TEH BBCS

[Pedro Sanchez]

lol farse!

And dog whats to say 100,000 people werent going to be killed by saddaam anyway? Also we are far from beyond fighting for oil, why do you think its so difficult to ween our way off it, if you can think of one thing that does not depend on oil i will be impressed, so clearly the economy is decidedly dependant on it. I still dont think many people aprecciate that the war was one decision with a lot of consequences either way, maybe there was dodgy politics around that but their politicians, what do you expect? the way we have dealt with it so far hasnt been too bad and its beyond me to say that it was unnecessary, I dont know, but i dont think its a fatal mistake, its like theres a fight your mate gets into, hes beating someone up but hes also your mate so it might be justified? what are you supposed to do, either decision is going to be wrong but you have to do one.

[Farse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/8556195.stm

D:

[Dog]

lol farse!

And dog whats to say 100,000 people werent going to be killed by saddaam anyway? Also we are far from beyond fighting for oil, why do you think its so difficult to ween our way off it, if you can think of one thing that does not depend on oil i will be impressed, so clearly the economy is decidedly dependant on it. I still dont think many people aprecciate that the war was one decision with a lot of consequences either way, maybe there was dodgy politics around that but their politicians, what do you expect? the way we have dealt with it so far hasnt been too bad and its beyond me to say that it was unnecessary, I dont know, but i dont think its a fatal mistake, its like theres a fight your mate gets into, hes beating someone up but hes also your mate so it might be justified? what are you supposed to do, either decision is going to be wrong but you have to do one.

Well the fact that the country was stable and there was no reason to invade so quickly, but whats your argument? That it was right to invade cos "bad stuff might happen so we better take over now hopefully less people will die in the long run". Saddam was only in control of around half the country as it was, the kurdish north were already governing themselves and saddam couldn't stop them.  My problem with the iraq war was the lying and deceit and the fact that some people seem to think its ok to sweep under the carpet the fact that we went to war and a lot of people died upon a lie.

Oil dependancy; well where to start just because we have been relying on oil isnt a reason to continue to do so.  Drug addicts "rely" on drugs even though its harming their body so is that a reason to keep on doing it?

Saying there was dodgy politics around the decision but "what do you expect" is all well and good but it doesn't mean we should vote for them again,  If someone burgled my house and I threw up my hands and said "what should I expect he's a criminal?"  I then wouldnt give him the keys to my house and ask him to look after it for me.

The way we have dealt with the war isn't too bad?  Well I call underfunded soldiers dying because of budgetary constraints, the mass looting of some of the oldest known artefacts of human civilisation, the breakdown of all infrastructure, the complete lack of a rebuilding programme and the siphoning off of billions of dollars of iraqi money to companies which have on their boards of directors prominent members of george bush's cabinet.  Thats pretty badly handled if you ask me.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Only point i really want to make is that iraq was only stable because saddam ruled with an iron fist, dont forget he gased Kurds and invaded the surrounding countries.

[Pedro Sanchez]

my argument is that its overblown as the mistake, its also not as bad as any of the wars since the second world war pretty much so that counts as not being too bad.

Also with oil dependency, its not like we can afford to go cold turkey, you know how much shit the country would be in if oil prices were double their value now, we need to find alternatives first, at least that would be preferable, instead of just cutting off luxuries that we cant afford, and no government is likely just to destroy the economy because we are "high on oil"

[Dog]

my argument is that its overblown as the mistake, its also not as bad as any of the wars since the second world war pretty much so that counts as not being too bad.

Also with oil dependency, its not like we can afford to go cold turkey, you know how much shit the country would be in if oil prices were double their value now, we need to find alternatives first, at least that would be preferable, instead of just cutting off luxuries that we cant afford, and no government is likely just to destroy the economy because we are "high on oil"

I would say its worse since all the wars since ww2 were fought on a moral basis of defence of others or self defence.  Falklands, korea, vietnam you name it they were all fought in defence of the country or the countries allies, iraq was the first war fought on a pre emptive basis.  If you're gonna do that then its fine imo but it should be every unstable despotic regime around the world, the US and UK gave us all the rhetoric about fighting dictatorships yet they prop up a good many of them around the world.

As far as oil prices, the REAL idea behind the invasion was to secure iraqs oil and stabilise the middle east to keep oil prices lower.  Something that failed pretty badly as everyone can see, oil prices have gone up and stayed up from the invasion onwards, also the middle east is even more unstable now than it ever was.  Its good that saddam is gone but its good when any dictator goes.

Only point i really want to make is that iraq was only stable because saddam ruled with an iron fist, dont forget he gased Kurds and invaded the surrounding countries.

True but the kurds were independant of saddam when we invaded my point is there are a lot of other countries around the world with dictators that rule with an iron fist, are unstable and a lot of people are dying and being killed but we do nothing or even worse sell them arms to kill their subjects with.  Look at rwanda they delayed doing anything for so long that it was the fastest mass murder since the holocaust and when the UN finally did go in the US military held them up by haggling over what price they would rent them vehicles at.

[Pedro Sanchez]

not all dictators are bad, fidel castro is shmexy. Vietnam can never be argued as moral, preventing a communist nation from forming because members of the state were unsatisfied with there french christian leader ruling vietnamese budhists? And then losing that war? not really a good government decision. falklands i think was on the same lines, maggy didnt want to lose a piece of the dying english empire, probably oil issues there too. Not saying labour were right, just im not going to crucify them because of one difficult decision that hasn't been a complete cock up, people died and its horrible, but we are there now, and i am sure they realise the mistake as much if not more than us.

[Dog]

If everyone voted on the basis that they made decisions that weren't complete cock ups then the government would never change.  Vietnam, falklands etc were al wars fought to at least notionally prevent invasions or deaths and to stabalise a region, iraq was out and out imperialism. Any going along with it is enough to prevent me from voting for blair a vote for brown or cameron imo is voting for politics to stay the same as it has been ie. venal and corrupt.

[Pedro Sanchez]

vietnam was fought to stop change, a change that the people wanted, it has no moral basis whatsoever, unless you believe that communism is inherently evil, which is a bigoted belief, also don't really believe that the country needs much change, except in terms of energy efficiency etc. so I will vote for who i believe can keep the country running, and if lib dems fail to impress, then its labour

[Dog]

vietnam was fought to stop change, a change that the people wanted, it has no moral basis whatsoever, unless you believe that communism is inherently evil, which is a bigoted belief, also don't really believe that the country needs much change, except in terms of energy efficiency etc. so I will vote for who i believe can keep the country running, and if lib dems fail to impress, then its labour

You're missing the point I wasn't necesarily saying it was a moral/just war but it WAS fought on the basis of at least notionally preventing more deaths and instability.  Iraq didn't have that basis nor did it have any reason  to happen when it did, the americans just decided to invade and we went along with it.  And if you don't believe the country needs to change you must have missed the expenses scandal, cash for questions and any pmqs ever.

[Pedro Sanchez]

you know you can count the population of badgers by counting how many are killed on the roads? the more that are killed the more badgers there are, i didnt miss them but they were noticed by the public, so things were done about it and wrists were slapped, id be worried if everything seemed to be perfect, nothing at the moment worries me about the state of the government.

[:::::::(TiT)Camarilla]

This thread = srs bsns


On an unrelated note, I like chocolate milk, and am currently indulging myself with a glass.

[Farse]

This thread = srs bsns


On an unrelated note, I like chocolate milk, and am currently indulging myself with a glass.

[:::::::(TiT)Camarilla]

This thread = srs bsns


On an unrelated note, I like chocolate milk, and am currently indulging myself with a glass.

Fixed