Mass Protest in UK Against 'Bombers' Blair and Bush

[TheStinger]

The left in the UK used to hate the UN as it wasn't espousing their ideals. Now that their is a chance it might oppose the war on Iraq it is suddenly the only place to derive legitimacy from.
a large number of the people on the march would oppose americas right to defend itself if another country invaded it

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Ha ha, 150,000 protest...and MILLIONS didn't.

Support for war is now better then 70% in the US, at 65% in Britain from latest polls.

Nothing like an ol peace rally to give hope to the fading Left's dying influence.

Which polls are you looking at?
From
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews...-iraq-poll.htm
and
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews...-sept-2002.htm

Q1. Would you approve or disapprove of a military attack on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein?
Approve 36%
Disapprove 40%
Don't know/refuse 24%

Q2. Before committing British forces to an attack on Iraq what approval do you think the British government should seek?
The approval of the United Nations

Yes 86%
No 9%
Don't know 6%

The approval of the British Parliament
Yes 86%
No 10%
Don't know 4%

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Possibly as many as 20 missiles, and an airforce that could only threaten Iran and Syria. You can have the biggest stockpile in the world, won't do you no good if you can't deliver them. Hussein can't take over the world with one or even a handful of tiny bombs. He couldn't even stand up to the US when had a viable stockpile and weapons platforms, let alone now.

20 missiles? Don't need 'em if you leave him alone.

20 warheads? That could blow up Vancouver, San Fransisco, San Diego, The Canal, Miami, Norfolk, New York, Philidelphia, Boston, Halifax, Montreal, London, Liverpool, Marseilles, St Petersburg... That would leave 5 more to deliver by container to other places.

Too outlandish? Think about some 390 days ago.

The full horror of Hitler was never considered a possibility until he had already left the stage.

[axi]

The most his Scud missiles can travel to the NW is the island of Crete (half of it actually) if he launched from the border with Jordan at full fuel load. The question however is not if a missile could reach Crete, but if it would hit it...

[notyoueither]

Why is everyone so stuck on missiles?

Surely there are better ways to strike the great Satan.

[Rogan Josh]

As a matter of interest, if you guys had been posting on this board in 1933 (or just discussing down the pub, since we didn't have these boards in 1933) what action would you have advocated against Germany? And what do you think the effects would have been? (Not that I think Saddam is anywhere near as dangerous as Hitler.)

Would you have wanted a first stike, maybe bombing the hell out of Berlin? Would you have tried to kill as many Germans as possible? Or would you have tried to prevent the German growth of militarism by some other means? Would you instead have supported his internal opposition?

Do you think attacking a Germany which had not yet made any hostile moves itself would have engendered more bitterness among the Germna people, and caused more problems in the future?

And if you would have tried a more peaceful resolution with Germany, why would you be more hostile with Iraq? Is it because the Germans are white? (just wondering... )

I think we have to remember that it was the 'peace settlement' after WWI which caused Hitler to come to power -- not appeasement.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why is everyone so stuck on missiles?

Surely there are better ways to strike the great Satan.

Holy water and a crucifix should do the trick

[notyoueither]

... and the little Winston, and the little Vino, and the little Boris, and the little Markos...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
As a matter of interest, if you guys had been posting on this board in 1933 (or just discussing down the pub, since we didn't have these boards in 1933) what action would you have advocated against Germany? And what do you think the effects would have been? (Not that I think Saddam is anywhere near as dangerous as Hitler.)

Would you have wanted a first stike, maybe bombing the hell out of Berlin? Would you have tried to kill as many Germans as possible? Or would you have tried to prevent the German growth of militarism by some other means? Would you instead have supported his internal opposition?

Do you think attacking a Germany which had not yet made any hostile moves itself would have engendered more bitterness among the Germna people, and caused more problems in the future?

And if you would have tried a more peaceful resolution with Germany, why would you be more hostile with Iraq? Is it because the Germans are white? (just wondering... )

I think we have to remember that it was the 'peace settlement' after WWI which caused Hitler to come to power -- not appeasement.

There were those who advocated squashing the Nazi bug by conventional means at an early date when they broke the terms of the peace. By the way, that is an act of war. They would have acted before the German army could have resisted the French, let alone the Czech and British (and probably the Poles).

Alas, Churchill had to wait his turn.

Next argument.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by notyoueither
There were those who advocated squashing the Nazi bug by conventional means at an early date when they broke the terms of the peace. By the way, that is an act of war. They would have acted before the German army could have resisted the French, let alone the Czech and British (and probably the Poles).

Do you think that would have helped? What do you imagine would have happened afterwards? How many people would you have advocated killing?

[notyoueither]

Helped? Are you serious?

Number of dead? A frack of a lot fewer than ended up dead the way of the appeasers and do-nothings.

[notyoueither]

... by several 10's of millions.

[Rogan Josh]

I am certainly not supporting the appeasers.

I am just curious as to what you would have done. How many Germans would you have been happy killing to stop WWII? 10 million? 20 million? All of them?

Don't you think there would have been better ways to avoid WWII?

[Clear Skies]

That question is entirely contaminated by hindsight. None of us have an unbiased perspective on historical events and so cannot hope to give an impartial and correct answer.

[Sava]

Chris was just throwing out arbitrary numbers to see if anyone was paying attention. "Seriously, 94 percent of Americans like Spam.."

Fez, please don't argue in favor of the Republican party, especially when you are only informed of what happens on a national level. Even at the local and state levels, Republicans have shown their true colors. If you're a White Anglo/Saxon Protestant male in the upper 1% income level, then Republicans represent your interests.

Anyways [/Threadjack]... Bush is keeping this Iraq thing on the forefront of political talk because his domestic agenda is sh!t. His approval rating always takes a nose dive when he talks about domestic issues. He's going to beat this terrorism and Iraq thing like a dead horse until 2004. But I have faith that the American people will eventually see through the bull sh!t.

[Ned]

Che, I am certain that the exact same arguments were once made by conservatives in the US to keep us out of the European war: "Nazi Germany is no threat to the United States. They don't have a bomber that can fly across the Atlantic do they?"

The problem with your logic, Che, is that he COULD take over all of Arabia, then turn his guns on his old foe Iran. If the does that, he has us by the b*lls, doesn't he? OIL.

[Ned]

Sava, You obviously are a Daley Democrat. You bring bad government and justify it by class warfare arguments.

The Republican Party is the party of the middle class in America, and for that reason is rather conservative. The Democrat Party is the party of the minorities, special interest groups that lobby government for more government benefits like welfare and unions, and the far left who tend to be very well eductated but tend to favor totalitarianism in one form or another while calling what they advocate "equality."

[Chris 62]

Actually, I wasn't, the numbers are from CNN and BBC polls done saturday.

I love how da widdle Lefties always try to post up websites, links, and other nonsense to "refute" things.

Sorry, support for this war is immense, you can continue to think your in the majority by opposing, but it isn't the case.

[TheStinger]

Whilst i am not opposed to the war i think it is entirely legitimate to ask why now, and to ask why saddam was supported in the 1980's and whether we knew what he was like.

I don't really see that asking those questions makes me a raving leftie who would rather shoot his own grandmother than support the US.

If the US (and to a lessser extent Britain) say yes we did support him but we got it wrong then people may have a lot more respect for the current policies.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Actually, I wasn't, the numbers are from CNN and BBC polls done saturday.

I love how da widdle Lefties always try to post up websites, links, and other nonsense to "refute" things.

Sorry, support for this war is immense, you can continue to think your in the majority by opposing, but it isn't the case.

The polls say that the majority of people in the UK support a war with UN backing, the majority don't support it without UN backing. Those are the facts.

150,000 people on a peace march is immense. The people that are motivated to march are a tiny proportion of those that are against it, you know that.

[Ned]

On Germany in 1933 or even 1936: The answer was to pull the rug out from under Hitler by calling a European conference, the US included, to revisit Versailles. Versailles was Hitler's big issue. It got him elected. It was the reason he used armed force to invade his neighbors.

Roosevelt had offered this concept to the British in 1938, but they ignored him. I think they believed even at that time they could handle Hitler unilaterally. Big mistake. Moreover, the appeasment policy conducted by the English only incented Hitler to increase his demands. He truly believed that the English leadership was weak and would never do anything to stop him.

In recent history, OBL is on record that the US response to Somalia was the reason he was so emboldened to escallate his terrorist attacks. The weak response to the bombings of our embassies only incented him further.

Saddam also was emboldened by weakness. When the US gave him the wrong signal in 1990, he invaded Kuwait. When he threw up mountains of objections to the inspectors, Annan appeased him with concessions. When he effectively threw out the inspectors in 1998, Clinton threatened the use of force - but all he did was use cruise missiles and bombs. Saddam laughed at Clinton.

Appeasement of Hitler brought us WWII. Appeasement of Saddam brought us increased defiance. Weakness in the face of terror brought us the WTC.

Appeasement is not the answer.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by MikeH


The polls say that the majority of people in the UK support a war with UN backing, the majority don't support it without UN backing. Those are the facts.

150,000 people on a peace march is immense. The people that are motivated to march are a tiny proportion of those that are against it, you know that.

Many people marched against crusie missles, the majority were in favour of them though

[MikeH]

All I'm saying is that 150,000 marching doesn't mean that they are the only people against something.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither


20 missiles? Don't need 'em if you leave him alone.

20 warheads? That could blow up Vancouver, San Fransisco, San Diego, The Canal, Miami, Norfolk, New York, Philidelphia, Boston, Halifax, Montreal, London, Liverpool, Marseilles, St Petersburg... That would leave 5 more to deliver by container to other places.

Not one of those places is reachable by any Iraqi missile. Try again.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, I am certain that the exact same arguments were once made by conservatives in the US to keep us out of the European war: "Nazi Germany is no threat to the United States. They don't have a bomber that can fly across the Atlantic do they?"

The problem with your logic, Che, is that he COULD take over all of Arabia, then turn his guns on his old foe Iran. If the does that, he has us by the b*lls, doesn't he? OIL.

If you can't see a fundimental difference between an industrialized world power capable of making its own weapons of war and controling its own sources of raw materials and a neo-colony that only has oil, has to smuggle its weapons into its country, and doesn't even control its own airspace all of its territory, then I suspect there's little point continuing this discussion.

Some minor facts. It has been recently reported that Iraq's armed forces are now 1/4 their strength in 1990. That's roughly a quater million men. Now, considering that he'd have to leave a considerable foce on his border to protect againt Syria, Iran, and Turkey, as well as troops to keep control of his own country, exactly how many troops do you think he has avaiable to invade Saudia Arabia with?

Now consider the Saudis have the most modern equipment the US can supply. Now consider that the Saudis could throw their whol army against Hussein. Now consider the US troops in the region. Now consider US airpower in the region.

Far from taking over the whole ME, Huessin wouldn't get very far past Kuwait City.

[Ned]

While I don't think it will come to this, if the UN does not approve the use of force if Saddam defies the inspectors, the inspections are doomed to failure and will necessitate the use of force. If, however, the UN does approve the use of force, the inspections will succeed and there will be no war.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If you can't see a fundimental difference between an industrialized world power capable of making its own weapons of war and controling its own sources of raw materials and a neo-colony that only has oil, has to smuggle its weapons into its country, and doesn't even control its own airspace all of its territory, then I suspect there's little point continuing this discussion.

Some minor facts. It has been recently reported that Iraq's armed forces are now 1/4 their strength in 1990. That's roughly a quater million men. Now, considering that he'd have to leave a considerable foce on his border to protect againt Syria, Iran, and Turkey, as well as troops to keep control of his own country, exactly how many troops do you think he has avaiable to invade Saudia Arabia with?

Now consider the Saudis have the most modern equipment the US can supply. Now consider that the Saudis could throw their whol army against Hussein. Now consider the US troops in the region. Now consider US airpower in the region.

Far from taking over the whole ME, Huessin wouldn't get very far past Kuwait City.

So, Che, what you advocate is endless sanctions and overflights with no serious inspectios.

IMHO, this is ludicrous.

[chequita guevara]

Bush hasn't been seriously advocating inspections. Bush is only looking for an excuse for war, and is using Iraq to push all other topics of discussion out of the public consciusness. If it weren't for Iraq, this election would be about the inept handling of the economy, Bush's ties to corrupt CEOs, his failure to catch OBL, and the Administrations flubbing of pre-9/11 intelligence.

Iraq isn't the real issue here.

[Lemmy]

What does the UN resolution say exactly that the US want to pass?
Does it only apply to Iraq, or any other country that defies UN resolutions?

[Adam Smith]

Anybody see THIS article in the today's Washington Post? Lugar and Hagel carry a fair amount of weight in the Republican party, especially on diplomatic and defense issues.

Two GOP Senators Urge Iraq Coalition
Lugar, Hagel Ask Bush To Work With Allies
By a Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 1, 2002; Page A01

Two prominent Senate Republicans called on President Bush yesterday to build an international coalition before striking Iraq, setting the stage for a lively and divisive debate this week over the administration's strategy to enforce weapons inspections and topple Saddam Hussein.

Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) yesterday lobbied Bush to agree explicitly to work more closely with U.S. allies to eliminate Hussein's nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities.

"I don't understand why the president would not want all the congressional and international support he can get if, in fact, the last option is taking a nation to war," Hagel said in an interview yesterday, a few hours after questioning Bush's broader policy of preemption in a major foreign policy speech. "The allies want to have a say, and should have a say, in how we initiate this effort."

Lugar, a former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Hagel, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, are among the GOP's most prominent spokesmen on diplomatic and security issues. By joining numerous Democrats in calling for a more multilateral approach to Iraq, the two have increased pressure on Bush to modify the war resolution he proposed to Congress on Sept. 19. The White House objected to their proposal, but suggested a compromise will be reached as early as today, congressional officials said.

Hagel wants the administration to back a new proposal by Lugar and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden (D-Del.). It encourages the president to exhaust his diplomatic efforts at the United Nations before confronting Iraq. Bush's proposed language makes no such references.

edit: formatting