Originally posted by Liberal1984
Then for better or for worse the decision shouldn’t be made (at least voluntarily).
- Even if it is 'the right thing'?
Strange reasoning there..... again you choose to utterly ignore the point that under our system our political representatives are not there to be
delegates of the people.
Here are some examples why
The 'examples' you choose to cast up speak volumes about you lib. Sadly.
Basically Sminkeypinky you were speaking as though the “right thing” is something that’s really definitive.
Please try not to put words in my mouth & just stick to what I've actually said, eh?
'Basically' I have said that the 'right thing' can spend a long time in its life as being completely unrecognised & unpopular.
You have cited populism as the only gauge by which our politicians should operate, this is clearly nonsense & unworkable & frankly downright
dangerous.....witch-burning and pogroms were once wildly 'popular' you know.
How unpopular was Churchill in the pre-war years?
Any leader who thinks they know what is right.... .....is really more like a dictator than a leader of men.
- Well maybe it's news to you but in the UK there is 'a safety valve' to prevent that kind of dictatorship.
It's called max gov. term limits, mandatory general elections, Parliament & also peculiar in the UK the prerogative of the Monarch.
Jayzuss wept; anyone would think there hadn't been a general election post the Afghan and Iraq wars.
There’s nothing cowardly about it; if we aren’t getting much in the way of return for our investment of 118 soldiers (or even 52 Londoners)
then it’s a waist; it’s as simple as that.
- ....given that the alternative never happened how do you gauge that one, huh?
In fact if you want to count bodies then in the scheme of things under 200 British casualties in 5yrs isn't especially 'costly' anyway.
One might point out that 'the troubles' in Ireland brought far heavier losses over a much longer time-spell.
Good job (for all concerned) that the people who always clamour & rush to cave in to the scary terrorist weren't holding the reins back then, eh?
If people in World War Two had been as successful as we’ve been over the last five years then we would have lost the war because all our men
would (collectively) have died for very little.
- Perhaps you could do with a little revision on WW2 as well.
For almost the entirety of the 'first half' Britain was losing (and at times losing badly), alone and with no respite or victory in sight.
ie precious little 'success'; far heavier losses abroad & even with non-combatant people in the streets at home.
So, like I said, good job the country wasn't being influenced by those who held such cowardly attitudes back then, eh?
The rise in the number of terrorist attacks (world wide) the over 70,000 people killed by the war on terror; leads many to say we’ve left
the world an even more dangerous place. Did Churchill do that? Why does Blair stand accused?
- Or perhaps a more balanced view might be that whereas 'our' economic and foreign policies have, at times (decades/centuries), made a bad
situation worse, it is not all of their - or our - fault.
There really are nutter terrorists out there who would mass murder and attack us anyway.
There really are extremists out there who see a religious war as just & that 'we' should be made to conform to their religio-political view(s)
.....& there really are idiots 'at home' supposedly 'on our side' who would attempt to provoke this 'war' in unholy alliance with 'their
nutters' 'at home' to use to try & bring their ideas of a fascist hell to fruition at home.
Hide under your white flag all you like but you will be no safer & probably even more at risk.
Just as the 'war' against the IRA was a dirty & underhand 'war' at times (with wrongs and vile acts the preserve of no one single side) that does
not mean that the innocent & uninvolved were not at risk (for decades).
what does world war two have in common with Iraq?
- It was a major event in history, many questioned it too & it also looked very dark & possibly unwinnable during large parts.
A major part of each conflict has also been to liberate people held under the most repressive regimes.
I am quite certain that you would not prefer to live under a Saddam anymore than a Taliban state.
I see nothing wrong in liberating people from cruel repression.
Cowards were also calling for capitulation no matter what the facts then too.
In world war two we were the good guys
- Actually in WW2 'we' declared war.
Being 'the good guys' is possibly something that only gets agreed because 'we' won.
in Iraq we’re the ones who introduced sanctions which killed hundreds of thousands, then invaded once we knew the dictator had
- Yeah, of course lib.
There can be only one view of the sanctions regime, right?
Life under Saddam was lovely. Saddam was just an innocent bystander and didn't influence or affect what happened at all, right?
I suppose too that the fact that Saddam was telling anyone who'd listen that he did have WMDs (even if it was a fairly obvious attempt to ward off
attack) is neither here nor there, right?
....and s'funny how helpless Iraq continued to illegally threaten UK & US aircraft in the 'no-fly zones' (north and south) with AA radar and
missiles right up until the war, hmmmm?
And in so doing we have killed even more, and unleashed chaos which has killed even more than that (and probably will do for years or even
decades to come even when we’re gone). This makes us the bad guys in my books.
- Of course.
I suppose the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed liberating Europe during WW2 were not 'worth it' either in your book?
Just as the liberation of Iraq from Saddam has cost innocent lives, it's awful but an inescapable fact of war.
Had 'we' done nothing 'we' faced 2 likely outcomes.
Either Saddam as a growing hostile threat emboldened by a highly visible western refusal to deal with him or yet more fundamentalism emboldened by a
highly etc etc.
No point pretending Afghanistan didn't exist or that Saddam was no threat whatsoever.
In fact (given the choice by God) I would much rather be born a Britain invaded by the Nazis; than an Iraqi invaded by the Americans or
- Was that supposed to come as a surprise to anyone?
Because the Nazis would have kept civil order at least enough to prevent the country sliding into civil war.
- Jayzuss you really don't know much about much of it at all do you?
Go read the history.
The standard nazi tactic was to install the local Quislings, or just pick what they thought was the strongest side they could live with and let
Informers & grudge-holders had a ball (provided they were on the favoured side).
Mass murder & a murderous police-state as social policy.
But you find that preferable.
Do you think they would have just stood there when museums were being trashed and offices set alight?
- After they'd looted them themselves?
Do you agree sminkeypinkey that it would be “a less harsh experience” to be invaded by the Nazis in Britain in 1940 than the British in
Iraq in 2003?
Because if you don’t then that would mean being invaded by the Nazis would be a very harsh experience indeed.
- D'ya think?
This is why I laugh whenever Bush and Blair bring world war two up. Fact is there armies have done just as much to reduce the quality of
peoples lives; not in numbers, but the places they’ve been.
Whether you think we are there rightly or wrongly any comparison with WW2 is laughable.
In terms of casualties, destruction & cost.
Iraq is a mess right now
instead of brutality and murder being directed by Saddam's Iraqi state against those it consideres enemies within - using the full ferocity, arms and
force of the state against unarmed civillians - the UK & US forces are fighting against an armed opponent at war with them.
Not quite the same thing.
....& personal liberties & rights are being established as never before as the recent elections there prove.
You might not care about that but that's your lookout.
it’s not possible to say they’re worse than Adolf Hitler; they don’t exactly look good against him ether.
- To you & maybe a handful of other determinedly blind or ill-informed people.
Hitler was responsible for approx the 60 millions killed in total during WW2 which he set off.
He used mechanised & industrial scale mass murder as a deliberate social policy.
Any attempt to claim Bush or Blair "don't look good against that" 'record' is ludicrously tragic.
Of course people in Britain with our streets free of rubble; and our air free of Depletive Uranium won’t think like that. But millions of
potential terrorists will (and do).
(BTW it's 'depleted')
So some people violently disagree & would take up arms against the 'west' even being in the ME or not following the religion they prefer at all.
I have my own criticisms of the WOT & it's conduct but the notion that it is all an invention of Bush and Blair is ridiculous.
As is the cowardly & rather infantile belief that if 'we' just leave the ME everything will, somehow, just be ok, we'll all be safe & live happily
ever after forever.
.....& to hell with the people there or any sense of their having the kinds of rights 'we' think a bare minimum, eh?
[edit on 12-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]