The three day weeks were due to OPEC not exporting oil any more rather than the unions being on strike.

...............

wtf?

I mean seriously now, stop with the wumming.

comment by 7_The_Arab (U5768)
posted 12 minutes ago
Macca they don't intentionally kill civilians but there are cases of bombs being dropped in the wrong places, there was one that hit a busy market place for example.
-----------------
Agreed there are terrible accidents from the West

Al Qauda are just cold blooded murderers. As was Hussain

"Simple logic...

If the British in world war 2 targeting civilians is okay because it is shock and awe to make people surrender then surely Al Qaeda in the modern day targeting civilians is exactly the same thing?

You may think they have less justification for their actions, or even no justification.

Purely in terms of their strategy here though they are pretty damn similar.

So why is one okay and the other not?"

Ultimately, it is not, there is still a lot of people in Germany that still harbour animosity towards what happened in Dresden. It can be dressed up though by saying that there was important military objectives there though, in terms of manufacture, which is what the Germans would say about their bombing.

It doesn't make it right, but I don't think you can really compare wartime to peacetime though, the declaration of war itself then brings on different laws. They are also different types of shock and awe. On the one hand, they were designed to cripple a country both in terms of materially and in morale, the other had no material gain at all, purely provocation.

Interesting how this thread has veered off on its own tangent...

But they were coming into the battlefield, the Belgrano was on the far side of the exclusion zone.

......................

So, you would have let the Belgrano slip away, so that it could come back later and attack British Forces?

wtf?

I mean seriously now, stop with the wumming.
--------------------------------------

Claiming I'm wumming is just showing you can't argue back!

So the only difference between them is that 60 odd years have past and now targeting civilians is unacceptable?

The only difference is now we are fighting much much weaker opponents, we can afford to be the good guys and do the right thing.

The weak will always try and find underhand ways to win in armed conflict as simply fighting a far stronger opponent in the classic military style would just be a senseless slaughter.

You may not agree with their reasons for being at war but terrorism is basically the only tactic they have which to fight this war.

I don't doubt for a second if you offered Al Qaeda all America's military weapons in exchange for not doing any more suicide bombing they would bite your hand off.

It is a tactic formed out of desperation rather than evil, just as Dresden was (although much less desperation, I am pretty sure the tide of the war had already turned, it probably wasn't even required)

Uh oh, British politics in session. Better stay out of it.

So, you would have let the Belgrano slip away, so that it could come back later and attack British Forces?
----------------------

If that's the rules of warfare then that's what happens. If we start breaking them then anything can happen.

So the only difference between them is that 60 odd years have past and now targeting civilians is unacceptable?

The only difference is now we are fighting much much weaker opponents, we can afford to be the good guys and do the right thing.

The weak will always try and find underhand ways to win in armed conflict as simply fighting a far stronger opponent in the classic military style would just be a senseless slaughter.

You may not agree with their reasons for being at war but terrorism is basically the only tactic they have which to fight this war.

I don't doubt for a second if you offered Al Qaeda all America's military weapons in exchange for not doing any more suicide bombing they would bite your hand off.

It is a tactic formed out of desperation rather than evil, just as Dresden was (although much less desperation, I am pretty sure the tide of the war had already turned, it probably wasn't even required)
--------------------------------

I'm not sure what your point is. If Al Quaeda had the US's nuclear arsenal they would bomb this planet into the stone ages.

I don't doubt for a second if you offered Al Qaeda all America's military weapons in exchange for not doing any more suicide bombing they would bite your hand off.

------

There self-proclaimed objective is the Islamification of the western world. You're blinded by your sympathy toward these murderers. Shameful.


===

So the only difference between them is that 60 odd years have past and now targeting civilians is unacceptable?

---

It's a pretty big bloody difference!

Their*

It wasn't sneaking away, it was on a Zig - Zag course, standard tactic to try and evade Submarines and to make a harder firing solution for a Submarine!


Didn't work obviously!

comment by Robb Lannister (U9808)
posted 9 minutes ago
Macca

Would those million civilians have died without an invasion?

Very unlikely. And even more unlikely is the prospect of Saddam ever having weapons to trouble the west.

Saddam was a terrible person and he won't be missed but the invasion served to open the doors to a multitude of other madmen to go into that country and make it a hell of a lot worse.

I understand you say yourself that it's worse there but in no way should this war have been allowed to happen. If anything it's promoted terrorism by making millions of martyrs and enemies of the west.

------------------
Rob

The threat was believed to be real because Hussain was deliberatley leading the UN weapons inspectors a merry dance at the time.

If that's the rules of warfare then that's what happens.

......................

You seriously mean that, don't you?

I have just split my sides laughing. And it isn't funny.

It doesn't make it right, but I don't think you can really compare wartime to peacetime though, the declaration of war itself then brings on different laws. They are also different types of shock and awe. On the one hand, they were designed to cripple a country both in terms of materially and in morale, the other had no material gain at all, purely provocation.
....................................

A lot of people on both sides question the morality of it, it can be argued that there were good reasons for doing so but I don't think it was justified in the end.

Isn't this war just as real to Al Qaeda and extremist muslims with terrorist leanings as WW2 was to us?

As far as they are concerned they have been fighting an Israeli invasion for the last 60 odd years. In this time the Americans have dropped by the neighborhood a few times and have troops permanently stationed there...

I can see why it would look differently to us in the UK but surely you can also see why they might look at it differently?

My Dad made an interesting comment about Afghanistan (he's is in the army, not sure what exactly a bit old to just be a grunt though) he said the way they see it their Grandfathers fought our Grandfathers and now we have come back for them to fight again.

It wasn't sneaking away, it was on a Zig - Zag course, standard tactic to try and evade Submarines and to make a harder firing solution for a Submarine!
-------------------------------------

Zigzagging or not, it was outside the exclusion zone. So surely the British PM telling the navy to sink the Belgrano was not an act of war, but an unlawful state sponsored killing?

Zigzagging or not, it was outside the exclusion zone.

.............

So what?

Rob

The threat was believed to be real because Hussain was deliberatley
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am afraid, that is entirely accurate.

There was no threat of WMDs.

Blair/Bush lied. They concoted the raison d' etre for war with IRAQ was for the WMD threat but it was simply for regime change.

Everyone knows this. Regardless, of one's feelings on the matter: the IRAQ war was illegal and the irreparable destruction is evident for all to see.

You seriously mean that, don't you?

I have just split my sides laughing. And it isn't funny.
------------------------------------

I do mean it. If we take the idea that 'anything goes' in war where does it stop? It effectively gives unlimited power to the government to kill, arrest, maim and torture without due process.

Your idea of war and politics is a very dangerous one, and in the hands of the wrong leader or minister we could see a very sharp slide into a military dictatorship.

"The threat was believed to be real because Hussain was deliberatley leading the UN weapons inspectors a merry dance at the time."

More than that Macca. Hussein himself thought he was a lot closer to having them than he actually was as his own scientists were telling him they were nearly finished so they didn't get killed. It was that intelligence that played a big part in people thinking that Iraq had them. Slightly ironic if you think about it

he said the way they see it their Grandfathers fought our Grandfathers and now we have come back for them to fight again.

-----

That is because they are backwards thinking, war-mongering, intolerant religious zealots with a mentality that belongs in the time of the Crusades.

I'm not sure what your point is. If Al Quaeda had the US's nuclear arsenal they would bomb this planet into the stone ages.
..........................................

My point is people fight with what they have, if they have no real weapons of worth and a far bigger opponent to fight they will have to resort to (what some may call) underhand tactics.

Not dropping all those nukes is within USA's best interests for so many reasons that are nothing to do with being a nice guy.

They are also the only country to use a nuke on an opponent, twice!

So what?
-----------------
What do you mean so what?!?! I effing answered the "so what" right after that sentence. Just bloody read the whole post before commenting on it you pathetic, napoleonesque cretin.

Zigzagging or not, it was outside the exclusion zone. So surely the British PM telling the navy to sink the Belgrano was not an act of war, but an unlawful state sponsored killing?

-----

and an hour later it would have been back in the warzone, thus rendering your point moot. That ship was a ship of war with orders to engage the British forces in the area. Stop being so naive.