Saintandy666

http://www.sheamus.co.uk/ratm-xmas-number-one Been right so far, lets hope it is 100% right

I think Joe not getting a number one is more about the symbolism and taking the reality machine down a notch than stopping Simon Cowell making money as some people think it is. Last week, the top 11 albums were all related to X Factor in some way. We can't let a show and a person monopolise our charts like this. No-one has a divine right to a number 1, though the way Si and his mates have been talking, you'd think that his act does.

You have to assume there is something seriously dogey going on when the finger keeps coming back and pointing to him over and over.

-7 predicted overnight for where I live on wednesday. That is pretty damn cold for these parts

Well, perhaps a partial failure on that one then? As they would still be under order from the US government.

Hmmmm, well, I don't know much about how much private american stuff was involved in the fighting but as far as I am aware the war was started by a state, and declared on another state. I think the war did stop a greater evil, obviously in my opinion. We did try to restore law and order, it's not like we just got out straight away... Ok, I'll give you we rushed in quite quick, so perhaps not that one ticked. And I don't believe we have used unecessary force either, or killed any civillians unecessarily, but of course I am placing my trust here in the forces of my country and other countries so you can never be sure. Just my take on it all there.

If you read through my posts I say a lot that I am glad Saddam was gone, but not necessarily that the war was the best option or has gone very well in achieving this aim. In other words I think we rushed into the war without a real plan as to what to do afterwards. It is only because Saddam is no longer in power I am happy to give my support for the war. Sudan and Zimbabwe are in much less precarious places in the world in relation to our security and the worlds security and while Mugabe is awful, I do not think war is a viable option because I think dimplomacy has already been shown to be able to bring him down a notch. As for the Janjaweed... well, I don't think we(as in the west) could ever reason with them. There probably needs to be some power sharing thing going on like there should be between the Taliban and the Afghanstani government in Afghanistan. Then you can consider other options once a less violent situation is established. I never think war should be the first option, but sometimes it is a necessary option, and probably one we took too soon in Iraq, but I think in the end it will improve situations in that country. Something for people to consider. Thomas Aquinas' just war theory... Conditions for war to be acceptable: 1. A war has got to be started by a government. No private armies... 2. A war must have a just cause. I.e self defence or preventing a greater evil from continuing or occuring. 3. A war must be for the greater good and law and order must be restored in the aftermath. 4. A war has got to be the last resort(the one that Iraq probably failed at). 5. A war must be fought proportionally and no citizens should be killed unecessarily. I'd be interested to hear how many of these conditions people thought the war in Iraq fulfilled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3514504.stm Theres your survey of positivity in the aftermath of the war. I will need to refind the other ones I found. I appreciate your time taken to reply to me, wiltshire, but I'm still going to retain my opinion that the world and espcially the middle eastern region is a much better and safer place without Saddam Hussein. But apart from saying that, I'm going to retreat, but thankyou for that reply.

Points 1 + 2: I disagree with this, I think Saddam was the kind of guy who had shown in the past he was likely to invade countries in the region(Iran and Kuwait) and with the region being so important to the world, yet also unstable it is entirely faesable that a massive war could have eventually broken out because of one of his actions. Point 3: I don't think this can ever be proved to be honest, each have caused deaths in the tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands, both are terrible, but I do think that a systemised genoicide is worse than a war and in 10 years time I think the benefit will be seen. The kurds are flourishing now. Points 4 and 5 and 6: I do not think this is strictly true, I think in the immediate aftermath of the war(up to 2 or 3 years ago) surveys showed Iraqi support for the Invasion and opposition to terrorism and so on was high, but as the occupation went on and on this wained. More recently, positivity and support for the invasion has been on the rise. I think this is a failure of the after war strategy rather than the war itself. Most Iraqis were unhappy under Saddam. I don't think it was the war that was the problem, what was the problem was how long we stayed there afterwards because of poor strategy. Point 7: Perhaps there are, I don't think you can easily rate these things against each other, but what we do know is that Hussein was pretty bad. I think however, it was important as to where Iraq is geographically. Iraq is in one of the most unstable regions in the world. For comparison, North Korea has China right on top of it to keep it in line. Point 8: Well, everything costs something and why I think there should be a limit on the cost, I think there is a justifiable cost. I think with a better post war strategy, we could have pulled out of Iraq sooner than we did and so it would have cost us less. And that is probably just a bit rambly and poorly written, but it is late, just written a history essay and I am tired.

Ratm 65,000 units ahead midweek...

How lovely

So what actually happened?

Oh, I agree that bush was a **** too.

I don't think that our support of Saddam Hussein was right or ever could be right. I also believe that our strategy in iraq and the middle east in general has been bad in recent years. However, this does not change the fact that Saddam Hussein was a murdering tyrant and the world IS a much better place without him in charge of a country in one of the most unstable regions in the world. Whether or not war was the best way of getting to this goal, we shall never know; but what I do know is that I am much more content knowing that that man no longer reigns in Iraq.

I prefer looking at it like this

Alright gramps... I'm not saying we do that, I'm just saying if we can get rid of them we should, and the iraq case was one in a particularly vulnerable and precarious part of the world. Just because you are older than me and my opinion differs from yours, it doesn't make my opinion invalid. I'll think you'll find my opinion is one shared by many people, as is yours in fairness.

I'm not the British government, so I am not looking at the past and the British governments actions to do with him, I am simply looking at what type of person he was and what he did. He needed to have been gotten rid of. If you had a choice back in 2003. Saddam or no Saddam, what would you have picked? I'm not necessarily talking about any war involved here, just would you prefer a world where Saddam Hussein rules a country or where he doesn't...

Iraq was a cradle for extremism against the west and Saddam Hussein is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of kurds. He ruled with an iron fist. Either way, whatever you believe, you can't deny Saddam was the kind of nice guy you want in charge of an entire country.

Did we win the match? Yes we did, because we are through to the next round therefore it should go down as a WIN

I meant as a sponsor of terror...

Waiiiiiiiiiiiiiigooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Hey, you can't just invade everywhere, iraq posed a specific threat to us as well as having a maniac in charge. I mean I'm not necessarily advocating an invasion as means of getting rid of all these people, but I would rather they weren't in charge than were in charge.

Oh you know, the mass murder/genocide/oppressive regime etc etc

Obviously the mistake was a grave one and one that shouldn't have happened, but at the same time Saddam had to go.

I wouldn't call that a lie, I would call it a mistake or error. I believe that they were honestly convinced these weapons existed as all evidence pointed towards it.