A message to troops, would be troops and other youth

Former Member

Originally posted by Clandestine


So now people who oppose Bush's unilateral demand for war regardless of UN inspections (which is what that idiot is still ranting on about), are political extremists?

Once again, go back and show me where I said that. What I said was that the people who populate Urban 75 are, more often than not, political extremists. Many of whom hold political views/opinions that are in stark contrast to GWB.

More correct to say that people who oppose war on humanitarian grounds are the most constructive and rational people on the planet.

Except that these people do not oppose was on humanitarian grounds. They oppose it because they believe that GWB is using the war to gain access to oil and allow his country to gain financially.

And as for your mention of the other chappy who insists there "must" be WMD's, you might as easily be asked "who has most to gain politically by siding with the Bush administration view?"

That is not the point. This man does not work for Bush, he works for the UN.

I think Nelson Mendella's recent comments are highly significant on the issue of the US administration's unilateral biligerence.

I will admit ignorance to this. What did Mandella say?

Former Member

Well I also oppose GWB's warmongering and also agree that it is about oil and further political control for the US over the Middle East region. If that makes me an extremist, so be it.

I have been in politics myself for many years and have good reason for introducing some of the suggestions i make if for no other reason than trying to get people to look behind the words and cover stories to see what might be possibly going on behind the scenes when one nation's leadership makes such noise to divert public attention such as we have currently.

As for Mendella, he was briefly interviewed making harsh criticism against Bush and any world power that assumes unto itself the right to impose its will on the rest of the world by force.

I personally subscribe to full global jurisdiction for an international criminal court and believe my government shows what kind of world neighbour it intends to be and how much respect for international law it has by not signing up to it. Just more hypocrisy to measure the GWB rhetoric by.

Former Member

Originally posted by Clandestine
Well I also oppose GWB's warmongering and also agree that it is about oil and further political control for the US over the Middle East region. If that makes me an extremist, so be it.

I am not saying that you are an extremist. I am not saying that all people who oppose the war and/or believe that the main motivation for it is access to oil. I am saying that Urban 75 is populated by extremists (such as Steelgate) who have those opinions.

I have been in politics myself for many years and have good reason for introducing some of the suggestions i make if for no other reason than trying to get people to look behind the words and cover stories to see what might be possibly going on behind the scenes when one nation's leadership makes such noise to divert public attention such as we have currently.

Whilst my current personal opinion is in agreement with what Bush proposes and his reasoning, I do believe that I am not just taken in by war-mongering propaganda.

I do not want war if it is at all avoidable. From a business side, war is going to reduce consumer confidence - something that I would like to avoid.
From the side of social conscience, I do not want people to suffer. I volunteered at a local centre for refugees for over a year and I saw what war can do to people.

However, if I believe that my personal safety is severly threatened, then I believe that action should be taken.

As for Mendella, he was briefly interviewed making harsh criticism against Bush and any world power that assumes unto itself the right to impose its will on the rest of the world by force.

How is a brief interview with a person who is no longer in office, "highly significant"?

Former Member

Well then we differ in perception.

I personally see most of what is eminating out Washington about imminent threats and danger to be little more than fearmongering to keep the public continually paranoid and traumatised so they dont ask too many questions about what the government is up to. Oldest trick in the political handbook.

Mendella's comments are significant regardless of his current status of retirement. He is nonetheless an elder statesman with respect throughout the world. He also suffered personally at the hands of injustice and political tyranny and it makes glad to hear at least one one world leader (former or otherwise) with the balls to speak out against Bush's personal crusade.

Former Member

Originally posted by Clandestine
Well then we differ in perception.

Perception of what? The information that is being given to us by the media about Bush's actions and justifications?

Former Member

Perception of that perhaps, but more so perception of the larger global picture, regional instabilities that war would only exacerbate to the further degradation many civilian lives in the region and perhaps further afield into Asia if Bush picks another target after Iraq.

Mostly however I refer to perception of true political intentions rather than media-headlined claims of intentions.

I of course am only going upon what you wrote as a basis for presuming a difference of perception.

Former Member

Originally posted by Clandestine
Perception of that perhaps, but more so perception of the larger global picture, regional instabilities that war would only exacerbate to the further degradation many civilian lives in the region and perhaps further afield into Asia if Bush picks another target after Iraq.

Mostly however I refer to perception of true political intentions rather than media-headlined claims of intentions.

I of course am only going upon what you wrote as a basis for presuming a difference of perception.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

We are clearly of different backgrounds and historys, and that will no doubt shape our perceptions.

Former Member

Perhaps, not knowing anything bout your background and history I couldnt comment on any differences.

Former Member

Originally posted by Clandestine
Perhaps, not knowing anything bout your background and history I couldnt comment on any differences.

I won't give you my life story, as it isn't relevant. Let's just say that I am not, and never have been, involved in politics in the same way that you say that you have. This probably means that I am not privy to certain details that affect how you form your opinions.

Former Member

It only takes an inquisitive mind and a readiness to question what you are being told. My professional involvement in policy circles has only given more scope to my questions, but ive always looked for more than what is being said.

Former Member

Originally posted by Clandestine

As for Mendella, he was briefly interviewed making harsh criticism against Bush and any world power that assumes unto itself the right to impose its will on the rest of the world by force.

Kind of funny considering Mendella was the beneficiary of an imposition of will on his country...

Former Member

Originally posted by stee1gate
Well anyone who supports a war which kill and maim tens of thousands of people and destroy a country by bombarding it with tons of bombs must be either an idiot or as evil as Saddam Hussein themselves!

So, you admit that Saddam is evil, yet you oppose his removal

Former Member

Originally posted by 10bellies

So, you admit that Saddam is evil, yet you oppose his removal

No one opposes his removal you idiot what we oppose is bombing the hell out of Iraq and having a massive war that will kill and maim tens of thousands of Iraqi people and completely devastate the whole country inorder to secure his removal!!!!!

We want his removal too, but not at any price! If that price means killing thousands of people and destroying a whole country then its not a price worth paying. The Iraqi people are the ones to overthrow Saddam, one reason why they haven't done so if because they are kept so poor by western imposed sanctions!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk

Former Member

Originally posted by stee1gate
The Iraqi people are the ones to overthrow Saddam, one reason why they haven't done so if because they are kept so poor by western imposed sanctions!
http://www.stopbeinganarse.org.uk

The other being the massively oppressive regime they find themselves subjected to...

Which one do you think is going to cause more problems?

Former Member

Personally I'd say the sanctions. Can't exactly take time to even bother planning any domestic regime change when you are kept so poor that all you can do is scrape around just to continue existing.

Former Member

and we return to the reason that sanctions are in place...the regime.

Former Member

Originally posted by Man Of Kent
and we return to the reason that sanctions are in place...the regime.

Ecuse me for being so completely ignorant (I will be honest about my ignorance) but what exactly are the sanctions in place?

Former Member

Well for a start Iraq is restricted on its sale of oil, and they are only allowed to keep x% of the profit. The rest goes to the UN for medical supplies and I think that some goes to Kuwait in reparations.

Restriction are also there on imports.

Other than that there are some stupid restrictions, as Mark Thomas pointed out.

There are details on the UN website, I found this

Former Member

Right, thanks. I assumed it was something along those lines, but thought I should make sure. Wouldn't want to post a load of non-factual stuff about an issue I don't know much about in the real world, right Steelgate?