egafd.com

I also thought it was the right decision, because I didn't believe that Blair would risk the lives of British troops on a lie.

Naive doesn't even come into it.

I was also referring to the bombing atrocities that happen in busy markets in Baghdad and other cities and towns. Like the Real IRA, the perpetrators don't care who they kill so long as they kill as many people as they can.

Eight years on, we are still horrified by Omagh. But just check the papers to see how many similar things happen each week in Iraq.

strictlybroadband wrote:

>>

Which study are you referring to? Any chance of a link?


>>>

Says who? You because its findings agree with your own rabid anti-American, pro-Muslim sentiments?

Maybe I was "suckered" (as you put it) over WMD, but so were millions of others, including government ministers and MPs. So no shame in that. Nor - as one of the the "suckers" who you for some reason appear to hold responsible - do I accept any blame for the fiasco that followed (especially since Blair & Bush didn't see fit to consult me about whether or not to dispatch troops). I doubt they'd have taken much notice anyway.

But now we're there, we should see the job through and back the squaddies on the ground to the hilt (which doesn't mean that you necessarily agree with what the idiot politicians are doing back home).

Robches wrote:

> I find this figure hard to believe. If we look at the strategic
> bombing campaign against Germany, the RAF spent the period
> 1942-1945 basically sending thousands of bombers over to kill
> as many Germans as possible. The Americans bombing by day were
> a bit more discrete in trying to attack industrial targets, but
> caused a huge amount of collateral damage by modern standards.
> The upshot of this immense campaign was about 500,000 German
> civilian deaths.
>
> I fully accept that many, though not all, parts of Iraq are
> very violent and dangerous, but I find it hard to accept that
> more Iraqis have been killed in the period 2003-6 than Germans
> in 1942-5, when we were sending bombers out night after night
> to rain bombs on their cities.

The technology has come on a LONG way. Also, we weren't occupying Germany, we were only bombing them. Put it this way - the Yanks killed 4-6 million people in SE Asia in the 1970s, so they're behind target at the moment.

Flat_Eric wrote:

> strictlybroadband wrote:
>
> >>
>
> Which study are you referring to? Any chance of a link?

Yep, my bad...



> >>>
>
> Says who?

The Lancet, Channel 4 News, various other commentators. It's been peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal, and widely reported worldwide.

> You because its findings agree with your own rabid
> anti-American, pro-Muslim sentiments?

Are you mad? I don't like Islam (any more than I like any other religion, I'm a "rabid" atheist"). I have nothing against "Muslims" though - they're a mix of good and bad people like any other group. I have nothing against Americans but a lot against America (note the difference).

Can you stop using cliches please?

> Maybe I was "suckered" (as you put it) over WMD, but so were
> millions of others, including government ministers and MPs.

Bollocks. 1) Most people opposed the war: about 60% nationwide and 75% of Londoners (who tend to be more clued-up). 2) MPs didn't believe it for a minute, they just voted where they thought their career interests lay. Anyone who believed the WMD story at the time was not very well informed.

> So
> no shame in that.

Plenty of shame in that - accepting a complete load of discredited crap as an an excuse for a war. You need to be a bit more choosy about who you believe. At the time, Robin Cook (ex foreign secretary), the UN weapons inspectors (who were actually IN Iraq looking for non-existent weapons) and many other informed commentators explained why Iraq was NOT a threat. It was also well known that the neocons had been itching to find any reason to attack Iraq since before 9/11.

> Nor - as one of the the "suckers" who you for
> some reason appear to hold responsible - do I accept any blame
> for the fiasco that followed (especially since Blair & Bush
> didn't see fit to consult me about whether or not to dispatch
> troops). I doubt they'd have taken much notice anyway.

So that's alright then.

> But now we're there, we should see the job through and back the
> squaddies on the ground to the hilt

What "job" do you think they're trying to do? Don't you realise this was and is still about stealing the Iraqis' oil? You still haven't worked it out???

Caractacus wrote:

> I also thought it was the right decision, because I didn't
> believe that Blair would risk the lives of British troops on a
> lie.
>
> Naive doesn't even come into it.

It sounds pretty naive to me.

The method used in this study is pretty standard and surprisingly accurate. It is the same method used to give us TV viewing figures and in public opinion polls.

I thought you meant "culled"!

strictlybroadband wrote:


>>>


And bollocks to you.

For some reason you always seem to delight in being rude to people - why is that? Perhaps you think it makes you look more "clued up". It doesn't. People opposed the war for many different reasons, not just the WND issue.