A letter to Bush

[duffistuta]

>>>Right rant over, to summerise my point, everyone / country can have their own opinion, but I resent those who constantly assume and claim to have support they do not.

Amen

 

[Beaker]

Originally posted by Burb
I support our men, because a) they are innocent people b)they havent got anything to do with the polititics behind this war.

Amen (and I'm not religious!)

 

[Flash-Bugout]

Is it just me, or is anyone else bored of hearing about George W Bush's campaign to rid Iraqistan of Osama Hussein?

War against Terrorism? My Ar$e!

For example - IRA, ETA, etc etc - in the case of the IRA, weren't most of their bombs funded by Americans, wasn't the US the only place that would give Gerry Adams a political voice many moons ago?

Freeing innocent people from an oppressive regeime? My Ar$e!

Of will we see US troops hitting Zimbabwe, North Korea, China, etc etc over the coming year?

And as for anything people say about "undemocratically elected leader" blah blah blah - what about GW Bush himself - the man had 250,000 LESS votes than the other dude - is that democratic? Is it heck!

I think we should send those behind this war (Blair, Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc) to the front line, then we'd see just how in favour of a war they are!

[Rant Mode Off]

I wish I could go to Lisbon an play some ball

 

[Mario]

Originally posted by Burb
Not so much Blair, but the Fact that the USA refuse to comply with the UN Inspectors seems to me as a tad bit hypocritial.

Also, America i quote

"Respected scientists on both sides of the Atlantic warned yesterday that the US is developing a new generation of weapons that undermine and possibly violate international treaties on biological and chemical warfare"]

on this issue i agree with you but what's the likleyhood that america is gonna unleash smallpox and other diseases? they shouldn't be making them but they are and every goverment that you elect will have this sort of thing going on. They have to counteract the same bugs and develop vaccines etc. but i don't think they should be making them.

Originally posted by Burb
Why are they dying form Cancer?

"The Dutch Laka Foundation estimates that the United States left behind 300-800 tons of radioactive waste from this ammunition all over Kuwait and Iraq — poisoning the air, the land, the water and the people everywhere.

Afterwards, wherever the depleted uranium firing had been concentrated, there were cancer epidemics among Iraqi civilians living nearby. In the years since then, the sanctions, polluted water and depleted uranium together have killed somewhere between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 Iraqi civilian people. At least 600,000 of the dead are children under five years-old. Cancer rates have quadrupled in areas of southern Iraq bombed by the American and British army.

that may be but that doesn't mean that he can hold back medical supplies to his own people because he doesn't like them in essnece does it? that's like saying that a minority in this country should be denied NHS treatment because the prime minister doesn't like them.

Originally posted by Burb
The American/British gulf war campaign continues to this day.

Since it began, thousands of Iraqi babies have been born with horrible birth defects. This is something that has never before been seen in Iraq.

More than 120,000 American Gulf War veterans are chronically ill — suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. A U.S. Department of Veterans study of 251 veteran’s families found that 67% had children with severe illnesses or birth defects. "

I support our men, because a) they are innocent people b)they havent got anything to do with the polititics behind this war.

why did they have these defects?!?!? because saddam decided to use weapons of mass destruction.......

 

[duffistuta]

>>>on this issue i agree with you but what's the likleyhood that america is gonna unleash smallpox and other diseases?<<<

And I think that's the key point...certain key members of the US administration and the military seem to adopt the attitude of 'well, the rules don't apply to us cos we're the good guys' - a senior US military advisor used those exact words on Radio 5 the other day when explaining why the USA should not be accountable to the UN when it comes down to biological and chemical weapons.

Now irrespective of whether you think America are the good guys or not, it's easy to understand why that approach causes America a few PR problems...

For example: Take the ICC - everyone for it apart from the United States, Israel, China, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and the Sudan. Why would the US do that? Why did they, effectively, authorise military action against Holland???

 

[Burb]

Originally posted by Mario
that may be but that doesn't mean that he can hold back medical supplies to his own people because he doesn't like them in essnece does it? that's like saying that a minority in this country should be denied NHS treatment because the prime minister doesn't like them.

I never said Saddam was in the right, i just explained where the Majority of the Cancer came from, i am all for the removal of Saddam (as explained above), but at what cost? Look at the facts of the last attempt to remove the terrorist threat (al-queda) - more innocent people died than targeted people (est 4000), people were "indirectly" bombed, and so many people were forced to flee they died of Starvation and exposure, especially children.

why did they have these defects?!?!? because saddam decided to use weapons of mass destruction.......

Its the same as the effects on the Iraqi civillians, our own uranium weapons.

"However, Vesser said that although Saddam Hussein didn't use nuclear, biological, or chemical agents against coalition forces during the war, it never dawned on us ... that we might have done it to ourselves."

 

[Cenobite]

Originally posted by stongl
What pi$$es me of intensly is the peaceniks and nayyyy sayers who constantly claim the moral highground. These vociferous idiots always claim to have the support of the masses, do they?, have they taken a referendum?, i doubt it.

Have you taken one for those that support it then?

 

[Buddha 3]

I'm sorry, but blaming the use of depleted uranium shells on Saddam is a bit too easy for me.
A SABOT shell (the anti tank shell with the depleted uranium dart inside) has about the same effect as a HVAP shell, which uses Tungsten Carbide instead of DU. But a HVAP shell does not have the health risks attached to SABOT. Yet a number of governments opted to use the SABOT, Why? Because a HVAP shell is a lot more expensive than a SABOT shell. That's because there's a good supply of DU lying around, because it is a cheap byproduct of Nuclear powerstations and a number of other operations. That's why a number of governments decided to go the cheap route and use SABOT shells, knowingly exposing their own troops to the radiation that comes with it. Yes, Saddam drew the world to war, but it was the troops own government who made them use potentially hazardous ammunitions.

 

[stongle]

Cenobite,

Think you missed the point. If you read the letter to Bush at the start of the thread it says "no-one" is in support of the war yadda yadda yadda. Hey everyones entitled to their own opinion, but we should'nt just be counted into some fictitious majority by vociferous tw@ts. I'm just offering the flipside of the coin. Talking to people here, in my office, pub etc, I've found only a tiny minority against such a war. Ok so most of the people I know rely on the Zionist Military Industrial complex for employment i.e. Banks & Oil companies ( ), but come on the peace lobby shoots itself in the foot by quoting half truths, and claims of self importance.

Why should I a loyal citizen of the UK, have my Saturday afternoon disturbed by the civil disobiendence of the great un-washed, Socialist workers party and students??? All in my name, well Rub some Funk on it and fook off!

And I for one don't really care what the population of some of the other (hypocritical) countries think about this war that's their issue not mine (did the people of St Tropez vote for Tony Blair, nope don't think so, same way you and me did'nt vote for Jacques Chirac).

Just look what appeasement done for Europe last centurary. As I said each to his own, but not to those that shout loudest. It just hacks me off that people want to shy away from the hard decisions in life and always take the easy route constantly claiming the moral high ground. Such arrogance.

Excuse spelling v.angry.

 

[Cenobite]

Originally posted by stongl
Cenobite,

Think you missed the point. If you read the letter to Bush at the start of the thread it says "no-one" is in support of the war yadda yadda yadda. Hey everyones entitled to their own opinion, but we should'nt just be counted into some fictitious majority by

<SNIP>

decisions in life and always take the easy route constantly claiming the moral high ground. Such arrogance.

Excuse spelling v.angry.

I see sorry

Its all fair enough, I agree that he was wrong when he said no-one supports it, but that letter was obviously passionate. The problem is that those that support the war arent going to stand in the streets and shout how much they support it. If people agree with something they tend to say nothing, if they disagree they shout and scream. I for one dont agree with it, never have and doubt I will, in my mind the reason are somewhat warped and mostly Bush's.

Thats not to say I would disagree with every war, nor that I dont admit that Saddam is a bad person indeed. I just think in this case, it was premeditated by Bush, and I for one feel ashamed to be British at a time like this. The US and UK have done far more damage to the international community than may be instantly showing, in their "righteous" determination to deal with Saddam they havent considered what the true implications should be, and we are breaking the very rules in many ways we seem to hold dear... You cant stand for freedom and democracy be a member of the UN then attack a country to change its leaders. I believe one of the most basic laws of the united nations is that a country is allowed to decide how it runs its own economic and social matters. Here we are trying to set up a leader that suits us better.

I almost guarentee you wont see US going for China next who have just as much torture, corruption and far more weapons of mass destruction. Bush is fighting a war he can win simple as that, and he is undermining his own reasons for attacking by attacking.

Its a sad fact that in reality democracy only works upto a point. My local MP who I voted for, is for the war, even though I and everyone that I know doesnt(I dont know of one close friend or relative that supports the war). I know people that wrote to him and visited him to ask him to vote no, and he still voted yes. Is he representing us or himself now?

Once they are democratically voted in then basically you have no means of protesting if those representing you do what you dont want, this is where this frustration comes from, the walks, and banner waving. I for one dont do it, I dont see the point, it will effect nothing... If everyone had a little red button and could vote out a PM at a moments notice you think Blair would have rushed into war with USA?

I personally would love to see a public opinion poll, in fact I think on things like this there should be one.

On the matter of the UN a friend said this recently on another forum...

> The UN isn't any use because there's a rogue superpower in the world.
> Were the veto to be abolished, along with permanent security council
> membership, and the US to actually agree to abide by UN resolutions,
> the UN could work. I'd move it out of America, though, perhaps to
> Geneva.

>The US in in breach of so many basic human rights laws
>(somthing that was fought by so many true politicians in
>the 1950's) that the country should be under permanent UN >occupation....