Home Log In or Register Forums

Who let the bombs fall?

Home > Forums > Politics And Current Affairs > 'Who let the bombs fall?'
'Who let the bombs fall?'
Page: [1] [2]
system's user image
system
18.02.2003 - 21:28
forum administrator
This is a discussion about the article 'Who let the bombs fall?'. Tell us your opinions about this subject!
nelson's user image
nelson
19.02.2003 - 07:23
forum administrator
I think that Blair is in deep trouble if he goes ahead to war with no UN support... his popularity rating was yesterday at -20, and the Labour Party was just a little bit over the Tories. What an achievement in just a month or so!

If Labour starts to see its support slide some more, they'll start wondering if their Prime Minister will still be around for the Summer holidays... (maybe he'll be enjoying his retirement in the new American sunny colony...)
deathjester's user image
deathjester
19.02.2003 - 11:43
forum administrator
no, i refuse to comment.

nelson! tell the forum to stop aking me for things! it wont go away!..... ARQRAGHHHHH!!!
richard's user image
richard
19.02.2003 - 12:31
forum administrator
How about changing the wording to 'Please tell us your opinions about this subject!' ??
nelson's user image
nelson
03.03.2003 - 07:30
forum administrator
Yep, it looks like that, in the face of massive public objection, the government is still going to follow to manic Americans into this...
deathjester's user image
deathjester
03.03.2003 - 10:33
forum administrator
good - this isnt a peace issue, its a military one.

The public is thinking with it's naive 'peace is good war is bad' head.

-WWE aren't in possesion of that facts.
-The people who ARE strike me as vaguely intelligent (in this country ;)
-They will surely NOT want to screw up for their own selfish reasons.

Hence, with some very loose logic one can sit back and let the dice roll guys, tbh.
deathjester's user image
deathjester
03.03.2003 - 10:33
forum administrator
"WWE"

lol fruedian slip (WWE = world war end, oft talked about these days..)
deathjester's user image
deathjester
03.03.2003 - 11:56
forum administrator
btw- did you know that the maximum operational temperature of an Abrams tank crew will be exceeded in the theatre within 3 months?

IE- IF they gonna use em they'll use em b4 summer cos after that they'll have to wait till winter.

Just puts a few 'diplomatic' current events in perspective dunnit.
nelson's user image
nelson
03.03.2003 - 17:13
forum administrator
DJ - There's no naivety in the "war is bad" attitude. If you were to see a loved explode in a gruesome form, splattering thier guts all over your face (sorry for the imagery), you wouldn't be thinking much of a costs/benefits analysis...

That said, some wars are necessary. Just so that you don't think that people are against this one purely on a matter of principle.
But the "people in possession of the facts" are just as normal people as anyone else is. Dismissing decisions because someone else "might" have a deeper knowledge is dangerous and coward. If they have a deeper knowledge, let us know what it is - after all, they work for us, and whatever power they have comes from us.

Finally, screw ups have happened so many times before that sittig back will make a lot of people cry in frustration. There are a lot of things to consider on this one - not least of which the "special connection" that the UK so much wants with the US - that screw ups are more than likely to occur. AND it just takes the man at the top to make the wrong decision for the entire mechanism to bend that way.

So, no, sorry, sitting back is something that makes my stomach turn...
deathjester's user image
deathjester
04.03.2003 - 09:55
forum administrator
Asking to be told all the facts negates several military advantages-

The more people that know soemthing, the faster that the knowledge spreads. This is a big espionage problem when side X is obviously trying to avoid lettign side Y know what it currently knows.

Also, most people are not equipped with the knowledge or attitude to appropriately process the facts (with an aim for ultimate mutual understandign or at least tolerance). This i am certain of, for many reason the least of which being the fact that most people still entertain belief systems.

Plus, the information itself can NOT be trusted because each party has its own interests, which they WILL continue to pursue, simply because there is no point in assuming you are NOT going to survive the current situation. Thus, everyhting they do will still have one eye watching for their eventual stance AFTER the issue has reached its conclusion.

So- if we are to become involved, u conceed we need to know the facts, yes ? (pls lemme know if u don't agree)

We can't ever be in that situation cos a) we'll never be trusted with it, b) we won't trust it c) it only empowers the 'enemy' as much as ourselves.

It may sicken people like urself (and myself in fact) to sit twiddling thumbs but apart from truely becoming involved at the source of the activity (ie, get elected and appointed Sec. Def. etc.) there's very very very little u can do.
Page: [1] [2]

This discussion is now closed and you cannot add to it.

contact us © 2003, 2004 BurningHorizons.net