most of us probably have relatives that have died for it, in a war people die, lots of people die! if we pull out without considering the security of the country it'l be a failure to the Iraqi people, im behind the troops 100% always have been.

Uh no, you're behind the official line 100%. If you were behind the troops, you'd support their extraction: they don't want to be there any more than we want them there, or any more than the Iraqis want them there.

Blair is a war criminal, and your distance for that fact does nothing to change it.

Your rhetoric there basically sickens me. "In a war people die"? "Democracy doesn't come cheap"? "I'm behind the troops"? Are you quoting directly from Tony's speeches or do these ideas pass through any kind of mental filter before you express them?

Under Saddam the Iraqis lived in a dictatorship. However they had food, water, the best health care system in the Middle East, electricity, jobs and all the basic human freedoms of self-determination.

Under the new Iraqi dictatorship, every Iraqi lives in constant fear. 2.5% of their population has been extinguished by our war. The health care is now non-existent, power only lasts for half a day, food and water are constantly being cut off, and a raging civil war of our creation means that the people dare not go outside, dress themselves, express opinions, or do anything which their previous freedoms allowed them.

So I guess my key question here would be, who the hell are you to decide that killing 655,000 innocent people is a worthwhile price for spreading your so-called democracy?

your just trying to make me say that many people dying is ok and im not bothered by it, this isnt true all. if you wanna say im supporting the 'official line' then go on. but i think people DO die in wars dont they?, and i do think so instill democracy in a country is enevitably going to cost many lives, all im saying is that i support getting rid of Suddam, i think in the long term this will make the world a better place, and whilst the troops are fighting i support them rather than telling them that their risking their lives for nothing and are all war criminals.

To help everyone come to a mutual understanding, I have found these lyrics that really put across my true feelings on this matter.

What would you do
If you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom?
What would you do
If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice?

Would you think about all them people
Who gave up everything they had?
Would you think about all them War Vets
And would you start to feel bad?

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
No, there's a hefty fuckin' fee.
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

What would you do
If someone told you to fight for freedom?
Would you answer the call
Or run away like a little ?
'Cause the only reason that you're here
Is 'cause folks died for you in the past
So maybe now it's your turn
To die kicking some ass

Freedom isn't free
It costs folks like you and me
And if we don't all chip in
We'll never pay that bill
Freedom isn't free
Now there's a hefty fuckin' fee
And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five
Who will?

You don't throw in your buck 'o five. Who will?
Oooh buck 'o five
Freedom costs a buck 'o five

I'm not dead, so it's not my problem. I'm gonna vote for the Monster Raving Loonie party then take drugs and smack an old person in the face.

amok wrote:your just trying to make me say that many people dying is ok and im not bothered by it, this isnt true all. if you wanna say im supporting the 'official line' then go on. but i think people DO die in wars dont they?, and i do think so instill democracy in a country is enevitably going to cost many lives, all im saying is that i support getting rid of Suddam, i think in the long term this will make the world a better place, and whilst the troops are fighting i support them rather than telling them that their risking their lives for nothing and are all war criminals.

Yeah Amok but we didnt go into the war to install democracy, we went in because Saddam Hussein supposedly had 'weapons of mass destruction' aimed at us. We were lied to completely and massive protests were ignored. Even the new New Labour government is basically saying they regret the war and it was a mistake. Since the war the world has become a less safe place, the threat of terrorism has increased and extreme muslims have been able to recruit more easily.

Why doesn't the west try to topple other dictatorships and why has it suported brutal regimes such as pinochets chile?

This isn't 'hyper liberal' nonsense or a conspiracy theory its the real situation.

boovidge wrote:

amok wrote:your just trying to make me say that many people dying is ok and im not bothered by it, this isnt true all. if you wanna say im supporting the 'official line' then go on. but i think people DO die in wars dont they?, and i do think so instill democracy in a country is enevitably going to cost many lives, all im saying is that i support getting rid of Suddam, i think in the long term this will make the world a better place, and whilst the troops are fighting i support them rather than telling them that their risking their lives for nothing and are all war criminals.

Yeah Amok but we didnt go into the war to install democracy, we went in because Saddam Hussein supposedly had 'weapons of mass destruction' aimed at us. We were lied to completely and massive protests were ignored. Even the new New Labour government is basically saying they regret the war and it was a mistake. Since the war the world has become a less safe place, the threat of terrorism has increased and extreme muslims have been able to recruit more easily.

Why doesn't the west try to topple other dictatorships and why has it suported brutal regimes such as pinochets chile?

This isn't 'hyper liberal' nonsense or a conspiracy theory its the real situation.

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. A small part of me thinks, yes Saddam is gone so that is nice. But that's not even the point. As soon as everyone realised that we were lied to about the "WMDs", the leaders turned around and said 'oh actually we're going in to fight for democracy and the freedom of the Iraqi people blah blah blah' and suddenly the people forgot about everything that happened beforehand. I know politicians lie all the time, but when the lies are so blatant and obvious it really pisses me off. I feel for the troops, their job can't be a very pleasant one, but I don't support the war. I think it's bollocks. I'm not going to pretend I know the finer details about what the war was really about though - people like to go about oil and all that, the truth is I don't know enough to comment on that. But I know that I feel this is all fucked up and I really wish it hadn't happened. And I have noticed an increase in the subtle ignorant racism of various people since this whole war and September 11th, and July 7th also.

I fail to see what good this war has done. Saddam has been removed and now he is dead, fine. Dictatorships shouldn't be allowed. But the fact is, they are allowed. If the only reason we went to Iraq was to fight for democracy, why haven't we gone anywhere else to do it? I don't know why this war has happened, but I'm pretty certain that 'democracy' isn't the reason.

As for Tony Blair, I'm glad he's gone, but I have no idea if Gordon Brown is going to be any different. All I know is that Armando Iannucci's depiction of the future Mr Brown in Time Trumpet was hilarious.

Hostile wrote:

Metal Iain wrote:As for the War in Iraq: do you all not get seriously pissed off with hyper-liberal anti-war protesters? I can't stand people who protest against the decisions of government yet do nothing to propose a feasible alternative.

Uh, how about we don't invade sovereign nations without provocation, causing a bloody civil war and destabilising the region? How about we pull our troops out before another dumb kid gets killed? Blair is a war criminal with the blood of 655,000 people on his hands, 2.5% of the Iraqi population. He has nothing to be praised for and in a just world he'd be prosecuted for his crimes.

Hyper-liberal? Yeah, god forbid anyone should stand up for liberties these days.

Without provocation?

Saddam Hussein had been a thorn in the UN's balls throughout the 1990s. It was the right thing to do to finally get in there and try to sort the place out once and for all.

Pulling out our troops? 156 dead, boo hoo hoo! It's hardly the Somme now is it? The First World War was far more pointless than the War in Iraq yet people are very reserved in their criticism of it.

There is a difference between supporting your party of choice (I'm a Lib Dem through and through) and using the hyper-liberal vocabulary displayed in your post. Next you'll be likening Blair to Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein himself!

amok wrote:all im saying is that i support getting rid of Suddam, i think in the long term this will make the world a better place, and whilst the troops are fighting i support them rather than telling them that their risking their lives for nothing and are all war criminals.

Oh yes, God forbid anyone tells them the truth, it might "embolden the enemy". Alright, so you support the toppling of Saddam, but do you support the 650,000 innocent people our country helped to kill? Do you support our installation of a new dictatorship, or our creation of a disastrous civil war in a nation which previously lived peacefully together, or the terrorist blowback we will no doubt receive for our involvement in these atrocities? Cause that's the price we've paid to topple one dictator. Seems to me like Tony Blair has a hell of a lot to answer for.

boovidge: too right, but what about Israel? A war-like Apartheid nation which is nuclear capable and in direct violation of a thousand UN resolutions, run by Zionists and war-profiteers. We never mention the four Israeli Mossad (secret service) agents who were found filming and cheering upon a rooftop when the World Trade Centres were struck, or how they were arrested and subsequently deported to Israel with no further investigations, or how the Israeli Finance Minister had before-hand warning of the 7/7 bombings in London. Now there is a nation I'll consider a threat.

Metal Ian wrote:Without provocation?

Saddam Hussein had been a thorn in the UN's balls throughout the 1990s. It was the right thing to do to finally get in there and try to sort the place out once and for all.

Pulling out our troops? 156 dead, boo hoo hoo! It's hardly the Somme now is it? The First World War was far more pointless than the War in Iraq yet people are very reserved in their criticism of it.

Oh, Saddam never did shit to us and you know it. 156 dead troops isn't anything to laugh about either, when their deaths are fully in vain. It also seems like you're ignoring the larger slice of the pie, i.e. the 2.5% of the Iraqi population dead. I'm just gonna keep quoting that statistic until people realise how fucking grotesque it is.

Do you consider a full-blown civil war "sorted out"?

If only Bill Hicks was alive today...

Hostile wrote:Uh no, you're behind the official line 100%. If you were behind the troops, you'd support their extraction: they don't want to be there any more than we want them there, or any more than the Iraqis want them there.

Blair is a war criminal, and your distance for that fact does nothing to change it.

Your rhetoric there basically sickens me. "In a war people die"? "Democracy doesn't come cheap"? "I'm behind the troops"? Are you quoting directly from Tony's speeches or do these ideas pass through any kind of mental filter before you express them?

Soldiers don't have a choice precisely because they are soldiers. They sign away a lot of their civil rights in becoming soldiers. I'm sure when they signed up a lot of them didn't really expect to get their hands dirty but they are soldiers and there is the fairly basic tenant that people die in war and casualties are to be expected.

And implying that the Iraqis don't want our soldiers there is such a typical hyper-liberal statement. Have you been there to see any of this for yourself or what?

Hostile wrote:Under Saddam the Iraqis lived in a dictatorship. However they had food, water, the best health care system in the Middle East, electricity, jobs and all the basic human freedoms of self-determination.

The right to be beheaded for prostitution or practicing your chosen belief... Again, this is a very idealized fallacy of the hyper-liberal cannon.

I'm sure if you went to the northern provinces of Iraq and asked Kurds how they felt about life under Saddam they'd be in whole-hearted agreement.

Hostile wrote:Under the new Iraqi dictatorship, every Iraqi lives in constant fear. 2.5% of their population has been extinguished by our war. The health care is now non-existent, power only lasts for half a day, food and water are constantly being cut off, and a raging civil war of our creation means that the people dare not go outside, dress themselves, express opinions, or do anything which their previous freedoms allowed them.

So I guess my key question here would be, who the hell are you to decide that killing 655,000 innocent people is a worthwhile price for spreading your so-called democracy?

A civil war of our creation? You make it sound as if we had any say in it. No matter what the Prime Minister and President combination, this war would have happened. Besides, it's not as if the fact that Iraqis of different religious denominations basically hate each other has anything to do with it.

655, 000 as you said is only 2.5% of the population. Plenty more where that came from.

I don't really see the point in having any political views, politics is gay, let the fuckin politicians deal with it!!!!

boovidge wrote:Yeah Amok but we didnt go into the war to install democracy, we went in because Saddam Hussein supposedly had 'weapons of mass destruction' aimed at us. We were lied to completely and massive protests were ignored. Even the new New Labour government is basically saying they regret the war and it was a mistake. Since the war the world has become a less safe place, the threat of terrorism has increased and extreme muslims have been able to recruit more easily.

Why doesn't the west try to topple other dictatorships and why has it suported brutal regimes such as pinochets chile?

This isn't 'hyper liberal' nonsense or a conspiracy theory its the real situation.

If Saddam had complied with UN Weapon Inspectors we wouldn't have been led to believe that Iraq did have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The New Labour government is implying regret for the war because their bread and butter is pissed off about it. If they didn't show an ounce of remorse about our casualties then they'd not be as renowned as ther are for electioneering.

And the situation is real, the way it is put forward by you is vomit-inducingly liberal though.

Metal Iain wrote:If Saddam had complied with UN Weapon Inspectors we wouldn't have been led to believe that Iraq did have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I remember the UN spent fucking ages in there checking everything, then they made a report, non?