While I respect your view Martin, if we don't go to war with the terroists the outcome will be they always win. If we refused to fight back, what then? they'd invade and the whole world would be no better than the days of Hitler. Not fighting back dosen't tell the terriosts we don't want to fight, it tells them they can win. That's how they think. They are not like us. While it would be nice if war wasn't needed, sadly it is. Our governments in the civilised world tried for many years to talk it out with Saddam Hussien, sadly, he wouldn't listen and, hardly a man to be trusted, the final resort was taken to try and improve this world for the future.

I did expect that response from you Lenny, and I give you the greatest respect for coming out with it.
I would like to say, that I wish I could feel the anger, that people feel, but I don`t at all, I do however feel a change is coming, and there is very little we can do about it.
I feel sadness, and a feeling of "here we go again."
I hated Sept 11th(like most people), and felt defeated, and personally very emotional, as did millions and billions of people, but I also did hate the media coverage of people claiming a victory over the West from the East. This should not have been shown on TV, as I believe, it has made things worse.
There can be no turning of the other cheek, when people are prepared to die for their beliefs and indeed art.
If a guy said.."By my cd and I will kill myself live on TOTP", he would get a number one, this is a war of no competition.
I do believe, though, that the best leader for this country at this time is Blair, the Libs are too unsettled, and the Tories are playing ostrich games again.

Lenny, please define 'the terrorists'? you seem to have bought the mantra that bush and blair have been pushing. Why would someone blow themselves up? i guess you think that it is because they are not like us??? and that they are evil.

Its because they are being terrorised by the west via sanctions and bombings. Open your eyes and try to see both sides before you peddle your nonsense on this board.

Whats the difference between 3000 dead in the world trade centres and 000's of dead women and children in iraq courtesy of stray bombs and excited soldiers? Neither is acceptable but the cycle has to stop at some point - it never will because of you and your like minded allies in power - but the only way for peace is to look forward not back and to accept the different cultures and not see them as evil for the sake of evil.

Godiver wrote:
Lenny, please define 'the terrorists'? you seem to have bought the mantra that bush and blair have been pushing. Why would someone blow themselves up? i guess you think that it is because they are not like us??? and that they are evil.

Its because they are being terrorised by the west via sanctions and bombings. Open your eyes and try to see both sides before you peddle your nonsense on this board.

Whats the difference between 3000 dead in the world trade centres and 000's of dead women and children in iraq courtesy of stray bombs and excited soldiers? Neither is acceptable but the cycle has to stop at some point - it never will because of you and your like minded allies in power - but the only way for peace is to look forward not back and to accept the different cultures and not see them as evil for the sake of evil.

The only "silliness" hear is your ranting's. None here is making it personal, we try to be subjective and to respect each others views, so can't you give that curtsey, or would you rather just ramp your views down others throats, without accepting they differ to you? If Saddam Hussien was still in power and later attacked the west you'd probably be the first one screaming from the roof tops that Tony Blair and George Bush didn't to anything to prevent it.

I would respond to all your points and questions, but as you seem unable to have a reasonable discussion, then I see no point in giving you one.

What would Saddam Hussein have attacked the west with? He wasn't even able to defend his own country, let alone attack one on the other side of the globe.

Al wrote:
What would Saddam Hussein have attacked the west with? He wasn't even able to defend his own country, let alone attack one on the other side of the globe.

Saddam Hussien had WOMD's during the 1990s. No attempt to capture him was made back then at all, the British and American governments made that quite clear from the start at that time. WOMD's were found back then. Therefore who's to say he couldn't have got them again? The weapons inspectors may have been wrong when they said he had them this time, and if they were wrong then it's just as well he wasn't given enough time to get his hands on more. The man had 20 mansions for goodness sake and was richer than Blair and Bush combined, I think if he wanted too, given some time, he could have russeld up the funds to buy some form of explosives.

He had WMDs of sorts back in the early 1990s, but since the Gulf War his country had been subject to air patrols/no fly zones, and his borders were monitored. He had armed troops stationed on his doorstep and very little chance of purchasing anything with which to make WMDs. Thus, when our troops invaded Iraq they found no effective opposition and only a weak, diminished Iraqi military.

He'd had 10 years in which to rebuild his military, and he'd failed to do so. From many reports his wealth was mostly in the form of property and assets, not ready cash. I don't think he was prepared to sell his mansions or other luxury items in order to raise money for weapons. Sanctions and close scrutiny had crippled any ambitions he may have had.

War cannot be justified by a 'maybe' or a 'could have'.

How are my comments rantings whereas yours are sensible discussions? Why won't you answer the questions that i posed?

You are very defensive Lenny which is normally a trait of someone who has not formed solid views of their own and merely echoes whichever political commentator is the daily mails current beau.

"If Saddam Hussien was still in power and later attacked the west you'd probably be the first one screaming from the roof tops that Tony Blair and George Bush didn't to anything to prevent it." - Utter nonsense! It is like saying that we should invade Sweden because they might bomb us at some point in the future?? laughable.

I also don't see how my original mail was personal? I don't care about you or your views. I also take comfort from the fact that we are different and would never want to understand you in any way.

Finally, you can't ram (not ramp) your views down peoples throats on a messageboard as they have the option not to read. No one cares what i think as they will make their own minds up, I was merely responding to your original post seeking answers as to why you assume certain things.

You obviously don't have these answers so should not try to post on subjects you are ignorant of and not expect responses.

I hope you don't feel i have been too personal or harsh mr silly man.

Al wrote:
He had WMDs of sorts back in the early 1990s, but since the Gulf War his country had been subject to air patrols/no fly zones, and his borders were monitored. He had armed troops stationed on his doorstep and very little chance of purchasing anything with which to make WMDs. Thus, when our troops invaded Iraq they found no effective opposition and only a weak, diminished Iraqi military.

He'd had 10 years in which to rebuild his military, and he'd failed to do so. From many reports his wealth was mostly in the form of property and assets, not ready cash. I don't think he was prepared to sell his mansions or other luxury items in order to raise money for weapons. Sanctions and close scrutiny had crippled any ambitions he may have had.

War cannot be justified by a 'maybe' or a 'could have'.

Before the war many people were complaining about Hussien being in power and many were also quick to turn a finger at the government in the UK and USA for not doing anything to help. I have no doubt that Blair and Bush had reason or at least thought they had reason to go to war and recent tapes of Hussien boasting about how he "fooled" people into think he had no weapons or arms only further strengthen my opinion. Also, I don't think anyone has to look to hard to find a "reason" to go to war with a bigot like Hussien.

Godiver wrote:
How are my comments rantings whereas yours are sensible discussions? Why won't you answer the questions that i posed?

You are very defensive Lenny which is normally a trait of someone who has not formed solid views of their own and merely echoes whichever political commentator is the daily mails current beau.

"If Saddam Hussien was still in power and later attacked the west you'd probably be the first one screaming from the roof tops that Tony Blair and George Bush didn't to anything to prevent it." - Utter nonsense! It is like saying that we should invade Sweden because they might bomb us at some point in the future?? laughable.

I also don't see how my original mail was personal? I don't care about you or your views. I also take comfort from the fact that we are different and would never want to understand you in any way.

Finally, you can't ram (not ramp) your views down peoples throats on a messageboard as they have the option not to read. No one cares what i think as they will make their own minds up, I was merely responding to your original post seeking answers as to why you assume certain things.

You obviously don't have these answers so should not try to post on subjects you are ignorant of and not expect responses.

I hope you don't feel i have been too personal or harsh mr silly man.

Oh please. How was your reply personal? Saying things like I am filling the board with my "nonsense" is a personal slur (for the record I am not, anything posted here is seen by an administrator and then posted, so it's whoever views the post that has chosen to actually put it on the board and deem it suitable for inclusion), also bringing up typing errors is another personal and pointless action (as is referring to some one with such childishness as "Mr. Silly Man"). I may "defend" my views, but that is my entitlement. By responding to someone who disagrees with you, you are doing the same thing. Someone who has to use perosnal insults in their argument is someone who really has no real serious point to make. Like I said, speak to me without insulting me. If you can show me you are capable of that then I will find the time to answer your questions, until you do, then I don't see why i should grant you that respect.

Yawn. I would never want, nor expect, respect from you.

Still no answer to the questions? you are like a white house communications officer.

Its not personal to attack your views, how can i be personal when i don't even know you?

'mr silly man' was very clearly a jest on you branding my post as silliness. You condemn the very crimes that you commit yourself.

I actually don't want an answer to the questions anymore because you bore me to tears. I cannot abide people with no sense of humour (don't take it personally Lenster).

Godiver wrote:
Yawn. I would never want, nor expect, respect from you.

Still no answer to the questions? you are like a white house communications officer.

Its not personal to attack your views, how can i be personal when i don't even know you?

'mr silly man' was very clearly a jest on you branding my post as silliness. You condemn the very crimes that you commit yourself.

I actually don't want an answer to the questions anymore because you bore me to tears. I cannot abide people with no sense of humour (don't take it personally Lenster).

If you want to cover up your "arrogance" as humor, so be it. However, if this is really "humor", then I now see Jim Davidsons act in a whole new light!

Godiver wrote:
Yawn. I would never want, nor expect, respect from you.

Still no answer to the questions? you are like a white house communications officer.

Its not personal to attack your views, how can i be personal when i don't even know you?

'mr silly man' was very clearly a jest on you branding my post as silliness. You condemn the very crimes that you commit yourself.

I actually don't want an answer to the questions anymore because you bore me to tears. I cannot abide people with no sense of humour (don't take it personally Lenster).

It may not be personal to dispute someone's views, but to attack them all guns ablazing is personal. No, you get no respect for me, whether or not you "want it". I called your posts silly cause you called mine nonsense. You don't want answers from me? Thank to good lord, because until you show you can behave like an adult you won't get any, anyway.

ha ha, your the one crying like a little girl. Do you feel attacked? poor little Lenny.

p.s. please respect me Lenny, i need your respect to feel whole again. Were you the victim of bullying at school? Did the big boys disagree with some of your comments too?

p.p.s If you get so upset upon disagreement then don't post.

p.p.p.s thank THE lord, not thank TO lord. Till you show you have the grammar of an adult i don't want to talk to you.