If you're against the war...

mike65

...which is more important to you - To see the war prosocuted as quickly as possible or to see the US and UK get a bloody nose trying...?

Mike.

Corben Dallas

im not against the war.

and the most important thing is the the war is over quickly.So lives are saved. Iraqi and US /UK/Australian/ Polish and Kuwaiti lives.

froggy 2

Clearly the most important is war being over quickly, not only because of the casualties, but also because of the increasing risk of regional war (turks / kurds for instance).
This having been said, who has taken those risks?

dahamsta

'S a bit of a cynical question isn't it mike65? Are you trying to make a point? If so, would you like to make it?

adam

dathi1

I'm a bit of an evil bastard so... I want Sadam overthown...but I want to see the people that supported him for 30 yrs pay the price.

shotamoose

Now that the war's begun I'd like to see it concluded with a minimum of bloodshed and 'collateral damage' of any kind. Obviously in practise that means the US and UK winning.

I would not like, though, for them to take the probable ease of their victory as some sort of endorsement or justification for their actions. Plus, I think the US are trying to demonstrate military invincibility to the rest of the world, in order to make future unilateral escapades a bit easier. So in a wider sense a 'bloody nose' might be no bad thing. Sure that involves taking casualties, but my sympathy will be limited to the people immediately involved and not the sensitivities of politicians or public in the West.

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by dathi1
I'm a bit of an evil bastard so... I want Sadam overthown...but I want to see the people that supported him for 30 yrs pay the price.

There'll probably be Nuremburg-esque trials for those that survive, and that don't "disappear" into an underground holding cell in CIA headquarters in Langley.

gandalf

Well for those that haven't read any posts of mine I am against the war. However now that has started I am of course hoping it is over quickly. The longer it takes the more innocents get killed.

However it still doesn't get the US & UK off the hook, if they are found to be engaging in a illegal war by the UN there should be consequences and ergo our Quislings should be dealt with in Ireland as well.

Gandalf.

Von

Originally posted by Corben Dallas
im not against the war.

Well then the question doesn't apply to you then does it?

I don't doubt that there are more than a few people who'll be rooting for the iraqis to at least put up a fight but I feel sorry for the US/UK troops. No one I know who fought in gulf war 1 liked it very much.

Anyone who supports the war should be made go fight the bloody thing. That's what liberal democracy should be about. For me that's the single most irritating thing about the whole business - a bunch of gloating sad slobs sit in the pubs and in front of tvs and computers **** off to explosions and cruise missile stats and accusing anyone who can see through the bull of being 'pacifists' and 'pro-saddam' and everything else while the trench digging and killing and dying is done by the same crowd of kids that always has to do it.

The best immediate outcome is that the Iraqis surrender asap and cock shaped swarms of football sized killer bees descend on washington and downing st simultaneously, taking out all the top bastards in a freak display of natural justice.

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
...which is more important to you - To see the war prosocuted as quickly as possible or to see the US and UK get a bloody nose trying...?

To be proescuted as quickly as possible, without sacrificing due care and attention to the various potential humanitarian disasters which a less attentive expedition could bring about.

The fewer people die in this war the better - combatants on both sides included.

Having said that, I wouldnt shed a tear if any of the major political figures involved managed to catch a fatal dose of flying metal - they are all responsible in their own way.

jc

Gordon

it sure would be lovely if those flying bits of metal flew all the way over to Bush's underpants.

I must say I enjoy watching the fireworks but of course there are human lives involved and any bloodshed is not worth it. I'd love to see the Iraqi's stuff the UK/SA but only if no lives were lost. Yea, ok stupid comment.

I am hovering on my couch* in hope that Bush, Blair and Hussain will be standing in front of a world jury and condemned to sentence for their atrocious behaviour.

It has taught me something though - I now feel that I can say and do anything and people can't complain if they don't like it as I will simply state - "Well, I am only doing what I think is right." It worked for Blair.



*not the hover like a girl on a public loo - a hover like a football fan with one minute left on the clock and a 1-1 score so far.

DriftingRain

Well, I am only doing what I think is right." It worked for Blair.

Lol I totally agree. He he!

On a more serious note I want a speedy ending and hope that one comes about soon. I also hope that they troops really find something so this war wasn't all in vain. But if they don't a stiff slapping needs to be in order! LOL:D

The Surgeon

everything else while the trench digging and killing and dying is done by the same crowd of kids that always has to do it.

Yeh, but those kids made a choice to join a professional army so there's no use them complaining about having to do the sh*tty work. When they chose to become professional soldiers, they chose to be inserted into any god-foresaken hell-hole that their governments decided to put them in.

Getting back to the real issue: I think the original question is an excellent one because it combines the issues of human misery on all sides (admittedly weighted more on the Iraqi side) with the idea of making people like Bush, Blair and Howard think more carefully before taking decisions of such gravity. I don't like seeing anyone getting hurt - physically, emotionally, psychologically or spiritually - so I hope that the conflict ends soon. But at the same time, I don't think it would do any of the belligerent nations any harm to be reminded that war means death. Maybe then diplomacy would be pursued with more genuine commitment instead of the lip service it received over the past few months.

Whether this war ends tomorrow or in six months is probably irrelevant in the larger scheme of things because the repurcussions will be felt for generations and that will mean more suffering and death whatever happens during this particualr conflict.

One last point which some one else brought up and which I also think is interesting. Whether you are pro-war or anti-war, you can't deny that the images we're seeing on TV of Baghdad being blown to oblivion are fascinating in some weird and possibly sick way. They are disturbing, worrying, shocking and sad images. But as humans, we can't help sitting on the edges of our seats in amazement. It's like not being able to resist staring at a car accident but on a much larger scale. Maybe it's a guy thing. Maybe it's just me.

mike65

Originally posted by The Surgeon
Whether you are pro-war or anti-war, you can't deny that the images we're seeing on TV of Baghdad being blown to oblivion are fascinating in some weird and possibly sick way. They are disturbing, worrying, shocking and sad images. But as humans, we can't help sitting on the edges of our seats in amazement. It's like not being able to resist staring at a car accident but on a much larger scale. Maybe it's a guy thing. Maybe it's just me.

No its not just you, its abit like Sept 11 after the intial shock you, or at least I, started to see a certain ahem -
"terrible beauty" in the images. Somewhere here theres a thread about "sick art" which touched on this topic.

Mike.

The Surgeon

No its not just you, its abit like Sept 11 after the intial shock you, or at least I, started to see a certain ahem -
"terrible beauty" in the images. -

They were compelling images I agree. One of the war correspondents on the BBC World Service used the phrase "terrible beauty" as well. He was describing the launch of Tomahawk missiles from one of the US carriers (USS Mobile Bay, I think). Another guy then said that each of those costs $660,000. Half hour later, the scrolling banner said 1,500 Tomahawks* have been fired since the war began. That's $990,000,000. In three days. :eek:

I know it's the typical hippy argument but can you imagine what that money would to in impoverished and developing countries?

*Other reports said 1,500 "missiles" which I presume means Tomahawks and others. But still, that's a sh*t load of moolah.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Von
Anyone who supports the war should be made go fight the bloody thing. That's what liberal democracy should be about.

Anyone who opposes the war should be made to go and live in Iraq for a few months and then see how anti-liberation they are.

For me that's the single most irritating thing about the whole business - a bunch of gloating sad slobs sit in the pubs and in front of tvs and computers **** off to explosions and cruise missile stats and accusing anyone who can see through the bull of being 'pacifists' and 'pro-saddam' and everything else while the trench digging and killing and dying is done by the same crowd of kids that always has to do it.

Even more irritating than the "No blood for oil" and "Bush = Hitler" idiotarians? Surely not.

The best immediate outcome is that the Iraqis surrender asap and cock shaped swarms of football sized killer bees descend on washington and downing st simultaneously, taking out all the top bastards in a freak display of natural justice.

But that's hardly a very pleasant way to go for human rights activists is it?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Anyone who opposes the war should be made to go and live in Iraq for a few months and then see how anti-liberation they are.

People opposing the war aren't anti-liberation. At least none that I know of anyway.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
People opposing the war aren't anti-liberation. At least none that I know of anyway.

If you're anti-war then you are, in effect, anti-human rights and anti-democracy for Iraqis. Because there's no other way they're going to get those things than through war.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
If you're anti-war then you are, in effect, anti-human rights and anti-democracy for Iraqis. Because there's no other way they're going to get those things than through war.

Yeah, ok.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
If you're anti-war then you are, in effect, anti-human rights and anti-democracy for Iraqis. Because there's no other way they're going to get those things than through war.

I would tend to agree that diplomacy was unlikely to bring democracy and human rights to the people of Iraq. However, it is equally unlikely, given the history of US foreign policy, that they will get it after war has 'liberated' them, either.

Also, accusations of anti/pro-[insert emotionally charged term here] do smak of semantic propaganda to me.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I would tend to agree that diplomacy was unlikely to bring democracy and human rights to the people of Iraq. However, it is equally unlikely, given the history of US foreign policy, that they will get it after war has 'liberated' them, either.

Probability of diplomacy bringing democracy and human rights to the people of Iraq = 0

Probability of war bringing democracy and human rights to the people of Iraq >> 0

Probability of diplomacy bringing democracy and human rights to the people of Iraq <> Probability of war bringing democracy and human rights to the people of Iraq

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Probability of war bringing democracy and human rights to the people of Iraq >> 0

There I would have to disagree with you.

If the democratic government installed in Afghanistan, by the US, were anything to go by, I would suspect the Iraqis are pretty much screwed either way.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Corben Dallas

re 1500 cruises =990 million or whatever, designing a smart missile than will (more often than not) find its target(within 5m after a 300/400 mile journey) costs, and costs big. It is also an example that the US IS trying to minimise civilcan casulities. If they didint give a monkeys(and really wanted to save $$$) about the normal iraqi, they could just carpet bomb Baghad.

and the US/ UK will install a fairly eleclted govn, poss something the Iraqi ppl have never had.

I believe that this war is Just and Noble and as Eoghan Harris (on Today FM) said of a Royal Irish Guards Officer saying to his men (not a full quote) if the Ojective of this war is to remove Saddam and his regime to give the Iraqi ppl freedom from his tyranny then alto it might not be popular its the right and noble thing to do.

Ireland (our govn.)should show some moral backbone and support the ideals of what the US and UK troops are trying to do, or at least say nothing and continue to allow (which we always have done) the US use Shannon.

That way we would not be involved by supplying or contributing materials etc to the war, but by allowing the use or Shannon we could (in a small) shorten Saddams reign of Terror.

oeNeo

Why should Ireland support the war when the majority of the population are against it?

Corben Dallas

I dont think that the majority in Ireland are against the war, and if an independent research body ( not some peaceheads/CND /Christian Alliance ) provided survey stats on >(would u support a war if a 2nd resolution was passed) (probably) more than half of ireland would support it

The Surgeon

If you're anti-war then you are, in effect, anti-human rights and anti-democracy for Iraqis. Because there's no other way they're going to get those things than through war.

And there you have it folks. :rolleyes:

The Surgeon

If they didint give a monkeys(and really wanted to save $$$) about the normal iraqi, they could just carpet bomb Baghad.

Yeh, that'd win the propaganda war alright.

I believe that this war is Just and Noble

Good for you. So you don't agree in any way that there might, just might, be one or two ulterior motives? Or do you believe that Bush and Blair and Howard are superheroes flying into Baghdad in their capes and underpants to save the day from evil mastermind Saddam Hussein?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Neo-
Why should Ireland support the war when the majority of the population are against it?

Because it's the morally right thing to do.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by The Corinthian
There I would have to disagree with you.

If the democratic government installed in Afghanistan, by the US, were anything to go by, I would suspect the Iraqis are pretty much screwed either way.

Are you seriously suggesting that Iraqis would rather live under Saddam's regime, or at least would be indifferent to it?

The Surgeon

Are you seriously suggesting that Iraqis would rather live under Saddam's regime, or at least would be indifferent to it?

Saddam Hussein is certainly not the ideal leader and his government is certainly not the ideal government. You're probably right that most Iraqis would propably prefer to live under a different regime. And in Afghanistan, most Afghans were very happy to see the back of the Taliban.

But the democracy they have now in Afghanistan is not ideal either. I know it takes time to establish a new democracy, particularly in a country in which it is not a tradition. So we can't be too critical of it either, but you have to admit it is very shaky. Karzai himself said the same thing and warned the West not to walk away whistling now, clapping themselves on the back for a job well done.

But as bad as they were, Hussein and the Taliban provided stability. They provided it with an Iron Fist, sure, but it was there. What Westerners have to appreciate is that when you introduce democracy into a country like Afghanistan or Iraq, there are tribal and religious divisions under the surface which were contained under the oppressive regimes but which could explode once those regimes are gone.

In Western democracies, factions argue in Parliament and make decision with the ballot paper. These new "democracies" are likely to settle things with the AK-47.