Hang on a second...

1. We declared war on Hitler due to a treaty with Poland, not due to any perceived danger to the UK. In fact, Hitler didn't want to invade us, but rather to make peace and concentrate on Russia.

2. Where did I say Saddam poses no threat to the Middle East? Before you call me naive, and worse, please read my posts properly mate.

face up to your share of the blame you filthy terrorist sympathiser - Petealiator 8/7/2005
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality - Theodor Adorno

Well, this is all getting very friendly. Again.

I give up.

I say we kick them out of Britain, string them up, and bomb the b*st*rds back to the Stone Age.

That'll teach 'em.

I can't believe I wasted the last 34 years thinking that peace, harmony and mutual understanding was the best way forward for the human race. I should have known, given the overwhelming evidence, that it is war, hostility and greed that have made us the healthy happy successful species we so clearly are.

F*ck it, I'm off to sell Sarin to the Turkish family up the road.

face up to your share of the blame you filthy terrorist sympathiser - Petealiator 8/7/2005
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Intolerance of ambiguity is the mark of an authoritarian personality - Theodor Adorno

It is the best way. Unfortunately, those who practise the extremes of capitalism and the extremes of religious fundamentalism disagree. It's funny how billions of people the world over just hand them the authority to act the way they do, though, isn't it? I don't particularly want there to be a war; I just believe that, by not doing anything now, we may find ourselves faced with a situation we really can't do anything about in the years to come.

Slug, there must be some more b******s we can get while we're there - you're just not thinking hard enough - it is our duty to clean up this mess of a world and get these backward countries to start acting a bit more, well, like us really cos we are the moral high ground, we have no blood on our hands or skelentons in our closets and are no threat to world peace at all, us and our little friend overseas. How about South Africa? I don't like the way they circumcise young girls.

Penge Eagle. Your reply: "To fuel the debate, I passed on NickinOX's comments to an anti-war/anti-US work colleague (I have loads in my office!). So the following answers are not mine!" Implies that I am pro-war and pro-US. Whilst I have great sympathy for the US I am certainly not pro-war. I was trying to get across the point that much of the debate in this forum was rather reactionary, ill-informed and did nothing to further the discussion.

"No one ever said we sold him ALL the weapons but if you remember a small thing called the Scott Report on the Arms to Iraq affair, you will recallthe then Tory govt. was lining its pockets with these sales. Also, perhaps this why we are seeing Russia, France and Germany being a little morecircumspect than we are." Bexter suggested that it's our fault that Saddam has arms and I was responding to that. Secondly, I quite agree with you on the Scott Inquiry, we are at least partly to blame. But it does not alter the fact that Russia, France and Germany were the prime arms suppliers to the Iraqi regime, not the Us and Britain.

"That's like saying, it's my football and I'm going home so you can't play. It's a nonsensical argument and is no excuse for killing thousands of
civilians." What i said was 'even if a previous US government helped keep Saddam in power, and I have no doubt that they did, that surely enhances the moral obligation they have to remove him.' I do not agree with your reply. For example: if I give you a knife and you stab someone with it, am I at least partially morally responsible? By saying that Iraq was partly armed by the US and Britain, you are implying that we are morally responsible for his actions. Ergo, we have a morl duty to correct that wrong. Surely, it is morally worse to then stick your head in the sand and punish the provider of the knife but not the wielder.

"1) This is sepculation
2) We were actually "at war" then. This build-up of pressure on Iraq cannot be called a war. Anyone who watched any of the BBC's coverage last night will have seen that Iraq's three pea-shooters held by several blokes standing in a line with their hands over their bo***cks may not exactly be a match for the 43,000 British troops already in the region (not to mention the Yanks)." What I said was not speculation: the comments from Tojo are documented, as are the Allied invasion plans and casualty estimates. The comment we were actually at war, just emphasises the point I made. That Saddam has already shown he has no absolutely no qualms about using weapons of his mass destruction whether in war or not. He used gas against Iran and he gassed his own people.

Surely, the fact that Iraqi troops are no match for ours is a good thing.

If Bexter and others want to protest, I have no problem with that. However, I would hope that he is not protesting on the basis of his intiial ignorant comments on this matter as that would surely be a failing of democracy, sort of a democracy of the sound bites of the ill-informed.

Edited by NickinOX (13 Feb 2003 3:37pm)

Edited by NickinOX (13 Feb 2003 3:39pm)

How about just spending Saturday in the pub?

Trivial fact - Palace used to win 5-1 at least once a season, maybe next season?