It's all kicked off
Posted by: John Channing on 19 March 2003
Fighting has started for the port of Bazra and the Southern oil fields. British and American troops have also entered the demilitarized zone in Southern Iraq. Let's hope for a swift conclusion.
John
John
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by JeremyD
Dear oldie,
I'm probably extremely stupid, or something, but I haven't understood your argument at all. WOuld you be kind enough to state the incontrovertible facts on which your assessment is based and explain the steps that lead from these facts to your assessment?
I await your answer with interest.
Kindest regards
--J
I'm probably extremely stupid, or something, but I haven't understood your argument at all. WOuld you be kind enough to state the incontrovertible facts on which your assessment is based and explain the steps that lead from these facts to your assessment?
I await your answer with interest.
Kindest regards
--J
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by oldie
dEAR jeremyD
I would not be so rude as to suggest that anybody was stupid,we just have a differant interpretation of things.I'm sure that if you were to bother to go back to the original postings all would be clear to you.
In essence this is a totaly unjust and illegal
war that is not sanctioned by the UN and therefor cannot be justified by any civilised
society. It is no use empowering the UN and then when it suits us ignoring them. I don't think anybody is under any illusion about Saddam
I would not be so rude as to suggest that anybody was stupid,we just have a differant interpretation of things.I'm sure that if you were to bother to go back to the original postings all would be clear to you.
In essence this is a totaly unjust and illegal
war that is not sanctioned by the UN and therefor cannot be justified by any civilised
society. It is no use empowering the UN and then when it suits us ignoring them. I don't think anybody is under any illusion about Saddam
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
The 17 correspondents eventually accredited had to sign forms agreeing to accept censorship at source by six MoD "public relations officers". The result was that the war was reported exactly how the military wanted it to be"
Matthew
Matthew
My point remains that I do not think that 2 PARA or anyone else on the British side wanted the Argentine Garrison to be told that they where outside Port Stanley ready to cross the start line. I accept that the Military wantto control reporting - ( bloody right, too - is immediate news worth a single life or disfigurement? ) but this example shows that the war was not reported totally in acordance with MoD diktat. Looking at the news tonight there is a lot of live / near live coverage - I reckon Sky News is covering it best - CNN etc has too many talikng head shots. The journalists there clearly realise that if they report TOO accurately, they could well end up as targets.
Regards
Mike
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by oldie
Sorry jeremyD
My bl--dy computer just froze up on me mid sentence. What I was going to say was that we all recognise Saddam as a murderer etc.
after all we armed and educated him in these ways when it suited us some years ago.But doing Thats all for now, as I feel we are just going round in circles
So all the best
[JUST] OLD
My bl--dy computer just froze up on me mid sentence. What I was going to say was that we all recognise Saddam as a murderer etc.
after all we armed and educated him in these ways when it suited us some years ago.But doing Thats all for now, as I feel we are just going round in circles
So all the best
[JUST] OLD
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by Paul Ranson
quote:
In essence this is a totaly unjust
It's 'just' if it frees the Iraqis from their oppressors.
quote:
and illegal war
It's more legal than most wars.
quote:
that is not sanctioned by the UN
Iraq is in breach of innumerable (I know there's a number, it's large and I don't have it) UN resolutions. Last year's resolution alone is good enough to sanction this action.
quote:
and therefor cannot be justified by any civilised
society.
Iraq and the PRC are both UN members, neither regime manages a 'civilised society' so I don't see your point. Do you wish to protect despots?
Paul
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by oldie
Its done it again .It should have read
But doing the same as he has done does not make it right.
But doing the same as he has done does not make it right.
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by Justin
I did not think the US was ever a part of the inernational court. Where they?
Judd
Judd
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by matthewr
All the contemprary war reporting in the Falklands war was fully vetted and controlled by the MoD. I'm not sure how much plainer I can put this.
Matthew
PS Well said Paul
Matthew
PS Well said Paul
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by Justin
paul,
What is with all the references to the hamburgers?
judd
Judd
What is with all the references to the hamburgers?
judd
Judd
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by Justin
Come on now, Paul.
You know damned well I never even implied that if the war was "logically" justified, then it was generally justified. (That's Mick's argument--pay attention). I said only that your arguments should be logically consistent. Your indictment of war cannot be so broad that it renders all wars unjustified. That's all I meant, and I think you know it.
That said, I don't think I agree with it's more "refined form in your last post. The whole point of war is precisely to kill the other guys so as to save your own. That's the calculation every country makes when it enters a war. Were it not so, the whole concept of war becomes futile.
Anyway, i have no idea what you are calling me a Hawk. I've rejected your reasons for rejecting this war. I have not formulated a justification for it yet. I'm just here for the academic debate.
Judd
You know damned well I never even implied that if the war was "logically" justified, then it was generally justified. (That's Mick's argument--pay attention). I said only that your arguments should be logically consistent. Your indictment of war cannot be so broad that it renders all wars unjustified. That's all I meant, and I think you know it.
That said, I don't think I agree with it's more "refined form in your last post. The whole point of war is precisely to kill the other guys so as to save your own. That's the calculation every country makes when it enters a war. Were it not so, the whole concept of war becomes futile.
Anyway, i have no idea what you are calling me a Hawk. I've rejected your reasons for rejecting this war. I have not formulated a justification for it yet. I'm just here for the academic debate.
Judd
Posted on: 21 March 2003 by matthewr
Justin said "The whole point of war is precisely to kill the other guys so as to save your own [...] Were it not so, the whole concept of war becomes futile"
I can't imagine anything quite as futile as a war purely for the puropses of killing people.
"I have not formulated a justification for [the war] yet"
You're not alone -- Bush & Blair are on their third or fourth attempt so far and still haven't managed it.
Matthew
I can't imagine anything quite as futile as a war purely for the puropses of killing people.
"I have not formulated a justification for [the war] yet"
You're not alone -- Bush & Blair are on their third or fourth attempt so far and still haven't managed it.
Matthew
Posted on: 22 March 2003 by Mat Bon 0013
What I think will happen is once Saddam Hussein is boxed in, he will set off his nuke's on himself and nobody wins......wishfull thinking 
Posted on: 22 March 2003 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
All the contemprary war reporting in the Falklands war was fully vetted and controlled by the MoD. I'm not sure how much plainer I can put this.
Matthew
PS Well said Paul
Put it as plainly as you feel you can.
The World Service broadcast the intention of UK forces. You cannot seriously think that the MoD gave the OK for this. They had no control. And BTW, how would our MoD have controlled the Argentinian Press?
You really are missing the point completely. And I cant put it any plainer than that.
Mike
PS please dont come back and say that the MoD wanted the Argentine garrison to know that the assault was about to launch. That really would be nonsense. Feel free to make any comment you wish; I will not dignify it with a response.
Posted on: 22 March 2003 by Justin
You folks are reading too much into my response to Paul.
I would gather that no justification for war is appropriate other than the weight of our lives versus those of the enemies. Surely I am not wrong in ascribing this view to you. I will be forgiven for assuming that Oil, Political Capital, and other less weighty spoils do NOT justify wars in your minds.
Why now do you deride me for stating this seemingly uncontroversial premise?
I offered this only as a response to Pauls overbroad calculation. It did not offer it as the "true" justification for this war (frankly I do not know exactly what Bush and Blair base this war on--I have never claimed to).
But I continue to reject Paul's assertion that wars are only justified if you are willing to sacrifice as many people as you are likely to kill. This is patently absurd precisely because at its base people fight wars (or should fight wars--does that satisfy you?) precisely because they want to protect thier own lives at the expense of others.
Why is this such a controversial premise?
I gather it is because Paul (and the rest who have taken his position) feel that there should be some weightier value for which nations fight wars (weightier, that is, than the protection of the lives of the beligerants). I'd be interested to hear what those weightier values might be. Surely it cannot be the protection of oppressed people. Were that so, you'd have to admit at least some justfication for the current war. I gather none of you are willing to do this.
Judd
I would gather that no justification for war is appropriate other than the weight of our lives versus those of the enemies. Surely I am not wrong in ascribing this view to you. I will be forgiven for assuming that Oil, Political Capital, and other less weighty spoils do NOT justify wars in your minds.
Why now do you deride me for stating this seemingly uncontroversial premise?
I offered this only as a response to Pauls overbroad calculation. It did not offer it as the "true" justification for this war (frankly I do not know exactly what Bush and Blair base this war on--I have never claimed to).
But I continue to reject Paul's assertion that wars are only justified if you are willing to sacrifice as many people as you are likely to kill. This is patently absurd precisely because at its base people fight wars (or should fight wars--does that satisfy you?) precisely because they want to protect thier own lives at the expense of others.
Why is this such a controversial premise?
I gather it is because Paul (and the rest who have taken his position) feel that there should be some weightier value for which nations fight wars (weightier, that is, than the protection of the lives of the beligerants). I'd be interested to hear what those weightier values might be. Surely it cannot be the protection of oppressed people. Were that so, you'd have to admit at least some justfication for the current war. I gather none of you are willing to do this.
Judd
Posted on: 01 June 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps
I am not complaining.........price of oil is dropping like a stone....$24 ...lovely.
Once this lot is over, the good times will roll, low oil prices and low interest rates, everyone benifits.
The people of Iraq will have freedom for the first time in years.
Hopefully in a couple of weeks time we can quote Maggie
Rejoice Rejoice Rejoice
Just how stupid do you look now?
Highest oil prices in 21 years
An upsurge in terrorist attacks all over the world
Continued fighting in Iraq with lots of casualties, most of them civilians
Still no UN participation
Human rights abuses by the allied forces
Infrastructure in Iraq still not back to pre-war levels
No significant WMD finds
Squabbling between the USA and even their Iraqi lapdogs about the way forward
What a fucking mess...
Posted on: 01 June 2004 by Mick P
Stop bloody whinging.
The price will drop as more oil fields in China and Russia come on line.
If you do not agree with the war, fair enough, but dont blame the price of oil on it. We nearly had prices like this 3 years ago.
Oil is a price sensitive commodity, even a politician sneezing can trigger movements one way or the other.
Regards
Mick
The price will drop as more oil fields in China and Russia come on line.
If you do not agree with the war, fair enough, but dont blame the price of oil on it. We nearly had prices like this 3 years ago.
Oil is a price sensitive commodity, even a politician sneezing can trigger movements one way or the other.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 01 June 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Stop bloody whinging.
The price will drop as more oil fields in China and Russia come on line.
Your entire justification for the war came down to controlling the oil supply - so how long until the US invade China and Russia then?
Posted on: 01 June 2004 by Mick P
Contolling the oil is still being done, the price may have gone up but we have got it.
You would be the first to moan if the stuff dried up.
It is just one of those things. In a strange sort of way it is doing us all a favour, it has eliminated deflation as an economic threat and we are back to mild inflation which is fairly healthy.
Regards
Mick
You would be the first to moan if the stuff dried up.
It is just one of those things. In a strange sort of way it is doing us all a favour, it has eliminated deflation as an economic threat and we are back to mild inflation which is fairly healthy.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 01 June 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Contolling the oil is still being done, the price may have gone up but we have got it.
Are you sure about that? Even the non-democratic interim government in Iraq looks anti-US and will probably kick the occupying forces out just as soon as it's legally able to do so. Given that the US has already advised its citizens to leave Saudi then it's quite likely that they will have less control over oil production in the medium term.
quote:
You would be the first to moan if the stuff dried up.
Nope - I can cycle to work.
quote:
It is just one of those things. In a strange sort of way it is doing us all a favour, it has eliminated deflation as an economic threat and we are back to mild inflation which is fairly healthy.
Astounding. You really are a gullible fool - if Tony B.liar said his shit was chocolate you'd be wolfing it down with loads of yum, yum...
Posted on: 01 June 2004 by Mick P
If your last sentence is going to be typical then I am not going to continue any further.
Posted on: 01 June 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
If your last sentence is going to be typical then I am not going to continue any further.
Tremendous.
Posted on: 01 June 2004 by Dev B
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Stop bloody whinging.
The price will drop as more oil fields in China and Russia come on line.
He's right (& don't ask me how I know
). The real problem with high oil prices is that it is effectively a tax on growth.