Time for Saddam to head to the bunkers....

[MJA]

Okay Dogbert - if you're going to get 'polarised' about it let's be honest, shall we?

The Middle East 'anti west' situation has only existed since the creation of Israel. Israel itself was created contrary to international law and causes far more problems for the Jewish religion than it solves.

I think that if England had been taken over by a few boat loads of Jewish invaders and, as a native Christian, I had been forced to the fringes I would be pretty upset about it. And I'd actively support missile attacks from scotland and wales.

This really is a case of restless natives - where the Israelies are STILL viewed as an occupying force by the Arab world. Until there is a solution the anti-west feeling in the Middle East will continue.

I don't propose that there is a 'quick fix' to this. These days you can't criticise Israel without being labelled anti-semitic, so it's not easy to give honest opinions

The Hizbolla lot are as bad as Bin Laden - they are angry for the sake of it and just use the situation as an excuse to kill people.

[mdhome]

Originally posted by Dogbert

Jordan was GIVEN BY THE BRITS ....

It wasnt ours to give. Britain made a lot of mistakes (middle-east, indian/pakistan, Africa etc) which still need sorting out. The problem we have when trying to resolve these type of problems is to make sure that they wont re-appear in 10yrs time because we did things for the wrong reasons. I dont believe that this Iraq thing is really about stopping *Mad Saddam*, more like an attempt to rape another countries resources.

Before we attack (and I believe that we will), I would like my government to explain what measures they will be putting in place that will prevent us from *exporting* the technology that goes into weapons of mass destruction.



Regards MD

[Dogbert]

Originally posted by MJA
Okay Dogbert - if you're going to get 'polarised' about it let's be honest, shall we?

The Middle East 'anti west' situation has only existed since the creation of Israel. Israel itself was created contrary to international law and causes far more problems for the Jewish religion than it solves.

I guess you don't know much of Israels nor ME history. Many jews came to Israel before WWII, bought lands from the Arabs and fought the Turks so the Brits could come here. Not to mention that being Christian, if you bothered reading the bible (old testament) you'd learn that Israel is a little older than international "law". Learn some history first...

I think that if England had been taken over by a few boat loads of Jewish invaders and, as a native Christian, I had been forced to the fringes I would be pretty upset about it. And I'd actively support missile attacks from scotland and wales.

Did England had natives before the Enlish people ?

This really is a case of restless natives - where the Israelies are STILL viewed as an occupying force by the Arab world. Until there is a solution the anti-west feeling in the Middle East will continue.

I don't propose that there is a 'quick fix' to this. These days you can't criticise Israel without being labelled anti-semitic, so it's not easy to give honest opinions

Once again, learn some history. Check who and what was here before WWII...

[The PIT]

Isreal disappears beneath the waves and Old Binny boy goes happily to camel shagging not.
No the anti west hate will continue.

[Umfriend]

My fingers are sooooo itching to become indignant....but I won't
Umf

[RedRed]

I guess you don't know much of Israels nor ME history. Many jews came to Israel before WWII, bought lands from the Arabs and fought the Turks so the Brits could come here

actually, Dog, dont mis quote - most if what became Israel was something like 4 Percent Jewish, before WWII... you are plain wrong there.

Israel/jordan and most of the ME was a british protectorate long before WWII, and the way it was left by Britian was a mistake, as MDhome was saying. - half the bloody world was part of the british empire at the time. Britian was forced out, as you know well, but not by Jewish refugees (though there was a significant terror campaign faught, as you also know)

Not to mention that being Christian, if you bothered reading the bible (old testament) you'd learn that Israel is a little older than international "law". Learn some history first...

sorry, but I dont percieve the bible as the definative guide to international law - there are older texts - why not use one of those? answer - because it would not give the answer you want! That argument is weaker than paper plane in a hurricane!
Many countries do not accept the bible as a definative truth in leagal terms - that is why there is international law. Just because one or two countries refuse to accept it does not mean that it is not valid.

Did England had natives before the Enlish people ?

of course it did. how ever, the invasions which took place in england (starting properly with the invasions by the Romans, continuing with the Normans) were completely different. These invasions were primarially a replacement of the rulling classes, with little or no affect on the vast majority of the population. There was no forced eviction of land to make way for new settlers. The indigeonus population was, for the most part subsumed peacefully over several generations. That statement was completely ignorant of any fact.


lets not pollute a reasonable thread, commenting on this super flottilla with the old ME NONSENSE...

Take a deep breath and move on....
MJA and Dogbert, if you want to start a ME debate, start a new thread - its been done to death here a million times, and caused a lot of intresting threads to be closed......

RedRed

[Dogbert]

Originally posted by ex RedRed

Take a deep breath and move on....
MJA and Dogbert, if you want to start a ME debate, start a new thread - its been done to death here a million times, and caused a lot of intresting threads to be closed......

RedRed

I would Argue with the rest and prove you wrong, but I can't argue with this last statement so I'll stop here.

[Umfriend]

hehe, Argue with Capital A....

[MJA]

Sorry for bring ing Israel into a debate about Iraq. I was merely scenario building

It's amazing that if you mention Israel you get a really heated thread which becomes a flame-fest surprisingly quickly. (It also highlights how little people actually know about Middle Eastern history compared to what they think they know!!!!)

So I'll try to steer this back to topic.................

The West supported Saddam's rise to power, and effectively funded his development of a large standing army (nb conflict with Iran). He was viewed as a disruptive influence which would prevent the ME from uniting against the West.

Since the West took such an active part in putting him in power - they ought to be doing the decent thing and apologising to the Iraqi people and getting him out of power asap!

A little bit of 'putting things right'

[Umfriend]

An aplogy to the Iraqi ppl may well be the right thing to do, but I always thought that the Baath party was initially supported by the USSR at the time. Saddam cam to power long before the US started supporting him (if I am not mistaken).
Umf

[MJA]

In terms of military funding you're right - he was 'installed' by the USSR, but was adopted by the West later.

Seeing as Russia and the U.S. are now supposed to be on the same side I think it's apologies all round, isn't it?

[RedRed]

Whay hay!

Group Hug! The thread is saved!!!



Perhaps the west should beinstrumental in dropping Saddam... I could debate that point for hours....

However, Propaganda, missinformation and the general sloppiness of the article posted is a significant issue. Example: The article posted claimed that the fleet that is being assembled had an operating area of 35 miles by 30... what does that tell us? nothing! a supertanker steaming out of the guld on its own has a stopping distance of perhaps 8 miles! 2 tankers cruising together will normally be separated by well over a mile....

the only factoid that we can get from this article is that the US has put the pride of almost all its fleets against a second world country.

America will attack Iraq - I believe that it has too much at stake now not to. I wouldnt be so sure that it will use the UN - which I feel would be a mistake - I dont beilieve that it will have too many allies without it... Whatever you say, Dr M, I cant see a stubburn country like France going in without a new mandate, and the USSR isnt equipped, unless the US passes them a big fat cheque for their company. Blair would follow the US to hell and back (but it could be a one way trip for them!).... China would be neutral. Germany is against.

The only significant country I wouldnt be too sure about without resolutions would be Australia.

America could attack alone, which I think would also be a mistake. While it would almost definately win, (i would giv e odds of 100-1 for america winning!), I dont think that in terms of its 'war on terror' propaganda drive that would leave too many countries in the rest of the world as supporting this mis-guided clap-trap.

my 2C
RedRed

RedRed

[Sasq]

Just my guess is that little Johnny will go along with the the USA unless there would be a major voter backlash.

He's too busy trying to be GWB's lap dog. (Please note this is not a reference to if GWB is doing a good job or not, but related only to little Johnny....)

[MJA]

Sasq - do you read the Mirror? Check out today's front page!!!!

[Sasq]

link?