War Is Imminent

[SteveP]

Oh GHA, I think you probably know that pro-war are not going to change their view and neither are anti-war. But let's look at your points.

 

1. It is a great deal more reassuring for Blair and the Allies to try and avoid unnecessary casualties. No one doubts it's a traumatic and hellish experience, but it has to be done and the fact that they are trying to prevent civilian casualties should be of some reassurance.

 

2. Simple answer, you get rid of the regime that control their use.

 

3. These aren't stones GHA, they're missiles, which can be armed with mustard gas and vx gas. We already know he has weapons which are outside the charter because Iraq have already used them. I disagree, do we wait another 12 years? Of course I'd prefer the process to go via the UN, but there was no talk of any deadlines or action at all and that's not good enough.

 

4. At all times Saddam has been a threat, I think in hindsight we should have probably finished the job in 1991. Problem was even then it came up with resistance, god forbid the middle east region should have a democracy over a sovereign state or dictatorship.

 

5. Hitler killed the Jews for no reason, Saddam killed the Kurds and Shi'ites with no reason. Both are incredibly dangerous and volatile people. I wouldn't feel there is a very strong comparison between the two though, except their ruthlessness to kill and torture people.

 

As I say I know you're not about to agree with me GHA, but the least I can do is put up an argument.

[AFF]

In 3., you are presumably referring to Scud missiles, SteveP.

 

Where did you hear/see that Iraq launched Scud missiles yesterday?

[SteveP]

It has been mentioned, but not confirmed, missiles which have been confirmed to go beyond the range of UN limitations at least. But there is no doubt Iraq have not accounted for massive quantities of Anthrax, Mustard Gas and VX Gas, which I believe Saddam would use to preserve himself.

[EFM The Firm, The Voice]

Surely brine would be a better perservative for himself <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[SteveP]

There's an idea, canned saddam, best before 1991.

[Colin Zeal EFM]

Excellent rant from Boroman in The Pub...

 

Look, it's not about whether they think the war is right or wrong, they should be in bloody school. If they are allowed to bunk off for this, then what next. Student fees demo, support the Firemen demo, more pay for school teachers demo. See what I mean.

 

If my boy said he wanted to go, I would say "oi son NO!" I would tell his headmaster that I wanted him locked up in School until the whole thing was over. Where are the parents letting these kid's do this, they are probably all either lesbian types or just yobbos that don't even know what their kids get up to, but are soon ready to stab anyone who justifiably complains about them.

 

I bet a lot of these kids were put up to it be these the SWP/Lefty teacher brigade, you know the sort "let the children debate" "let them express their freedom" Well they let them express so much freedom that the teachers don't realise the kids are actually taking the piss out of them. If not that they finish up having some pervert take advantage of them in the name of expressing themselves.

 

Then you have all the students on these demo's, what gives students special rights to protest. They have never been to work so they don't really understand half the issues. Look, I work in a Uni so I know what goes on, bloody activists everywhere.

 

What annoys me about all these activist "Stop the War" types is that they are not consistant. Why don't they demonstrate about - Muggers, rapists, drug pushers, asylum seekers, child molesters etc. No they spend there time feeling sorry for all them lot and think Society is to blame because the read it whilst they were doing their waste of time sociology degree.

 

 

[GHA EFM]

1). Zeal, you have to use Boroman as your speaker because you can't argue your point?? []

 

2). That's nothing to do with the war itself, that's about schoolkids protesting.

 

3). Yesterday, a helicopter went down, due to a mechanical fault. All passengers survived, and were transported to safety, whilst the chopper itself was blown up to prevent Iraqis discovering secrets.

 

Today, I hear that the chopper (I think they're talking about the same one) actually went down 7 miles outside the border of Iraq, due to a mechanical fault, and exploded on impact, killing everyone inside. The Iraqis say it was shot down, the news reporter made sure to say 'and in view of another helicopter, suddenly nose-dived,' as if to say 'it wasn't shot down, we promise,' but not in those words. If this is the same accident, why the huge variation?

 

Politicians know more than we ever will. Politicians don't reveal half of what we are 'allowed' to know.

[Colin Zeal EFM]

Exactly. Which is why it is not for us to judge.

 

 

[Chubbhead EFM]

I think the children DO have an absolute right to protest. After all, we are the one's that will inherit any consequences/problems from this war. Anyone under 18 in this country has no control over what the Government, (not that over 18s have total control, but they do have the vote which incidently they don't tend to use much anymore), and so to get our view across we need to use other means. By the way my parents aren't the 'lesbian types' or 'complete yobbos'. I REALLY REALLY F****** HATE IT when adults patronise kids and teenagers as if we don't take any notice of what's going on or don't read the papers. I got stopped in the street the other day by one of those people looking for money to donate to the Children's Society. We asked him why he didn't ask older people who would have more money than the younger people and he said because older people are comfortable in their world and they hardly give a **** about anyone else. That just says it all really. I really hope when I reach middle-age I don't act like the middle-aged people I see now.

 

RANT OVER.

 

 

 

[EFM's Librarian]

On the subject of kids protesting, yes quite probably a fair proportion of them are just doing it for a day out, and don't know a huge amount about the facts (like almost all of us), but I also think there is a fair proportion who are well informed, and for Idiot Littlejohn to assume all kids are as ignorant as he was, and still is, is somewhat presumptive.

Chubhead, you'll find as you get older that your views on lots of things change, you'll almost certainly find yourself looking back on lots of things you used to believe, and think 'I was naive' I suspect this is why lots of adults dismiss the protest of kids easily. I never thought I'd hear myself saying this, but as you learn more, your views develop, if they didn't you'd be close-minded. This doesn't mean the kids protesting are wrong, it just explains why adults don't take them seriously (I tried to make that sound as unpatronising as possible - I am only 5 years older than you after all!)

Boroman's point about students protesting for the sake of it is ridiculous. All the students I work with know far more about human rights abuses and international politics than he does, because they have the time to read about it and become informed. Incidentally all of them have already worked, and interestingly they are some of the most vociferous opponents of the war I have met

[Nos]

Quote:

We asked him why he didn't ask older people who would have more money than the younger people and he said because older people are comfortable in their world and they hardly give a **** about anyone else.

 

My sister is heavily involved in charity work and has been for a long, long time and from what she tells me, the statement made by your Children's Society person, is the biggest load of bunkum she has ever heard in her life.

[Chubbhead EFM]

I think it was a personal view, he wasn't talking for the CS as a spokesperson.

[Colin Zeal EFM]

Had to laugh at a post made by Big JR in The Pub.

 

His sister works at a school, and apparently when 100-odd kids walked out last week, the Head Teacher simply phoned the police and reported them for truancy!! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

 

 

[GHA EFM]

Quote:

Had to laugh at a post made by Big JR in The Pub.

His sister works at a school, and apparently when 100-odd kids walked out last week, the Head Teacher simply phoned the police and reported them for truancy!!

Because, obviously, these children are under the age of 18, they haven't got the mental capacity to vote or protest against the war or anything. They can drive, yes, but have a political say? Why should they?

[Colin Zeal EFM]

You're right. To what should we lower the age of voting to? 15? 12? 8?

 

As for the bit about driving, I've always thought that 21 is a far more suitable age than 17 to start, but that's another debate altogether.

 

 

[GHA EFM]

Smoking = 16

Having Sex = 16

 

Driving = 17

 

Looking at Sexual, erm, Stuff = 18

Drinking = 18

Voting = 18

 

So you can have sex at 16, but can't watch it. Do you have to keep your eyes shut?

 

According to my history teacher, there are many arguments that can state the undemocratic nature of the current electoral system. 16-yr-olds not being allowed to vote is one of them.

[Colin Zeal EFM]

I wouldn't disagree. And the "sex" thing is plain daft. Then again, I'd raise the "having sex" to 18. I'd raise having the vote to 21. And as previously mentioned, I'd raise driving to 21.

 

Vote Zeal! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

 

 

[mdetaylor]

Excellent piece of freethinking there - "according to my history teacher" - what about thinking for your self.

 

I think very few 16 year olds (and 18 for that matter) are actually bothered about voting, these few being the ones who have taken the time to try and understand what issues they would be voting on.

 

You would then get a substantial number who would vote for X because their parents or teachers do - you live under my roof you vote Labour kind of scenario.

 

Worst of all you would get the kind of rent a mobs that we have seen leaving schools last week who would vote on whatever the issue of the week is - most of them will have forgotten about Iraq in 6 months time. They become the great unwashed who turn up at any old protest with a dog on a bit of string and their Levellers collection, throw a few chairs around and complain about police brutality and the CJA. They vote on whatever the Guardian is banging on about - anyone remember Jubilee 2000, thought not, Bono has gone off to wail at the Yanks at the Oscars and the Guardian manages to avoid reporting what actually goes on with cancelling debt e.g parts of South East Asia where progammes have been set up to ensure any further borrowing is not spent on weapons, palaces, cars etc in return for existing debt being cancelled (I believe that Cambodia is debt free as a result).

 

The great unwashed then go back to Daddy, get their hair cut and get a job with an investment bank - ever thought how many people would turn round if you shouted Quentin at a Levellers gig.

 

Anyway back to voting - the wost thing about lowering the age would be that the number of people voting as a percentage would be even lower beacuse the sad fact is most people don't care.

[CANV EFM]

if you pay tax you should be able to vote.. if you dont tough [censored].. driving, army, etc 18 is fine..

sex n smoking n drinking n other 'moral' stuff i guess anything over 16 is totally unenforceable..

pubs should be able to set there own limit from 16 over wherever they want to

[Chubbhead EFM]

I think we're all forgetting the fact that a lot of the girls and boys fighting in Iraq at the moment are as young as 16! They're fighting for this cpountry and whether you agree with the war or not, surely this deserves some sort of reward i.e the right to vote. On the Ark Royal ship the oldest person was 45! The rest of them seemed about 16-20(mostly). I don't think they'll have forgotten about this war in Iraq in 6 months time!

''most of them will have forgotten about Iraq in 6 months time.''

 

I don't think that the voting percentage would go down either, I think it would go up. You should sit in on some of my lessons where most people are 18 or under. Most of them are really passionate about political subjects and theirs quite a wide variety of opinions and none of us come from particularly well-off families. We're really just the same as anyone else, just a couple of years younger.And none of us are Levellers fans!(or called Quentin!)

 

As for voting the same as your parents I don't agree with that either. Most teenagers want to rebel against their parents. Our opinions are often very different to our parents. For example, my parents are quite Conservative in their values where I am what you might like to call a ''left-wing-pinko!'' I think 16 is a pretty good age to be allowed to vote. Loads of people leave school at that age and go to work and contribute to society and yet they're not allowed to have a say. In fact, for those of you who may start the 'go get a job' type argument, every single person I know my age has a job that they fit around their studies so they are making a contribution which is why I think we should have the vote at 16.

 

I'm going to be 18 next week and I honestly don't think I'm going to change dramatically in the next week. I'm going to be the same as I was when I was 17.So why the age limit?I think 16 is the real watershed age, it's the time I changed most anyway!

 

One more thing, some people aged over 18 and who have the right to vote really shouldn't be allowed to! Some of the customers I come into contact with at work are so stupid I really do despair for this country!