Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Bombs on planes?

2456711

Comments

  • JsTJsT Posts: 18,268 Skive's The Limit
    Always better to be safe than sorry.

    No doubt this means its gonna be a shitty day at work though...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think they should be blamed, yes. You can say that as well as the many tens of thousands of deaths caused in Iraq by its illegal and unpopular war the government is partly to blame for the deaths of British citizens at home.

    As I said before we shouldn't base our foreign policy on what might happen to us but on what is right or wrong. But when our government does something that is wrong, and then we're made to suffer for it as well, the government should be blamed for it IMO.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I blame chuck norris.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    First and foremost I think you are really presuming my views on Israel - I stated clearly that both sides were to blame for the current conflict and that it was equally vile for both of them to kill civilians.

    Anyway - onto the issue at hand.

    Iraq - There were far better ways of doing what we wanted, take Libya for example a nasty dictator by any measure but through diplomacy and aid package deals we have got him to partially at least clean up his act.

    Afghanistan - I do think we were right to go in, but we have totally failed in our mission because we have wasted time, money and troops on Iraq.

    It has nothing to do with appeasement at all, it has to do with picking a strategy that will actually work. Who in their right mind could not see that Iraq was going to be a mistake?!

    We also bombed Libya so it wasn't just aid packages and some sanctions, but letting him know that we were prepared to lauch attacks with the deliberate attempt to kill him. Plus I think the Iraq invasion shook him up a lot - as it looked like the US was willing to put boots on the ground and overthrow hostile regimes, at which point its probably best to become a less hostile regime.

    Given that we'd had sanctions on iraq for With Iraq you seem to be talking in hindsight and that doesn't mean that Iraq was a mistake, only the precise tactics and planning.

    But lets say the anti-war people actually succeeded and we didn't go to war. Saddam and his sons would still be in power, they'd still be killing and torturing those who opposed them. Is it an ethical foreign policy to just shrug and offer a few condemnations and perhaps a few aid packages if pretty, please you don't torture quite so many people. Or would the UK still have blood on its hands - just different people's blood.

    There is no such thing as ethical foreign policy and much of the support for one is based on the wish for the protester to feel good, and as they say 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    We also bombed Libya so it wasn't just aid packages and some sanctions, but letting him know that we were prepared to lauch attacks with the deliberate attempt to kill him. Plus I think the Iraq invasion shook him up a lot - as it looked like the US was willing to put boots on the ground and overthrow hostile regimes, at which point its probably best to become a less hostile regime.

    Given that we'd had sanctions on iraq for With Iraq you seem to be talking in hindsight and that doesn't mean that Iraq was a mistake, only the precise tactics and planning.

    But lets say the anti-war people actually succeeded and we didn't go to war. Saddam and his sons would still be in power, they'd still be killing and torturing those who opposed them. Is it an ethical foreign policy to just shrug and offer a few condemnations and perhaps a few aid packages if pretty, please you don't torture quite so many people. Or would the UK still have blood on its hands - just different people's blood.

    There is no such thing as ethical foreign policy and much of the support for one is based on the wish for the protester to feel good, and as they say 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'

    Of course, I'm fully aware that its not clear cut and that its not something which is a black and white issue.

    I just think, as with other dictators (just as if not nastier than Saddam) there are better ways of dealing with the issue.

    And of course there does need to be a carrot and a stick, but we have a terrible history of using the stick when we shouldn't and not doing it properly.

    Can you really say that the Iraq war hasnt pissed off a lot of muslims in the UK?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    But lets say the anti-war people actually succeeded and we didn't go to war. Saddam and his sons would still be in power, they'd still be killing and torturing those who opposed them.
    Which I'm willing to bet would have been many, many times fewer than those killed by the war and subsequent unspeakable hellhole Iraq has become.

    Indeed, most Iraqis are probably thinking life under Saddam was heaven on earth compared with what they have now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Which I'm willing to bet would have been many, many times fewer than those killed by the war and subsequent unspeakable hellhole Iraq has become.

    Indeed, most Iraqis are probably thinking life under Saddam was heaven on earth compared with what they have now.

    In the short term perhaps, but in the medium to long term its unlikely. Iraq, however, painfully is edging towards democracy. The question is do you support the democrats and US/UK or support the Baathists and Islamic militants in there much more murderous activities? I don't find this a difficult moral dilemma.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    *Patiently awaits the blame being placed upon Blair and Israel.*

    Littlejohn couldn't have put it better last week when he wrote that


    9/11 happened before Iraq, terrorists don't need excuses; they need to be defeated. This is yet another reminder of how violent and warped fundamentalist Islam is.

    Eh? :confused: Why would Jews blow themselves up in a country that supports the actions of Israel?

    You're making less sense than usual dis.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    What you mean moral as in tying to stop dictators who allow their sons to torture members of the football team after a poor showing

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1004174,00.html

    Or do you mean moral in supporting a country which has suicide bombs in its bars, buses and resturants killing men, women and children

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1688224.stm

    Or overthrowing a regime which tortured people who played cars or watched videos (and had supported a major attack killing over 3000 people in the US)

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/30/wtal30.xml



    To be honest I'm not sure its an ethical foreign policy you want, but appeasement

    What the fuck? :confused::confused::confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    But lets say the anti-war people actually succeeded and we didn't go to war. Saddam and his sons would still be in power, they'd still be killing and torturing those who opposed them.

    Is the situation in Iraq today any better?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    Of course, I'm fully aware that its not clear cut and that its not something which is a black and white issue.

    I just think, as with other dictators (just as if not nastier than Saddam) there are better ways of dealing with the issue.

    And of course there does need to be a carrot and a stick, but we have a terrible history of using the stick when we shouldn't and not doing it properly.

    Can you really say that the Iraq war hasnt pissed off a lot of muslims in the UK?

    Of course its pissed of some. Much as like anything we do or don't do pisses people off. Our lack of recogntion for North Cyprus pisses off many in the Turskish community, our previous unwillingness to depose Saddam pissed off many Kurds, our ambivalent attitude towards Kashmir has pissed off many Hindus and Moslems for different reasons.

    You cannot please everyone and I don't think its a good idea to aim your foreign policy to appease those who'd let off bombs - otherwise everyone thinks thats the way to influence policy and we'll have bombs going off everywhere from everyone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmm, they've foiled a plot to blow up some planes at some undefined point in the future, and so the government have used it as an excuse to ramp up the fear by making out that someone is about to blow up a plane today. Well done for uncovering the plot and stopping it. Shame on them for all the bullshit that's come afterwards.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    In the short term perhaps, but in the medium to long term its unlikely. Iraq, however, painfully is edging towards democracy. The question is do you support the democrats and US/UK or support the Baathists and Islamic militants in there much more murderous activities? I don't find this a difficult moral dilemma.

    Was that really the only option we had before we started?

    As I've said before, what we are doing in Iraq isnt working, so either we need to be there in much bigger numbers or leave.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    In the short term perhaps, but in the medium to long term its unlikely. Iraq, however, painfully is edging towards democracy.

    Is it fuck.
    Civil war is a more likely outcome in Iraq than democracy, Britain's outgoing ambassador in Baghdad has warned Tony Blair in a confidential memo
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5240808.stm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    Of course its pissed of some. Much as like anything we do or don't do pisses people off. Our lack of recogntion for North Cyprus pisses off many in the Turskish community, our previous unwillingness to depose Saddam pissed off many Kurds, our ambivalent attitude towards Kashmir has pissed off many Hindus and Moslems for different reasons.

    You cannot please everyone and I don't think its a good idea to aim your foreign policy to appease those who'd let off bombs - otherwise everyone thinks thats the way to influence policy and we'll have bombs going off everywhere from everyone.

    Wait a minute, didnt you say earlier that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism?

    I'm not suggesting appeasement, I dont know why you keep saying that. I'm suggesting we use strategies that actually work, rather than just kill loads of people.

    If we had put the time, money and troops wasted on Iraq into Aghanistan we would have made a MUCH better impact.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    In the short term perhaps, but in the medium to long term its unlikely. Iraq, however, painfully is edging towards democracy.
    Many people including experts and those on the ground would disagree with that. They would claim the country is in fact inching towards civil war and eventual break up.
    The question is do you support the democrats and US/UK or support the Baathists and Islamic militants in there much more murderous activities? I don't find this a difficult moral dilemma.
    I support the Iraqis governing themselves in any way they see fit and being free from attacks and war.

    I don't support the illegal occupation of Iraq or the illegal war that preceeded it. Those responsible for it should be brought to account.

    The crux of the matter is, it was completely wrong and counterproductive to go to war, and it has made things worse not better.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:

    .. How many nations, can you think of, which did not come into being with blood on their hands.

    I defy you to name ten.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .. How many nations, can you think of, which did not come into being with blood on their hands.

    I defy you to name ten.

    Iceland, Denmark, Isle of Man, Monoco and Fiji
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What puzzles me is how we ended up in Iraq. One minute we’re fighting a war in Afghanistan trying to take down the Taliban and flush out Bin Laden, the next Blair and Bush have thrown a handful of loose accusations about Iraq / Saddam supporting the Taliban and we go galloping off to drop bombs on them as well.

    The question of whether Iraq is in a better or worse state for our intervention, I feel, is secondary to how and why did we end up there? If we’re in the business of policing the world then surely Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong Il should also be sheltering in underground bunkers?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Quite. This selective care for the wellbeing of others is rather comical.

    But not as comical as the fact that a great many of those who say waging war on Iraq was the right thing because bad old Saddam killed his own people! didn't give much of a shit about them when Saddam was a friend and ally of the West and was shaking hands with US Secretaries of State and buying weapons from H.M. Government.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    saying sorry to Iraq!! bit late for all that,remember a certain person a few years ago said invading Iraq will open up a huge can of worms,how right they were.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    So WHY do we have X-rays ans searches if they would be incapable of finding a bomb?

    And I doubt "Bombs on a Plane" will be as good as SNAKES ON A PLANE.

    And anyway, it's been done before. Without all this hassle.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If this turns to be true you have to admit the idea of making a bomb by smuggling a number of liquids as drink/hair gel/whatever and mixing them to the right formula is rather good. Those pesky terrorists :D
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Aladdin wrote:
    If this turns to be true you have to admit the idea of making a bomb by smuggling a number of liquids as drink/hair gel/whatever and mixing them to the right formula is rather good. Those pesky terrorists :D

    But as we know about it isn't it easy to say "no toiletries on the plane, all in luggage" ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hmm, they've foiled a plot to blow up some planes at some undefined point in the future, and so the government have used it as an excuse to ramp up the fear by making out that someone is about to blow up a plane today. Well done for uncovering the plot and stopping it. Shame on them for all the bullshit that's come afterwards.


    yeh its a bit annoying making out they foiled a plot to blow up planes today, when actually its in the near future - im actually doubtful they should of made the news they foiled it public, and just bought in a couple of changes to hand luggage rules

    i dont get why all the plans today are cancelled, since it wasnt meant for today :s
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i dont get why all the plans today are cancelled, since it wasnt meant for today :s

    Yeah, but if you're part of their team, and all your mates get busted, what are you going to do? Bring it forward and get it done before you too get busted.

    And planes havent been cancelled for any reason other than the big queues in the airport.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    Yeah, but if you're part of their team, and all your mates get busted, what are you going to do? Bring it forward and get it done before you too get busted.

    And planes havent been cancelled for any reason other than the big queues in the airport.


    if you've been watching the tv news, they're making out like they stopped a bombing today, they don't say it but the way it's been put together suggests it
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course it is. They've foiled "a plot", except they haven't really.

    They foiled an "alledged" plot.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    The question is do you support the democrats and US/UK or support the Baathists and Islamic militants in there much more murderous activities? I don't find this a difficult moral dilemma.

    I do.

    To choose between two sets of killers is a difficult one for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.