France gets tough...

[NJS 3978]

We do not go into other countries to deliberately bomb civilians going about their daily routines.

 

Yes we fucking do - how fucking stupid are you?

 

Look up "shock and awe" - the deliberate bombing of Baghdad and other cities whith the only purpose of killing civilians.

 

Utter rubbish

 

The purpose was to remove government, infrastructure and military targets, now undoubtedly civilians died, but to say the purpose was to solely target civilians is garbage. If they'd carpet bombed as per WW2 you may have had a point.

 

Propaganda.

 

Also the use of White Phosphurus in Fallijah (against all intetnational conventions) with no regard to casualties.

[NJS 3978]

I'd also add that LM ignored HF's point that Iraq had done nothing to threaten the UK and was invaded which begged the question what were the people supposed to do? - lay down and take it?

 

Okay many saw the invasion as liberation (more fool them) but many didn't.

[Toonpack 6860]

We do not go into other countries to deliberately bomb civilians going about their daily routines.

 

Yes we fucking do - how fucking stupid are you?

 

Look up "shock and awe" - the deliberate bombing of Baghdad and other cities whith the only purpose of killing civilians.

 

Utter rubbish

 

The purpose was to remove government, infrastructure and military targets, now undoubtedly civilians died, but to say the purpose was to solely target civilians is garbage. If they'd carpet bombed as per WW2 you may have had a point.

That said, weren't you an advocate of turning the whole place into a glass car park because some yanks on a messageboard thought it was a good idea?

 

Yes and No

 

Darwin and survival of the fittest in action, we're giving our advantage away, once we're caught, the other lot won't hesitate, it's the natural way.

 

Stevie - I had a sig, can't remember any particular avatar though ???

[Guest alex]

You came up with that on your own then? Well done

[Toonpack 6860]

You came up with that on your own then? Well done

 

Not really, there's a few people I know who think that way, I happen to agree.

 

Why would it be wrong, given all of nature is built on knacking the weaker.

[Happy Face 29]

Why would it be wrong

 

Because we aren't animals.

 

Because "Our" survival doesn't depend on "their" extinction.

 

Because we aren't a seperate species.

 

And (I hate to invoke Godwin's law so early in the thread but) because that's how Hitler thought.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

I'd also add that LM ignored HF's point that Iraq had done nothing to threaten the UK and was invaded which begged the question what were the people supposed to do? - lay down and take it?

 

Okay many saw the invasion as liberation (more fool them) but many didn't.

 

Aside of the usual anti-west comments again [what is the problem here, why do you always take this stance] are you suggesting such decisions should be left to the UN and that decision abided by.

 

Iraq invaded Kuwait in the first instance by the way, and Saddam Hussein had oppressed and used chemical weapons on his own people. Why do you think we should sit back and wait for him to do it again, stockpike more weapons, and develop them ?

[Guest alex]

You came up with that on your own then? Well done

 

Not really, there's a few people I know who think that way, I happen to agree.

 

Why would it be wrong, given all of nature is built on knacking the weaker.

I don't think there's much point arguing the toss about your solution since it's such a joke although I do find your justification amusing since you've completely misunderstood what Darwin was getting at.

[NJS 3978]

I'd also add that LM ignored HF's point that Iraq had done nothing to threaten the UK and was invaded which begged the question what were the people supposed to do? - lay down and take it?

 

Okay many saw the invasion as liberation (more fool them) but many didn't.

 

Aside of the usual anti-west comments again [what is the problem here, why do you always take this stance] are you suggesting such decisions should be left to the UN and that decision abided by.

 

Iraq invaded Kuwait in the first instance by the way, and Saddam Hussein had oppressed and used chemical weapons on his own people. Why do you think we should sit back and wait for him to do it again, stockpike more weapons, and develop them ?

 

The last war wasm't about Kuwait but you do know that Kuwait is a historical part of Iraq sort of like Northern Ireland is part of the UK (to some people)?

 

That aside - yes that's the whole point of the UN - there was a process in progress which would have led to resolutions but the UN appointed inspectors could not find evidence of WMD - that's what the US/UK jumped the gun on.

 

The sanctions from the first war (which incidently killed thousands of children) meant that Saddam was incapable of developing weapons - this has been comprehensively proven by not one being found or any evidence of any development processes.

 

As for gassing the Kurds, it was terrible but the Yanks, Israelis and the Russians have done worse since WWII with no comebacks. If you want an honest world police force that stops shit like that then I'm all for it - but beware what it will uncover - especially who sold the weapons and chemicals.

[Guest alex]

I'd also add that LM ignored HF's point that Iraq had done nothing to threaten the UK and was invaded which begged the question what were the people supposed to do? - lay down and take it?

 

Okay many saw the invasion as liberation (more fool them) but many didn't.

 

Aside of the usual anti-west comments again [what is the problem here, why do you always take this stance] are you suggesting such decisions should be left to the UN and that decision abided by.

 

Iraq invaded Kuwait in the first instance by the way, and Saddam Hussein had oppressed and used chemical weapons on his own people. Why do you think we should sit back and wait for him to do it again, stockpike more weapons, and develop them ?

Thing is, what Saddam was doing isn't even close to the terrible genocides that have occurred (and are continuing to occur) within Africa so why was should he received special attention? That's a rhetorical question btw

[LeazesMag 0]

I'd also add that LM ignored HF's point that Iraq had done nothing to threaten the UK and was invaded which begged the question what were the people supposed to do? - lay down and take it?

 

Okay many saw the invasion as liberation (more fool them) but many didn't.

 

Aside of the usual anti-west comments again [what is the problem here, why do you always take this stance] are you suggesting such decisions should be left to the UN and that decision abided by.

 

Iraq invaded Kuwait in the first instance by the way, and Saddam Hussein had oppressed and used chemical weapons on his own people. Why do you think we should sit back and wait for him to do it again, stockpike more weapons, and develop them ?

 

The last war wasm't about Kuwait but you do know that Kuwait is a historical part of Iraq sort of like Northern Ireland is part of the UK (to some people)?

 

That aside - yes that's the whole point of the UN - there was a process in progress which would have led to resolutions but the UN appointed inspectors could not find evidence of WMD - that's what the US/UK jumped the gun on.

 

The sanctions from the first war (which incidently killed thousands of children) meant that Saddam was incapable of developing weapons - this has been comprehensively proven by not one being found or any evidence of any development processes.

 

As for gassing the Kurds, it was terrible but the Yanks, Israelis and the Russians have done worse since WWII with no comebacks. If you want an honest world police force that stops shit like that then I'm all for it - but beware what it will uncover - especially who sold the weapons and chemicals.

 

the UN is a hopeless organisation which would never sanction the necessary action to rid the world of tin pot dictators and regimes which have the inclination to attack other countries or develop dangerous weapons and the mindset to actually use them. The first Kuwait - Iraq should have been properly completed with the ousting of Saddam, as it was, he spent years flouting the ceasefire resolutions which was good enough reason on its own to go in again. It had to be done.

 

The weapons industry has always existed. What do you propose to do to stop companies selling weapons to those prepared to pay for them ?

[LeazesMag 0]

I'd also add that LM ignored HF's point that Iraq had done nothing to threaten the UK and was invaded which begged the question what were the people supposed to do? - lay down and take it?

 

Okay many saw the invasion as liberation (more fool them) but many didn't.

 

Aside of the usual anti-west comments again [what is the problem here, why do you always take this stance] are you suggesting such decisions should be left to the UN and that decision abided by.

 

Iraq invaded Kuwait in the first instance by the way, and Saddam Hussein had oppressed and used chemical weapons on his own people. Why do you think we should sit back and wait for him to do it again, stockpike more weapons, and develop them ?

Thing is, what Saddam was doing isn't even close to the terrible genocides that have occurred (and are continuing to occur) within Africa so why was should he received special attention? That's a rhetorical question btw

 

Get a resolution from the UN

[Guest alex]

I'd also add that LM ignored HF's point that Iraq had done nothing to threaten the UK and was invaded which begged the question what were the people supposed to do? - lay down and take it?

 

Okay many saw the invasion as liberation (more fool them) but many didn't.

 

Aside of the usual anti-west comments again [what is the problem here, why do you always take this stance] are you suggesting such decisions should be left to the UN and that decision abided by.

 

Iraq invaded Kuwait in the first instance by the way, and Saddam Hussein had oppressed and used chemical weapons on his own people. Why do you think we should sit back and wait for him to do it again, stockpike more weapons, and develop them ?

Thing is, what Saddam was doing isn't even close to the terrible genocides that have occurred (and are continuing to occur) within Africa so why was should he received special attention? That's a rhetorical question btw

 

Get a resolution from the UN

They would but they don't have any oil.

[NJS 3978]

the UN is a hopeless organisation which would never sanction the necessary action to rid the world of tin pot dictators and regimes which have the inclination to attack other countries or develop dangerous weapons and the mindset to actually use them. The first Kuwait - Iraq should have been properly completed with the ousting of Saddam, as it was, he spent years flouting the ceasefire resolutions which was good enough reason on its own to go in again. It had to be done.

 

Possibly the UN is hopeless - but that's mainly down to a lack of will from the US (and others) who'd rather go their own way. If you trust the US to only ever act in our interests that;s fine but there's no guarantee they will - imagine if Palin is elected and starts invading countries just for the hell of it.

 

Again the first Kuwait war was picking on one side of a dispute because of politics rather than principle - the US only cared about Kuwait because Saudi felt threatened - they didn't care when he invaded Iran.

 

The weapons industry has always existed. What do you propose to do to stop companies selling weapons to those prepared to pay for them ?

How about we don't sell weapons to obvious cunts?

 

Then again I wouldn't bother with it - if the coal or shipbuilding industries were subidised as much as BAE, the NE would have full employment.

[Monkeys Fist 38761]

Thought this was the right thread to post this!

 

I pissed myself reading it

[Toonpack 6860]

Why would it be wrong

 

Because we aren't animals.

 

Because "Our" survival doesn't depend on "their" extinction.

 

Because we aren't a seperate species.

 

And (I hate to invoke Godwin's law so early in the thread but) because that's how Hitler thought.

 

Of course we are and no different to any other.

 

There are those of us who "care for fellow man" but as is ably demonstrated all over the planet there's fucking loads who don't. The caring society is regrettably in the minority and if it doesn't wake up soon it'll be fucked.

[LeazesMag 0]

Thought this was the right thread to post this!

 

I pissed myself reading it

 

 

[LeazesMag 0]

Why would it be wrong

 

Because we aren't animals.

 

Because "Our" survival doesn't depend on "their" extinction.

 

Because we aren't a seperate species.

 

And (I hate to invoke Godwin's law so early in the thread but) because that's how Hitler thought.

 

Of course we are and no different to any other.

 

There are those of us who "care for fellow man" but as is ably demonstrated all over the planet there's fucking loads who don't. The caring society is regrettably in the minority and if it doesn't wake up soon it'll be fucked.

 

reality check that will not be understood

[Happy Face 29]

Aye, the battle between western Judeo-Christian beliefs and the muslim world is a prime example of evolutionary theory in full effect.

 

Is this thread a Chris Morris lampoon? You couldn't make this shit up.

[Monkeys Fist 38761]

Aye, the battle between western Judeo-Christian beliefs and the muslim world is a prime example of evolutionary theory in full effect.

 

Is this thread a Chris Morris lampoon? You couldn't make this shit up.

Leazes clearly addicted to CAKE..

[Toonpack 6860]

Aye, the battle between western Judeo-Christian beliefs and the muslim world is a prime example of evolutionary theory in full effect.

 

Is this thread a Chris Morris lampoon? You couldn't make this shit up.

 

I didn't mention religion nor did I mention race, there are societies that are "caring" or enlightened even, and there are those that are not. Those that are, are at threat, from those that are not.

 

The "enlightened" societies developed via force of arms and thus gained the power to create/develop the environment for caring, anything that threatens the "harmony" of the "civilised world" should be ruthlessly dealt with, you can't reason with mankind's baser instinct, it needs to be taught a lesson, "be nice, or else".

[ChezGiven 0]

Aye, the battle between western Judeo-Christian beliefs and the muslim world is a prime example of evolutionary theory in full effect.

 

Is this thread a Chris Morris lampoon? You couldn't make this shit up.

 

I didn't mention religion nor did I mention race, there are societies that are "caring" or enlightened even, and there are those that are not. Those that are, are at threat, from those that are not.

 

The "enlightened" societies developed via force of arms and thus gained the power to create/develop the environment for caring, anything that threatens the "harmony" of the "civilised world" should be ruthlessly dealt with, you can't reason with mankind's baser instinct, it needs to be taught a lesson, "be nice, or else".

 

Name them.

[Guest alex]

Aye, the battle between western Judeo-Christian beliefs and the muslim world is a prime example of evolutionary theory in full effect.

 

Is this thread a Chris Morris lampoon? You couldn't make this shit up.

 

I didn't mention religion nor did I mention race, there are societies that are "caring" or enlightened even, and there are those that are not. Those that are, are at threat, from those that are not.

 

The "enlightened" societies developed via force of arms and thus gained the power to create/develop the environment for caring, anything that threatens the "harmony" of the "civilised world" should be ruthlessly dealt with, you can't reason with mankind's baser instinct, it needs to be taught a lesson, "be nice, or else".

Gold Especially the last bit.

[Meenzer 14055]

The "enlightened" societies developed via force of arms and thus gained the power to create/develop the environment for caring, anything that threatens the "harmony" of the "civilised world" should be ruthlessly dealt with, you can't reason with mankind's baser instinct, it needs to be taught a lesson, "be nice, or else".

 

"Planning"

[NJS 3978]

I didn't mention religion nor did I mention race, there are societies that are "caring" or enlightened even, and there are those that are not. Those that are, are at threat, from those that are not.

 

There are a lot of aspects of Islam I despise (I presume that's where you're going) but its very simplistic to say they are uncaring - the respect for the family and the way they look after older relatives is one aspect a lot of western countries could learn from.