Deestroy
Norm Smith Medallist
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.38
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -3.38
your political views
- Thread starter aesop
- Start date
- Tagged users None
What's all this crap about 'keeping on with inspections'? The inspections, which were the last chance for Iraq to comply before action would be take against them, are over. The findings from these inspections were that Iraq was not complying with UN regulations.
That was Iraq's chance, they blew it.
That was Iraq's chance, they blew it.
You know what, Frodo? I actually respect you and what you post, but this time you've just posted the biggest load of crap ever!
I never, ever in my time of teaching (albeit only 2 years) did I push my political views on to my students. In fact politics never ever entered into it at all. I was there to teach English, not politics!
As for your comment that most teachers are just big kids who never experienced life and tend to remain left wing, what a load of crap. I can introduce you to teachers that are so right wing it's scary!
That's right I forgot it was his responsibilty and not some Saudis......
Originally posted by Frodo
So that the UN can do as good a job with inspections as they have in the last mere 11 years
The US, Great Britain and Australia weren't calling for them to do anything just over 2 years ago.............
- Nov 17, 2000
- 12,447
- 23
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Post Count: 125,527
Well you have a right to your beliefs, as do I, and I am simply stating what I believe to be true. I may not be correct.
I too know some good teachers who don't push their politics and aren't big kids but they are are the minority. I would never let anyone loose on children before they are 30 if I had my way.
What is more important. "Reading, writing and arithmatic" or "Saving Trees, saying sorry to aboriginals and singing 'no war' songs ? Because the latter is todays trend!!!
It's what the UN security council have called for...........wait til the next report that isn't that far away and from what I've seen we will see a different story.........
And there was no smoking gun............
......sorry had to throw that one in........If the US have had this evidence for so long as they suggest why wasn't it given to the inspectors when they first went in to make their job even easier...........might have made things a lot quicker.....
You have me pegged wrong, Frodo. The reason I left teaching was because I couldn't teach the way I wanted to. Too many kids today are leaving school and don't even have basic reading skills. So I agree with you on that point.
- Nov 17, 2000
- 12,447
- 23
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Post Count: 125,527
Originally posted by dreamkillers
The US, Great Britain and Australia weren't calling for them to do anything just over 2 years ago.............
That is a good point and just shows what a joke the UN is.
What happened 2 years ago was S11 and the three you mention plus many more decided to take action. In fact the UN actually passed a vote of serious consequences if Iraq did not comply. Well they haven't complied, they've ****ed the inspectors around and laughed or spat in the face of the UN. So what is the UN going to do? Wait another 11 years or until Saddam nukes Kuwait, Iran, Israel or Saudia Arabia?
Why do you think Saddam is playing games with the inspectors if he has no WMD? I mean all he has to do is be open and honest and not only the war threat goes away but sanctions too. He can pump as much oil as he likes. Common sense says it's because he has got WMD. And if he has then whay? For what purpose? Only possibility is to attack someone. And who will that someone be? Because whoever they are they are the innocent lives at risk by giving him another 11 years or so. It's their lives versus Saddam, a few cronies and the few army personnel that don't turn on him.
Originally posted by Frodo
Where are these thousands of innocent civilians that are going to ger killed? Most forecast that the ALLIES will walk in virtually unopposed.
Or are you using that scry bowl again
I will let your little snipe go & answer your serious question, if you think that NO civillians are going to get killed by air strikes, then you are really out of touch with reality & air strikes are what Bush has admitted he is going to do.
- Nov 17, 2000
- 12,447
- 23
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Post Count: 125,527
There are many people in Iraq who are giving information secretly that are close aids to Saddam, beurocrats and high order military officers. Wait until it's over to see them come out. But for now USA intelligence has to keep them out of it or they will be killed by Saddam. Anything traceable to them MUST be kept secret.
- Nov 17, 2000
- 12,447
- 23
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Post Count: 125,527
Only a fun thing Sandie..not a snipe.
I agree that there is likely to be a number of civilian casualties as air defences and scud launchers are taken out but they will probably be less than a hundred.
It is your assertion of 'thousands' that i disagree with. You are exaggerationg the situation out of real proprtions to support your view.
Yeah, yeah we've all heard that line trotted out before, civilians will die, it is an unfortunate part of war. But if a low amount of civilian deaths is necesarry in order to restore world peace then it will be done.
Grow up and join the real world, the world isn't perfect, there is no solution to this situation that won't see people die, your proposal is to let many more die at the hands of Saddam and leave an oppressive regime in place rather than a small amount of accidental deaths that would occur by overthrowing Hussein.
LOL Frodo, you are under exaggerating to support your view, honestly, anyone who knows about scud missiles, knows that more than a hundred will get killed, I don't know the population of Iraq. someone else will though, but you would have to say 2% of the population at the very minimum will get killed by air strikes.
So what you are saying is, if a war came to the shores of Australia, you as a civilian, would be willing to accept the fact that you will die, or maybe your kids and family will die?
Or is that just easier to accept when the war is far away from here and you are not one of the civilians?
The UN are awaiting a complete report from the inspectors which will not take 11 years.........as I said before perhaps with this new evidence things will quicken up dramatically now.............
Korea comes out and says they will strike if the US up the anti in their part of the world............that sounds a bit more serious to me as we know for a fact they do have weapons of mass destruction...........hate to think what will happen if China get involved there........
Innocent lives are at risk in many countries around the world that we don't seem to give 2 ****s about..............and have been for longer than Saddam has been killing people..........
I'm sure much more will come out once an outcome occurs but there was no need to release it publicly first.......surely the inspectors could have had an opportunity to use this information first before it was made known to the wide world.............
USA Intelligence isn't always the most intelligent in the way they go about their business.............
Bit it's like our govt sending the FA18's which will only offer limited support duties until the Iraqi air defences are smashed..........
Why......
becasue the their radar warning receivers and radar jammers are 15 years old and are vulnerable to Russian designed surface to air missiles..............great forward planning..........
I, as Iraqi civilians, would have no say in the matter. And only a tiny amount of civilians will die accidentally from the war so suggest that I would have to accept the fact that I 'will' die is just silly, I 'could' die, but I could also die doing alot of other things.
You don't not drive around in cars simply because of the fact that you 'could' die because in the end the convenience of transportation outweighs the tiny chance you could die. The same comparison can be made to the liberation of Iraq, except in this case if you don't get in the car at all you have more chance of dying.
Who knows what could happen if chemical and nuclear weapons come out.............
Oh very good, so it's okay for innocent people to die, because it's in the name of war?
If a person gets killed in a car accident the driver of the other car is often charged with being drunk, speeding, dangerous driving, motor manslaughter etc., etc. Your analogy of driving in a car is wrong!
I can't believe that people really think "only a few", or "less than a hundred", will die if America launches air strikes on Iraq, guess it is easy to believe if you are on the other side of the world, sitting comfortably in your lounge room, at least you will be able to see first hand the slaughter from the safety of your Tv.
I certainly hope so...........
Being a tree hugging hippie, I am a pacifist, the thought of war makes me physically sick, guess I inherited that from my Great Great Grandfather, who was Australia's first concentious (sp) ?objector in the first world war, he moved interstate & changed his name, because he couldn't take the life of another human being, to this day, we still don't know what his real name is.
Similar threads
