View Full Version : Anti War Idea
Everyone knows how effective the internet is for rabble rousing.
ANd everyone knows that there are a lot of people who are saying "Not in my name".
Therefore, why don't we all try to crash No 10's server everyday by sending an email with the title "Not In My Name" and text of
"Mr Blair,
As the representative for the people's government I would like you to consider the majority of people who do not authorise you to go to war in their name. This is not a democratic war.
Further, I do not support Mr Bush's reasons for going to war. I did not vote for him, so therefore am not willing to have a war in my name to support his goals.
Many thanks."
Do this once a day. every day at about 0900. If you like this idea, drop a note to everyone on your email list and get them to do the same, from every email address that they own.
Should knacker the servers at least. Papers could also be involved quite easily.
What do you think?
did u hear about the Iraqi's in this country who had a rally to SUPPORT us going to war against IRAQ ??
wot does that tell u ?;) :p
Originally posted by Starionman
:eek:
Exactly - all the lefty artsy-fartsy protest types need to get their facts straight. If they were running the country, we'd be overrun/attacked. People are not all the same.
When Blair was verbally abused on that program the other week, I thought it was pathetic what the ppl were saying to him.:mad:
GET A LIFE ! The Iraqi armed forces want us to attack FFS !!
Looks like it could well all be academic now - apparently the PM has called an 'emergency meeting' for 4pm..
So I guess we can assume that means he'll be announcing we are at war with Iraq..
Jezz_S13
17-03-2003, 11:23
Originally posted by Nelson
did u hear about the Iraqi's in this country who had a rally to SUPPORT us going to war against IRAQ ??
wot does that tell u ?;) :p
Yes but those people arne't likely to get killed are they!!
I don't think anyone really disputes that Saddam needs to be mutilated in a slow and horrible way, but that isn't what is going to happen.
Many innocents will be the victims and Saddam will probably, with the help of America's ineptitude to finish a war, survive.
Jezz_S13
17-03-2003, 11:24
Originally posted by aaronjb
Looks like it could well all be academic now - apparently the PM has called an 'emergency meeting' for 4pm..
So I guess we can assume that means he'll be announcing we are at war with Iraq..
whippeee fcuking woo. :(:mad:
Originally posted by Nelson
The Iraqi armed forces want us to attack FFS !!
I suspect many civilians would rather risk being killed than carry on living under Saddam.
Marky Boy
17-03-2003, 12:12
Originally posted by Jezz_S13
Yes but those people arne't likely to get killed are they!!
Yeah but most of them still have families there. And there general opinion is that we want rid of him now!!
We cant sit around and talk about this forever. Sadam has had 12 years to sort this out. Enough is enough, hes never going to stop pissing us about.
And its not just the US he's p*ssing about. We are all at threat from terrorism.:mad: :mad: :mad:
honest_jim
17-03-2003, 12:31
Saddam got the chance to go in to nice comfy exile, but he decided not to so the way look at it, its all down to him.
GO GO GO over the top lads!!
HEADSHOT ! THAT'LL SLOW HIM DOWN
Originally posted by Marky Boy
We are all at threat from terrorism.:mad: :mad: :mad:
And when we've pi**ed off the entire middle eastern world by bombing the crap outta Iraq, we'll be under less of a threat!?
I don't think so..
Originally posted by aaronjb
And when we've pi**ed off the entire middle eastern world by bombing the crap outta Iraq, we'll be under less of a threat!?
I don't think so..
good point.... and my fear exactly
I'm personally against this war - not because i dont believe that its necessary etc, to be honest i dont know/havent found out enough about it to make an informed opinion. I stand against it cos its to go ahead without UN backing. I thought that the whole idea of United Nations is that we are UNITED?
Please ignore this if i've missed something - i've purposely buried my head in the sand over this war cos its something that particularly pisses me off:rolleyes:
Marky Boy
17-03-2003, 14:50
Originally posted by aaronjb
And when we've pi**ed off the entire middle eastern world by bombing the crap outta Iraq, we'll be under less of a threat!?
I don't think so..
This is only my opinion so dont think im trying to start an argument.
What if when Germany started trying to take over europe we sat back and said, oh lets leave them or they might retaliate. We all be speaking german by now.
It not agaisnt the whole middle east were talking about. This is about Iraq and Sadam. There are other middle eastern countries that support this.
Anyway if we sit back and give Sadam as much time as he wants while we p!ss about with resolutions, let him hide his weapons and make some. Then maybe hell just go away and he wont want to attack the west. Maybe he wont harbour terror groups and supply them with chemical weapons.
Hes had his chances with the UN, now is the time for action.
:)
Thanks to Mr Bush & Mr Blair we a now a target for the middle east generally.
Why can't we keep our heads down and leave America fcuk it up for themselves. We should be more like the rest of europe and just not get involved.
Originally posted by Lenagh
HEADSHOT ! THAT'LL SLOW HIM DOWN
And make him a martyr
And you know the thing about martyrs? You can't kill them
AshT_200
17-03-2003, 15:39
Originally posted by golders
Thanks to Mr Bush & Mr Blair we a now a target for the middle east generally.
Why can't we keep our heads down and leave America fcuk it up for themselves. We should be more like the rest of europe and just not get involved.
You can't just blame them for that.....
There are Islamic Fundamentalists that want to turn Britain into an Islamic State (Just like the Taliban did to Afghanistan)
All in the name of "Islam"
It is these fundamentalists that aer telling Normally Peaceful Muslems that America and Britain are waging war on Islam.
The IRA are known to have trained in places like Libya, Morroco and other countries that may have links to Iraq. Imagine what could have happened at Omagh, if the IRA had gotten there hands on WMD?
It is not just Islamic Fundamentalist groups that threaten the security of this country.
And "The rest of Europe" namely France and Germany arer bigger hipocrits han anyone. France has a bigger Interest in Oil revenues than any other Western Nation and wants to keep in with Saddam so nothing threatens that. And I expect these European Countries are praying that details of thir illegal trading with Iraq does not get found out.
Originally posted by golders
We should just not get involved.
Like the USA did in WW2 ?;) :p
Nathan_200sx
17-03-2003, 16:38
Originally posted by golders
Thanks to Mr Bush & Mr Blair we a now a target for the middle east generally.
Why can't we keep our heads down and leave America fcuk it up for themselves. We should be more like the rest of europe and just not get involved.
Point one, no were not. dont treat the middle east countries like idots who'll go off on a tangent at anything. some have an intrest in seeing sadam off themselfs.
Sadam is a nut ball and would think nothing of popping off a nuke at Isreal, can you imagine the outcome of that?
Point 2 thats a bit spinless isnt it? dont you care what goes on in the world? something needs to be done, and 12 years of sanctions,talks,resolutions have failed and done sod all.
AshT_200
17-03-2003, 16:56
And all these people who are jumping on the "Not in my name" bandwagon.
You're quite happy to see the bastard kill his own people who are helpless to defend themselves. Well I say "Not in my name."
marty_t3
17-03-2003, 16:59
I'm against the war because of the way it's come about.
True Saddam is a tw@t and Iraq would be better off without him.
But.....
What reason have we got to attack Iraq???
WMD??? ...... Where??? Isn't it supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Yeah he had WMD but he was at war with Iran for 8 years.... of course he had weapons. It's not like he's threatening to nuke us or anything so why rush into a war. Surely with all the might of 250,000 troops they can find a more subtle/peaceful method of making sure he has disarmed.
Links to terrorism????...... Where?? Where was the last Iraqi terrorist activity?? Just because some Al-Queda have taken refuge in his country doesn't give us the right to attack. Anyway ... America is full of IRA supporters, i don't see Blair picking a fight with them.
Failing to meet 1441??? .... does Iraq 'failing' to meet a UN Resolution give the US/UK the right to completely ignore the decisions of the UN too?? By going to war now without UN backing, the UK and US are just showing that the UN is a waste of space....... so how can they use a UN resolution to justify their war??
Humanitarian reasons???? erm..... There are dozens of countries all over the planet where basic human rights have been breached. Why are they targetting Iraq and not the rest?? Surely the amount of money this war (and the subsequent rebuilding of Iraq) will cost would be better spent on easing suffering around the planet rather than getting rid of one man.
Originally posted by Nathan_200sx
Point 2 thats a bit spinless isnt it? dont you care what goes on in the world? something needs to be done, and 12 years of sanctions,talks,resolutions have failed and done sod all.
Which points to the total futility of the UN, like the League of Nations before it.
Without an over-reaching body, it is every man for himself. Interesting prospect, in that 50 years of cohesion are threatened by....
Bush.
AshT_200
17-03-2003, 17:05
Originally posted by marty_t3
I'm against the war because of the way it's come about.
True Saddam is a tw@t and Iraq would be better off without him.
But.....
What reason have we got to attack Iraq???
WMD??? ...... Where??? Isn't it supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Yeah he had WMD but he was at war with Iran for 8 years.... of course he had weapons. It's not like he's threatening to nuke us or anything so why rush into a war. Surely with all the might of 250,000 troops they can find a more subtle/peaceful method of making sure he has disarmed.
Links to terrorism????...... Where?? Where was the last Iraqi terrorist activity?? Just because some Al-Queda have taken refuge in his country doesn't give us the right to attack. Anyway ... America is full of IRA supporters, i don't see Blair picking a fight with them.
Failing to meet 1441??? .... does Iraq 'failing' to meet a UN Resolution give the US/UK the right to completely ignore the decisions of the UN too?? By going to war now without UN backing, the UK and US are just showing that the UN is a waste of space....... so how can they use a UN resolution to justify their war??
Humanitarian reasons???? erm..... There are dozens of countries all over the planet where basic human rights have been breached. Why are they targetting Iraq and not the rest?? Surely the amount of money this war (and the subsequent rebuilding of Iraq) will cost would be better spent on easing suffering around the planet rather than getting rid of one man.
er the money would be good, if it was spent on the people, but time and time again, when money is given, it is spent on the wrong things.
Live Aid helped fund a war IIRC.
Oil for Food in Iraq has funded Saddam.
The UK and the US are not the ones ignoring the UN...... It is the security council failing to live up to the expectations THEY VOTED FOR in UNSCR 1441.
Why vote for the resolution, if they have no intention of enforcing it?
AshT_200
17-03-2003, 17:06
Originally posted by Starionman
Which points to the total futility of the UN, like the League of Nations before it.
Without an over-reaching body, it is every man for himself. Interesting prospect, in that 50 years of cohesion are threatened by....
Bush.
So what is the point of the UN? If they can't uphold International Law, why do they bother making it?
Originally posted by AshT_200
So what is the point of the UN? If they can't uphold International Law, why do they bother making it?
A fine point, and imo they are starting to be shown as irrelevant to the demands of 2003 situations.
BTW not only Oil For Food has funded Saddam - the UK did its fair share of weapons donation too iirc
Anyway, I think it is all going to be largely interesting. On the news they were talking about ground invasions happening while the air strikes were going ahead. Seeing as the US has in... interesting... record of hitting the right targets (got the right maps this time boys?) I've got a feeling that Saddam may yet be sending Bush a thank you note...
If we were taking action to remove these weapons of mass destruction, then surely the time to have done it was after Sadam had gassed all the curds years ago.
Do you not think that if he Sadam was going to use these weapons he would have fired them off against Israel during the last gulf war? The scuds he fired off then were conventionally armed.
We have no right to fight this war on those grounds, nore have we the right to fight it to remove terrorism from the world. The links between Sadam and terrorist activities are tenuous to say the least and Im sorry but we cant bomb his country because they rejoiced at Sept 11th - it wasnt a nice thing to do but its not worth killing over.
As for some of his own people wanting him dead, Im sure there are people in this country and in America who would want to see our leaders dead.
If we are going to fight a war at least be honest about the reasons. Dont hide behind a false concern for human rights. Im afraid America and protection of human rights dont sit well together (unless its Americas particular brand of human rights). i.e non-communist, white and willing to salute the flag every morning.
the american government has already awarded building contracts to companies for the construction of american built buildings in Iraq...
my issues with this war are not about the removal of the Hussain empire, but the continuing ignorance of america's government.
I'm glad I dont live there, it's soon going to be over run with terroists...
imagine this, what would have happened if the UK had started to bomb ireland when the IRA bombed anything in the UK ? the IRA would've had a field day, bombing the shit out of us...
Bush should be shot... several times
the story of the burning bush...
Someone pours petrol on the president, and then flicks a match. No wonder there's a voice coming out of it...
If the countdown has started, I would have thought that it would have kicked yesterday...
Then again, maybe it did and Pease Pottage is an isolated haven of peace.
Oh BTW if i disappear during the course of the war and never return, its coz the early warning system by my house has been blown to fook, as have I. :)
AshT_200
18-03-2003, 09:19
Originally posted by GD1
Do you not think that if he Sadam was going to use these weapons he would have fired them off against Israel during the last gulf war? The scuds he fired off then were conventionally armed.
Because last time (as is this time) he was warned (By George Bush Senior, John Major and the Israelis) that any chemical or biological attack would result in a Nuclear retaliation.
I think that is reason enough not to use them.
But terrorists are getting bolder. Fully fueled airliners are weapons of mass destruction. They have proved that they will use them in a preemptive manner. A nuclear deterrant is no longer enough.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.