"However, in 1942 one use of the anti-tank dogs went seriously awry when a large contingent of anti-tank dogs ran amok, endangering everyone in the battle and forcing the retreat of an entire Soviet division. Soon afterward the anti-tank dogs were withdrawn from service."
Lmao, although poor doggies :S
Apparently Tehran now wants to exchange the soldiers for captured Iranian spies. This is looking more and more like a planned operation and therefore act of war IMO.
Ive lost patients with Iran, my vote is to bomb them.
You a doctor?Originally Posted by Metier9
You owe it to yourself to click here really.
Yes i am, so go take your watercooling modding medicine of liquid nitrogen
Cool.
You owe it to yourself to click here really.
You KNEW
how the hell did you KNOW
You didnt know. You thought. Saddam Hussain has had the capability to make and use WMD before (chemical weapons) and the weapons systems to deliver them (scuds and FROG-7 rockets were designed to deliver chemical weapons.
To say that "all the stuff about Iraq being able to lauch weapons was a load of fantasy" is ridiculous when you look at his capabilities and willingness to use such weapons in the Iran-Iraq war and launch ballistic missiles against combatant and non-combatant nations in the War of 1990. The only reason he did not use WMDs in the 1990 war is because it was made known that the Americans viewed chemical and bio weapons the same as using nuclear weapons and would retaliate in kind.
He KNEW Yorkie because he listens to the liberals and french.Yeah how exactly? I turned up and marched that day because I knew that all the stuff about Iraq being able to lauch weapons was a load of fantasy.
NO-ONE knew either way but we do now so justification was made!
I wonder if he wouldve marched if we had found WOMD and they bombed another country.
Good people fight and die for do-gooders in this country, alot of which have never done a days work in their life!
Basically the hippy-layabout tree-hugging types arent happy unless they are demonstrating about things they know NOTHING about!
Spot on!!!
Maybe those that complained/marched should be saving rainforests or something because they certainly know nothing of pride or what having a spine feels like!
Last edited by Blitzen; 25-03-2007 at 03:14 PM.
So tell us all why the UK had to get military involved in Iraq, Bush wanted political help that's all, in fact he asked Blair twice are you coming in with us?...are you sure?, and school boy Blair jumped at the chance. Also in the debate in Parliament i.e. the case for war, Rumsfeld told Blair we can take out Iraq without you if you lose the vote.
This is Blair's war and he just wanted to be on the world stage and look like Bush's RH man.....Bush says "YO Blair" to him and he is a laughing stock in the EU. The US has ignored all our advice from the word go, and did it their way, and if Blair had any guts after being ignored by the US in the beginning after the invasion, should had told the US "do it your way then" we are pulling out...easy covered up by saying to the media "with are now transferring our troops to Afghanistan to complete the job there".
Did Blair get involved in Iraq for oil was it for the rebuilding contracts or to be on the world stage, was he told by God, is he a dumb idealist, or what........watch this space when the truth comes out in the future.
So why couldn't Blair have just given the US political help plus use of bases and maybe some help with our special forces.
Even Harold Wilson had more sense than Blair he tried all he could for cease fires etc in Nam without getting involved military. And BTW the British miltary did help the US with advice on how to solve the insurgent problem because of our success in Malaya...but it didn't work for them......maybe Nam was too far gone like Iraq....or horses for courses?????
Alright, so I didn't know for sure, but I was convinced they had no WMDs. Iraq's military was devastated by the 1990 war, and since then they'd been subject to (admittedly intermittent) weapons inspections, which had found absolutely nothing. They'd also been subject to crippling economic sanctions for more than a decade. The chances of them having been able to run an advanced WMD program despite all that were very slim.
Blitzen, you seem to have misunderstood what our ancestors faught for in the second world war. They faught for my freedom of speech amongst other things, and in return I make sure I use it. If you disgree with criticising the government, perhaps you might want to move somewhere like Singapore or Zimbabwe, you'd probably be happier there.
and i'll bet if they could what you are using your 'freedom' for then they would be oh so proud.Blitzen, you seem to have misunderstood what our ancestors faught for in the second world war. They faught for my freedom of speech amongst other things, and in return I make sure I use it. If you disgree with criticising the government, perhaps you might want to move somewhere like Singapore or Zimbabwe, you'd probably be happier there.
Cowardice is a terrible thing...Just as well your fore-fathers didnt suffer from it.
You like to generalise and call people names. You should perhaps stop.
sig removed by Zak33
What does exactly does bombing iran do precisely? It doesn't get the soliders back and stretches our forces further, when the only sensible thing is to get Iraq into as stable as state as possible over the next 12-18 months and get our forces back home.
WHY?, because them being there is not helping the longer term situation, the situation (at least in my opinion) is fueling extremism, as the situation is there on peoples doorsteps.
Long term peace will only come by trying to stop the root cause of violence. That is someone getting into peoples faces and trying to piss them off. Back off and let them be and the amount of aggro you get dramatically reduces. Sure it doesn't stop there will always be extremists but the amount should be yes.
Democracy is all about being able to express your opinion, that means people can say we don't want to get involved in wars that are merited.
I fully support the first gulf war and think they should have done what they are doing now should have been done at the time.
TiG
-- Hexus Meets Rock! --
I agree, if it were to be done it should have been done then. Doing it now has caused alot more problems, support from the Arab world is not there.
Unfortunately the reasons why we didnt 'finish the job' as it were in 1990 have been shown to be correct
Oh really?
I generalise and call people names. Which is it to be as i have ONLY generalised (using the posts here) so maybe you are confusing yourslef.
I have called 'no-one' names......
also, unless you are a moderator, dont tell me what i can or cant post as you will be ignored.
Blitzen, you're calling people cowards (which, by the way, is certainly personally abusive, and certainly falls under the category of name-calling) because they opposed the invasion of Iraq on the basis that the supposed "intelligence" about WMDs - remember them? The reason that we were told we were going to war? - appeared to them (and to a lot of others, like, oooohhhh...UN weapons inspectors) to be a load of cobblers. Now I was prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt on this; I assumed that they had credible intelligence.
It turns out that said intelligence was either cribbed from a university dissertation or supplied second-hand by the US who sourced it from ONE PERSON, an increasingly unreliable asset with a drink problem, financial problems and a desperate desire to get out of Iraq. You know what? There WERE NO WMDs, and the people who said there were were wrong. By extension I was wrong, and the people who disbelieved the reports were right. That doesn't make them cowards, it makes them right; and it means that they were right all along.
Now I don't object to using troops where there is adequate justification for doing so, but the justification we were fed turned out to be horse****. The country and our parliament were grossly and calculatedly misled by outright falsehoods and suppositions fed to us as fact, which in fact had only the most tenuous supporting evidence, if any, and which turned out to be wrong.
I'm very aware of the price that can be paid for military action; my wife's grandfather was shot down by a night fighter en route to Dusseldorf, and my own was invalided out in 1942 after serving with THIS LOT. I saw the scars that he bore from that, but at least he came back. I know a lot of his friends did not. That price should only EVER be paid where there is good reason for doing so, and in this case we were sold a pup. We, and our Parliament were misled (something in which the loyal opposition colluded), and that is a disgrace.
Something ALSO worth noting is that I know my grandfather would be disgusted by any suggestion that people opposed to a war should be silenced or abused.
Now you can call me a coward if you like - frankly, I couldn't give a toss.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
