Help support TMP


"Iraq War Poll" Topic


84 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the TMP Talk Message Board


Areas of Interest

General

2,993 hits since 1 Feb 2003
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 

Wargamer Blue31 Jan 2003 6:29 p.m. PST

I would be interested to see a poll from the wargamers point of view about whether or not we support the coming war with Iraq.

I will put my hand up and say that I do support the war as long as it gets UN backing.

John the OFM31 Jan 2003 7:13 p.m. PST

I support the war, even, or especially without UN backing. The UN is morally bankrupt, with Libya chairing the Human Rights Commission, and Iraq chairing the Disarmament Commission.

It is universally acknowledged that the British French should have, and could have stopped Hitler in 1936, 1937, 1938...... Do we learn nothing from history?

ming3131 Jan 2003 7:35 p.m. PST

We as Americans us "Innocent until proven Guilty" We must show proof then kick ass. We must put our ducks in a row...

Arteis31 Jan 2003 7:59 p.m. PST

My feeling is that if he UN say so, then there is a case for the war. If the UN don't support it, then, no, we shouldn't go to war.

But perhaps I should define "we" - in my case, "we" means either my own country (which isn't the USA), or the whole world.

If war does happen, though, whether approved by the UN or not, I am very worried about the end result. Once Hussein is ousted or killed, what happens then? This is not like Hitler's Germany where most Germans after their defeat turned round and denounced Nazism, so that the war was truly ended. In Iraq I think the Western world will always be seen as the enemy, even if we "win", and all that will happen is that things will get worse and worse.

As for the conspiracy theory of many antiwar protesters ("No War for Oil") - I find that simplistic and banal. I still have enough faith in human nature (even that of Bush and friends!) to believe that they wouldn't endanger their own people's lives and the world's stability if it wasn't entirely necessary. But I wish they could convince me some more that it was actually necessary!

Personal logo Rogzombie Supporting Member of TMP Fezian31 Jan 2003 8:23 p.m. PST

The trouble with proof is that it will probably have to be 100,000 people dead in a biological or nuclear attack...

As far as the oil issue, if thats all the USA wanted we would be occupying Venezuela right now.

There is no way to know for sure what the after effects of war with Iraq would be. Sure we know a few terrorists will go over the top and attack an embassy or something but I doubt it will give more resolve to their already fanatical agenda. It will probably improve the whole situation overall as brutal violent people(terrorists) can only be answered with the same, brutality. The terrorists will know the world isnt going to sit back and allow this behavior anymore.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian31 Jan 2003 8:29 p.m. PST

Well, I've had some people ask for this one before, but I wasn't sure TMP wanted to go there. :-)

What should the poll options be?

* support war with Iraq (regardless of UN)

* support war with Iraq (with UN support)

* against war with Iraq

unknown member31 Jan 2003 8:43 p.m. PST

I'm not so sure that TMP is a proper forum for such a poll. Certainly there are no rules against having such a poll, but is it really necessary to run a poll regarding international politics? There are many other forums for such discussions.

Surely we are all free to express our opinions, but to potentially mire TMP in heated discussions over a non-miniatures related topic seems a bit risky. It may open the proverbial "pandora's box" to many other off-topic debates. Yes, it is only a poll, but there almost certainly are postings regarding polls, etc. and this one surely will be no exception.

Just my two cents worth....

Lee Brilleaux Fezian31 Jan 2003 8:55 p.m. PST

Far too emotive and divisive a topic. We are all about toy soldiers, not real ones.

Autarch31 Jan 2003 9:25 p.m. PST

leave it alone, if folks want to discuss it in an off topic forum sure, but don't loose the focus of the site. even if the discussion doesn't get out of hand (i read one thread marginaly on the subject which was very well mannered and polite) don't put current events on the agenda of a wargames site. the site is about one thing, if you set a precendence for going way OT then sooner or later we will be having polls endorsing discussions about all sorts of things, and many of those WILL get out of hand.

Tgunner31 Jan 2003 9:45 p.m. PST

I don't think this discussion is totally out of line, especially since some companies out there (like Devil Dog) are coming out with modern miniatures for the War on Terrorism and for what appears to be round two of the Gulf War. However I would be careful with it and try to keep it close to the wargaming hobby.

Face it though, current events that we live through now become historical gaming topics later.

Tgunner31 Jan 2003 9:47 p.m. PST

Oh, I would also like to point out that there has be an ongoing and heated discussion of this very topic on the strategypage.com

Might be a better forum?

Goldwyrm31 Jan 2003 9:54 p.m. PST

We all have an opinion but I don't think this is the forum for it. I even have personal reservations about game scenarios for the serious present day conflicts mainly because myself and others know people stationed in the Middle East and Afghanistan right now. It cuts too close to home. People interested in talking politics can go to another message board on a political website and have at it.

jadedragon31 Jan 2003 10:06 p.m. PST

I agree, there are far too many boards already talking about this!

Personal logo Rogzombie Supporting Member of TMP Fezian31 Jan 2003 10:08 p.m. PST

I dont mind the survey as much as concern that things could get out of hand on this post. Its too real of a thing, debating wargames is one thing but this will bring up core beliefs that people are very emotional about and may damage friendships on this board.

The survey on the other hand would just give a general idea of what people think here. You can get angry about it but you cant really blame a specific person!

DJCoaltrain31 Jan 2003 10:55 p.m. PST

At the local gaming store this topic has been discussed on several different occasions. I have not noted any shift in personal freindships or any new ones being formed as the result of those discussions. Perhaps because it's not so easy to be nasty when you're sitting next to the person to whom you're speaking.

Speaking for myself I understand the reasons for the last several wars (heck, I've even begun to grasp some of the lunacy of the Vietnam War), but I just can't quite get a grip on the mental gymnastics for attacking Iraq. Especially without UN support. But then, I'm not the one in charge right now.

An interesting thought has occurred to me - It may just be that President Bush II could be the first President to begin two Wars. In a weird macabre manner, he may actually help expand the hobby by creating so many new opportunities for gaming. It's been a long day and I'm tired.

Take the poll, but provide good options.

Cheers

Mark Wals31 Jan 2003 11:58 p.m. PST

As a veteran of the first Gulf War I went home with a feeling the job was undone, We stopped to early due to public opion. Colin Powell actually remarked that the way we were decimating Iraqi forces was " unchivalric ". Now a new generation of servicemen has to go and finish the job. Saddam Hussien is evil, no less so than Hitler it's just a matter of capabilities. I'm surprised the Germans and especially the French don't see this. America has had a habit of lending a hand and selling lives for other countries. Many times that hand has been bitten. This time it is to secure American lives and freedoms the threat of terrorism is to great to sit back and wait. May God be with our troops - surely he's not on the side of evil.

Mark W.

The Gonk01 Feb 2003 12:40 a.m. PST

I think this is the wrong place to discuss politics, it's a miniature wargaming site. If you want to discuss whether or not we should invade Iraq, go somewhere else. If you want to discuss how we could game the invasion of Iraq, post here.

Deserter01 Feb 2003 12:45 a.m. PST

I think that before starting a war, a proof is needed. The fact that Saddam Hussein is a criminal dictator, in my opinion, is not enough; or the US should declare war to all the other "evil" dictatorships of the world (including China). Then one should consider if this war can resolve the problem of international terrorism and of Islamic fundamentalism; I think not.

Daniele

Saginaw01 Feb 2003 12:54 a.m. PST

Whatever your opinion is about a war with Iraq, one thing's for sure: we have to support our men and women out there. Without their selflessness, we'd ALL be in a world o' trouble.

Mike OBrien01 Feb 2003 1:01 a.m. PST

I agree with the sentiment that TMP isn't the place for an Iraqi War poll. It will prove divisive as can be seen from comments on this forum. Let's leave it to the political sites. Now if anyone wants to do a poll how about "Will you game Gulf War II if the figs are available?" Although I'm not sure anyone would want to play the Iraqi's in either war. Personally I would run a Gulf War I scenario and run the Iraqi's as NPC's forcing the Alllies to do better than historically to succeed.

unknown member01 Feb 2003 1:46 a.m. PST

I could careless what the UN says or wants us to do.

Having said that, I would agree that this is not the place for chatting this topic up. Nothing good can come from it other than stirring up the crap pot and I can get that in the real world. I dont want to come to a site that I enjoy coming to and get all fired up about something that is a hot button.

Happy gaming.

Ironwolf01 Feb 2003 2:20 a.m. PST

Sad to say but I think we need this discussion on here and every other place that the debate can be documented at. Because if we do not attack now and wait for another 9/11. Then attack after the fact. I want to see who voiced an opinion of not to attack. I want to e-mail them, write them and hear them on tv. I want to hear them explain to the families of those killed. Why they thought it was better to wait for more to die. Before they felt comfortable attacking and stopping a threat. We know Iraq has chemical weapons. Back in the 1980s our country sold them to Iraq! So unless they have used it all. Where is it?? If you are against stopping iraq. That is your right and I'll support it. But then if we don't attack and something bad happens. Be prepared to deal with the backlash! I say deal with it now before more innocent die.

Ironwolf01 Feb 2003 2:26 a.m. PST

Sorry to rant but one more thing. If you do not support the war. (I do respect your right to not support it) At lest support the individuals that must fight it.

Ratbone01 Feb 2003 2:43 a.m. PST

"War is politics by other means." - Machiavelli. The man who was willing to say what war and politics really was. Politically incorrect a *long* time ago.

So we wargamers are politicians of a different type.

And in real life: our politics is that we don't like Hussein. If the normal means isn't satisfactory to oust him (our goal), then we go to 'other means' as a natural progression.

You don't get a speed bump on your street until a kid dies from a car going to fast. Not a moment before. After 9-11, you couldn't breath without sucking in old glory. A year and some later, how many flags do you still see? A goodly amount, but not nearly so many.

Time passes, people forget the horror. Terrorist acts will go on until finally it will really be "too late." But somehow I don't think it's "too late" yet. America is very willing to forgive and forget, let bygones be bygones. Innocent until proven guilty.

Fanchick01 Feb 2003 3:39 a.m. PST

"War is politics by other means" is a clauswitzian maxim from his book "about war". But Machiavelli could have written it. His main idea is that moral and politics are two different activities sharing nothing in common. So, if the U.S wants to use its forces against Irak, no U.N new resolution, or "green light" is really needed. It's only a question of opportunity (should the U.S attack, because it's good for their foreign affairs? And I don't know...) and of strenght ratio (and the answer is yes and the hell with chivalry).

Like many of you, I am not sure if TMP is the best place for debating about this question. Maybe could we try to expose to other members our respective country's position about this crisis, even if we do not totally share our own government's point of view?

However this topic made me thinking about a question directly linked to miniature wargaming. Do you feel comfortable wargaming present or very modern wars? As for myself the answer is no. I play Vietnam for two reasons: first is DZ miniatures which I love, the second is, I,m not American, so this war is not so emotionally loaded. I know if an American friend came home, I wouldn't propose him a Nam game. In the same way I have never been tempted to play an Algerian liberation war (1954-1962), as my Dad was drafted to go there.

unknown member01 Feb 2003 4:56 a.m. PST

First of all, I should state that I do support the war. I support it alone for reasons concerning Iraq's continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. I am not really afraid of Saddam nuking New York City or passing such weapons to terrorists. However, he cannot be allowed to become the regional hegemon. Scenario: it's 1990, Iraq invades Kuwait and is massing for a drive on the Saudi oil fields. BUT Iraq has 5 20kt fission weapons and the means to deliver them as far as Kuwait City, Riyadh and Tel Aviv.

What's the U.S.'s next move? There is no next move. We can only acquiesce in this situation (like we are in N. Korea - where they already have a few primitive fission weapons.)

This is a situation that cannot be allowed to occur. And to anyone who thinks it is an unlikely scenario, I'd direct you to The Threatening Storm by Ken Pollack for a story of just how close Iraq was to building a nuclear weapon in 1990. (Very good book, extensively sourced.)

But, although my academic background is in strategic studies, and I used to be a very hard nosed realist, I don't think that the WMD argument is the most persuasive one for going to war. I think that the real prize here is our opportunity to transform Iraq into the first Arab democracy. The War on Terror is simply another phase in the struggle of the Medieval vs. the Enlightenment. Most of the world has been steadily progressing towards a more modern state, adopting (some more slowly than others) values of individualism, competition, political pluralism, reason, science, market economies and cultural pluralism that are the hallmarks of the Enlightenment.

This is not happening in the Islamic world (with the exception of Turkey) And unfortunately, it seems that we can't leave the islamic world to its own, assuming that they will achieve the Enlightenment on their own time schedule. This was brought home by the events of September 11th. So our great opportunity here, the one will has the best shot of securing our own safety, is winning the peace in Iraq. And a prerequisite to that is winning the war.

That said, maybe this is not he right forum for a poll on support of the war (though, as we get closer, it might be nice to see a .gif supporting the troops, if the editor is so inclined)

But, what might be an interesting question is "Are any gamers going to use a modern ruleset to game possible Gulf War II scenarios?" "Which rulesets do you think will pass the test of predictive power?"

Scurvy01 Feb 2003 5:40 a.m. PST

Im rather insulted at this whole thread and just wish bill would delete the entire thing. This page is not the forum for this sort of thing and frankly supporting any war or not is a personal choice and totally outside miniatures gameing.

GRENADIER101 Feb 2003 8:09 a.m. PST

YOU GUYS ARE KILLING ME!!!How is it you can discuse the whole concept of wargaming adnasuem but cant touch the real thing!!Its like a bunch of people talking about cars but never wanting to talk about the latest model out of Detroit!You cant detatch this from reality just by saying TMP is not the forum for this type of discussion. If not then where is the forum? We throw about the conflicts of the past on a daily basis on this site mostly without the political context in which they were fought in. Here is a chance to see and discuss the reason for war and the political decision for war and you shun it because you think people's feelings will be hurt? Everyone has the right to believe what they will but in my opinion must be prepared to back it up least you be dismissed. I think this forum is the perfect place to discuss this topic.

Hillman01 Feb 2003 9:12 a.m. PST

I have to agree with GRENADIER1. Discussing our favourite laundry soap would be off topic, but discussing an upcoming war is not. Those who don't want to participate should stay out of the discussion. I've been around miniatures tables where war is discussed frequently during gaming; it's a natural occurence. We are gaming wars after all, real or imagined. If we weren't interested in war would we be playing games with pieces that look like soldiers? No,we'd play with tokens that look like the men from "SORRY", and we wouldn't use terrain that looked realistic. We are in love with the idea of war and that's why we want our pieces to look like soldiers carrying weapons. Any wargme game can be stripped down to numbers, but that's dull, right?

Non-gamers often wonder why we want to play a game that makes war enjoyable. It's a good question. New topic anyone?

unknown member01 Feb 2003 9:18 a.m. PST

Doesn't Saddam routinely fire SAMs at US and UK jets flying patrols over UN established "No Fly Zones" set up to protect Saddams own people from this ruthless dictatator? It seems no matter what he does, someone can always demand more proof. He is shooting at us on a regular basis. What more do you need?

Personal logo Condotta Supporting Member of TMP01 Feb 2003 9:30 a.m. PST

People have difficulty understanding the need for war and the different approaches the Bush administration is taking on North Korea and Iraq. Think in terms of an automobile accident.

North Korea is an accident tha already has happened, thanks to the lack of previous action. Iraq is an automobile accident that is about to happen, thanks to the previous adherence to the wishes of the U.N. The US could have ignored the United Nations and taken Baghdad and eliminated Saddam and his minions.

A different response is required to an accident that has already happened and one that is about to happen. If we ignore the warning signs of the capability of Iraq to acquire and spread weapons of mass destruction, Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons. Then it will be too late to take preventative action.

The accident will have already happened.

Many of us play games based upon history...we know what happens if we ignore the flanks. We've learned from history and practical experience. While this forum may not be the proper place for this discussion, and while we may not have the information and military intelligence the US has gathered, we do know what happens when history is ignored. Now, do we really need the practical experience...again?

Davidsminipainting01 Feb 2003 9:34 a.m. PST

UN I am not Make the place(Iraq) a glass parking lot
Veteran USAF

unknown member01 Feb 2003 9:42 a.m. PST

Certainly discussing modern tactics and strategy in the context of a war with Iraq would be on topic. Opening up the forum to a debate about the legitimacy or justification of such a war is clearly off topic. Just because other wargames forums may be engaging in such debates does not warrant the discussion here. Bogging down this wonderful forum with peoples opinions (right or wrong) on non-miniatures related topics is a waste of time, space and energy. Many will say that the war is justified; some will disagree. Then there will be a myrriad of opinions falling somewhere in between. How does this relate to miniatures? Do we take international politics into account in miniatures games? Maybe in some very remote way, but it certainly does not factor strongly in any tabletop miniatures game that I have ever played over the last 30 years or so. Let us discuss strategy, tactics, military history, science fiction, fantasy, miniatures collecting, painting techniques, consumer issues, and the like...there certainly are many issues in any of those areas. Leave heated debates of Iraq for other forums.

My three cents worth....

manatic01 Feb 2003 9:58 a.m. PST

I for one think that this issue should be discussed here (and everywhere else too), mainly because of its worldwide importance.

I'm totally against the war without UN's concent. To allow the USA to wantonly attack anyone they wish simply because they have the resources and the will to do it. There is in my opinion NO justification for the US to attack.

9/11 was a great tragedy, if overly hyped. Seems that the terrorist act can be used to justify everything. Like the war on Afganistan. Thousands of innocent civilians dead, the whole country's infrastructure destroyed with factories, main roads and railways bombed. The USA and its NATO allies used billions of dollars on destroying the country, and millions to rebuild it. Afganistan is in a state of civil war, out of money and with a crippled infrastructure. Most western interest in the country is already gone with the war.
All this to compensate for a terrorist assault, to overthrow a religious oppressive regime and to build a "functional democracy".

I would like to see the human being who can look me in the eye and tell me that this was just.

I'm much more concerned with the US biological, chemical and nuclear arsenal -which incidentally the great democracy of our time won't let the UN to inspect- than Iraq's. Iraq may have the capability to finance and arm terrorists, I agree. But the USA has enough arsenal to destroy the world. If the country can go to war without UN's approval, what if it decides to go to war with China? Russia? France? There are rules to international politics, and America is consciously violating them if it attacks Iraq. If America can do it, everyone soon can. The USA should be an example to other countries, simply because of its world status.

I do not want to see the world plunged into an apocalyptic nuclear war if a Chinese terrorist blows up the Empire state building.

Glad to get that off my chest.

unknown member01 Feb 2003 10:09 a.m. PST

...if there is to be a poll then it should include (IMHO):

*war with Iraq is justified
*war with Iraq is immoral
*war with Iraq without UN backing is wrong
*war with Iraq would be OK if US went in solo
*Iraqis have neat uniforms
*US marines have funky boots
*US pilots are the niftiest

Hurrah for us!!!!!!!!!!!!!

manatic01 Feb 2003 10:11 a.m. PST

Not to forget *Hitler was a wuss and we could've taken him without the Russkies and Brits getting in the way.

:)

Personal logo Rogzombie Supporting Member of TMP Fezian01 Feb 2003 10:16 a.m. PST

I tend to wonder how many people really understand war. The horror, the destruction, the politics, economic outcomes. Changes on the world map. Advances in technology. Major changes in the progression of humanity. IMO you cannot divorce war from its whole. You cannot just assume it's guys with guns running around. Thats why I think it's very appropriate for this to be on here in all its myriad forms.

How many of you actually get creeped out after a good wargame with all the destruction laying on the table. I do sometimes. I know we do it for escapism but lets remember those who actually lost their lives in the reality of these conflicts.

I wargame for various reasons, I like the painting, the competition, the strategy but especially the fact that it gives you a little window into a major part of history. Something of gravity to reflect on.

I think this is a great opportunity for us to experience history in the making, good and bad. It's history unfolding and we are a part of it. I have the news on all day, I dont want to miss anything. Sure it's horrible in a lot of ways but it is very important and I want to know about it.

I hope we can all share our views on here without hating each other for it and hopefully get some insight from discussion.

ODoughan01 Feb 2003 10:21 a.m. PST

I would like to see the Arab world inspecting USA, Great Britain, Israel and other countries in search for Weapons of mass destruction. How come we can have them and they don't? USA have actually USED WMD, even against civilian targets. So how come a regime that has no respect for international law can blame another country for not having respect for international law?

I find the whole thing disgusting. And if it is considered right to attack an enemy before he strikes, then it would be right of Iraq to attack Washington today.

I was going to make comment on USAs involvement in the mideast, but that has nothing to do with Iraq, so I won't say anything.

All I can do is to accept the fact that no matter what I think of war and the situation of today, mankind will always fight for more or less stupid reasons. And some regimes will be the ones dictating laws for the rest of the world. UN is a joke, international law only apply to some countries (and not the Western ones. And unless you're backed by international finances, you will have no saying in the world. But that's life.

That's all for me. Unti lnext time, take a look on this site: www.zmag.org, lots of great reading there.

Personal logo Condotta Supporting Member of TMP01 Feb 2003 10:50 a.m. PST

Ah, history. 9/11 was not over hyped. It can not be. History tells us what can happen, what indeed will happen. We are given chances, and we must heed the warnings. Why should we acquiece to Saddam? Why did the Western powers acquiece to Germany's departure from the League of Nations in 1933? Why did they let Hitler renounce the military clauses of the Versailles Treaty in 1935, reoccupy the demilitarized Rhineland in 1936, affect the Anschluss of Austria and annexation of the Sundtenland in 1938? The roles of the people of the world in applying the criterion of justice and injustice applied then, as they do now. We must learn, or we are doomed to repeat history, and at ever-increasing costs to humankind. We must not be naive; there have always been Hitlers and Saddams who will largely ignore political and peaceful negotiations except to manipulate those who would placate them until they are ready to strike, when it then requires much more sacrifice and cost to overcome. Iraqi leadership has shown it is wholly deficient in cooperation unless there is the threat of power. If we acquiece with wishful thinking about maintaing the status quo, forgetting the earlier and present trasngressions of Saddam, we will be called upon eventually to make the effort to resist in a decisive and tragic manner. It is not too late for peaceful negotiations, but just as in the 1930's, ultimately it will be force that decides the issues with Iraq, not negotiations, one way or the other. This may give you a feeling of deep anxiety that grips your intestines, but unfortunately there are millions lying in graves all across the globe that speak to us about doing nothing...if only we will listen.

Javier Barriopedro aka DokZ01 Feb 2003 10:56 a.m. PST

Let me put it this way...

North Korea got "diplomatic treatment".

Irak is bound to get the full boot up their collective as.

Why?

Perhaps it is beacuse North Korea does have nuclear capacity and "won" a prior war, while Ol' Saddam is just a barking dog with lousy soldiers?

I'm sorry.

I don't buy this bull. Never had, never will.

It's is very unfortunate that the UN is such a useless entity most of the time, but I wish we could empower it more so as to make it useful.

And as a far as a government that ditches the Kyoto pact, had a period of tension because of Taiwan's independence dreams, fought a "war" in Afgahnistan and toppled a ruling elite but accomplished little else --the country is still in turmoil, and Bin Laden is nowhere to be found--, the US agencies pressure on the Veenezuelan front, US dignataries pressing my country's rulers to commit to a war effort even when Mexico has never done after WWII on what we call our "no-intervention principles"...

Yes, I don't like the Bush Administration. Not one bit. But I am not against the United States of America or, most importantly, its people. I lost friends on 9-11, I can claim my been affected by such a cowardly act. But I do not support most Republican policies or politics... As most of the time, these mean "war" on various levels, and aiming at different targets: Covert, overt, economic, legislative... You name it. It's war they bring. And the Bushes are not the best presidents, or the most capable/sensible when making decisions, we known they are prone to belligerance.

I'd say this war, iif it becomes a reality, is something I will regret dearly. Especially for many fine men and women that are likely to die fighting it. Many, in fact, could be the ones with whom I correspond with on a daily basis, via my wargaming groups on yahoo.

I just hope the stupid bastard of Hussein chooses to get his retirement money and go to exile. This way a whole two nations, and a lot of us not directly linked, will be spared much grief.

P.S.: Yes, I like wargames. But these "wars" we are likely to have, I don't. Not in the least bit. I rather recreate past a batlles than tally the results of new ones, really.

All in all, Godspeed to all who are going there. May you return safely to your families and your groups of friends. We'll wait for you to make it back, at the TMP...

BunkerMonkey01 Feb 2003 11:21 a.m. PST

I vote "no" to politcal polls on this page.

BTD UK01 Feb 2003 11:43 a.m. PST

Im with Bunkermonkey, never talk Politics or Religion. This is up there with the "Hey lets have a sculptors poll".

Dean
BTD

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP01 Feb 2003 11:51 a.m. PST

As can be seen by certain posts on this topic, the vistriol has started to flow. I say "no" to the poll. Let's leave this stuff for other sites.
Back to the games.

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP01 Feb 2003 11:52 a.m. PST

"vitriol"

Drat it.

Area2301 Feb 2003 12:07 p.m. PST

"The great error of nearly all studies of war, [...] has been to consider war as an episode in foreign politics, when it is especially an act of internal politics, and the most atrocious of all"
-Simone Weil 'Politics' 1945

unknown member01 Feb 2003 12:35 p.m. PST

I don't think that this forum is the right one for it...But whilst we are about it:
I see no objection to war with Irak but don't see much point to. Saudi Arabia provided the ideology, the leader and the crew members (11 between 15) for the 9/11. It is still distibuting the same ideology in its schools everyday and worldwide through its charities paid by petrol money.
North Corea has enough mass destruction weapons to make Saddam faint from envy.
So, why not kick Saddam out of office? He is generally acting more as a gang leader than a stateman.
But are the priorities really right?

Patrick

Hacksaw01 Feb 2003 12:37 p.m. PST


Unless one wishes to live in a world controlled even more fully by collectivist authoritarian tin-plated dictators, dont bother "empowering" the UN for anything of a military nature. If they want to help feed people, etc, thats fine.

The UN has exactly zero soveriegn authority, and exactly zero authority over any free person anywhere in the world. They dont need to go around pointing guns at people. To do so places them in the category of highwayman or bandit, and they should be treated accordingly. They arent a nation, and to say that they can "democratically vote" for any sort of legal action places the individual person into the status of chattel property. I am no mans property, least of all some leader from a third world (or second, or first) sewer who wont even let his own subjects be free. To blazes with any of them who claim otherwise.

Iraq has WMD, or at least havent shown where all the ones we SAW in 1991-92 went. The responsibility to show proof is not on the US, Britain, the UN, or anyone else besides Iraq. We know he had them, inspectors laid a Mk1 Mod"O" eyeball on them. Where are they now? The Iraqis act like little children with something to hide. Anything they get at this point is their own responsibility.

Iraq is actively firing at US and UK forces in the No-Fly Zones. Last time I checked, if someone initiates aggression they need not be surprised by the response.

Iraq sponsors/has sponsored homicide bombers in Palestine/Israel. Thats state sponsorship of terrorism. Bang Bang.

Iraq invaded the soveriegn territory of another nation, got its wrist severely slapped, and told to do certain things, which they havent done. Since it was the UN doing the telling maybe I cant blame them too much, but I digress.

Now, before anyone places me in the "I love GW" or "bomb em back to the stone age" category, stop before you injure your knee by jerking it into your desk.

The current US government is too intent upon the infringement of individual citizens Constitutional Liberties for me to trust them. They know better, but they do it anyway.

I dont trust anyone else either. The naysayer national leaders from other countries are all collectivist authoritarians (note I dont blame their common citizens/subjects, so spare me your personal attacks). The UN is a problem looking for a solution.

I wish all of them would just leave the rest of us alone. But they wont...so here we are.

I still dont see what any of this has to do with what TMP is all about, but thats just me. Where are my dice.....

Lee Brilleaux Fezian01 Feb 2003 2:34 p.m. PST

I think we have proved conclusively that we should stick to model soldiers.

Of course, we could start a discussion on 'why your mother is so ugly' and see where that takes us. But I won't go there myself --

John Armatys01 Feb 2003 3:29 p.m. PST

I have severe doubts about the value of a poll on a politically controversial topic on TMP, but it has to be up to the Editor.

unknown member01 Feb 2003 4:39 p.m. PST

Jesus, the same old arguments and ill-informed schtick. All governments practise some or all of the things mentioned, but Iraq and others are less covert. TMP is about MINIATURES, hence the title of the page! If you need to discuss the war on Iraq or whether GW Bush is an idiot, or TOny Blair a kiss-ass or whatever, go discuss it somewhere else and save the bandwidth. If you want to talk abouit IRaq, here, a better poll would be: Should someone be making miniatures of the war?
As an example, a Bush standing on corpse of grinning Saddam model would probably sell loads to the usa, separate heads would allow the positions to be reversed in the name of fairness... Comes with grovelling Blair sidekick model and free sense of Irony.
Don't bother to slag me off, my fine upstanding musclehead types. I'm not interested in your opinions, but I fully support your right to them.
As a sidenote, if you're going to discuss the pro's/con's of the war vs iraq on TMP, you had better also discuss the pro's/con's of vegetarianism, assisted suicide, the situation in zimbabwe (millions of political opponents being starved to death) and cloning. All just as relevant to the world of miniatures gaming.
Happy New Year, let's all kill each other.
Jim

Pages: 1 2