When do we get to vote for or against war ?

[Arguendo]

There is far too much money made from warfare to ever allow a general public, duped by notions of 'democracy' to interfere in the proceedings.

 

Couldn’t agree more, whichever conflict you look at there’s always someone or some ‘super power’ behind the scenes making billions, it was only after Thatcher came to power that our debt owed to the USA for its help during WW2, was paid off, during the Falklands conflict, Britain, through the assistance of US arms companies had to purchase every single exocet missile, each one cost an extortionate amount to purchase, the beneficiaries of the profit from these missiles were the middlemen such as the US arms companies, where as France our neighbour couldn’t produce them fast enough, what happened to the missiles post Falklands, all destroyed. Vietnam is another example, US armaments companies were making billions from their own government, the Kennedy’s saw this, they also saw public opinion changing drastically over the US involvement, with the vast amounts of body bags coming home, soldiers killed by opposition forces backed by the USSR .

 

This was about the time many in the US government and worldwide realised the importance of media in swaying, or manipulating the public opinion, people questioned why their government had sent their troops to a country far offshore, a country that had an internal crisis, one which bore no relevance to their lives in America, apart from the paranoia of communism world domination & ideology that worried most high ranking Americans.

[Arguendo]

Did you realise that 50% of people are more stupid than average in this country?

 

And that the average isn't all that impressive either.

 

:loopy:Looks like the intelligent debate/discussion is going out of the window, thanks for your reply to my posts. All the best Cyclone...A:wave:

[Peas Maker]

That's right. Give the option to those that do not really know what is going on behind the scenes.

 

If this ever happened we would be left with press dictating our votes. Show a few dead children - Vote against a war. Show a few beheaded soldiers - Vote for a war.

 

That is about as simple as it gets.

 

I am very against war , an unless you got shares in haliburton I think the common human is against war .

 

I don't think soliders are beheaded untill they are sent into the conflict ,

 

However I do have a open question to any one ,

 

Is alqueda now our ally ? As the Libyan rebels are composed of them and we are bombing on their behalf ,

[CXC3000]

How d'you solve a problem like sharia?

 

 

Solve a problem that's not there ? (unless you've been visiting the BNP/EDL website that is).

[evildrneil]

We live in a democratic society , does the public get a vote about war ? Have they ever had a say in the matter ?

 

And yes we have never been involved in so many different conflicts at any one time ..

 

We live in a representative democracy not a direct one so are say is limited to voting every five years for a subset of devious gits ermmmm politicians to represent us.

[Harleyman]

Couldn’t agree more, whichever conflict you look at there’s always someone or some ‘super power’ behind the scenes making billions, it was only after Thatcher came to power that our debt owed to the USA for its help during WW2, was paid off, during the Falklands conflict, Britain, through the assistance of US arms companies had to purchase every single exocet missile, each one cost an extortionate amount to purchase, the beneficiaries of the profit from these missiles were the middlemen such as the US arms companies, where as France our neighbour couldn’t produce them fast enough, what happened to the missiles post Falklands, all destroyed. Vietnam is another example, US armaments companies were making billions from their own government, the Kennedy’s saw this, they also saw public opinion changing drastically over the US involvement, with the vast amounts of body bags coming home, soldiers killed by opposition forces backed by the USSR .

 

This was about the time many in the US government and worldwide realised the importance of media in swaying, or manipulating the public opinion, people questioned why their government had sent their troops to a country far offshore, a country that had an internal crisis, one which bore no relevance to their lives in America, apart from the paranoia of communism world domination & ideology that worried most high ranking Americans.

 

 

My ! how conveniently you manage to forget history pre-Vietnam.

 

Who declared war on Hitler who had no intention of going to war against England.

Who was it by his speeches and a huge government propoganda machine convinced the Btitish public to endure bombing, food rationing and other acute hardships for five long years to wage wara against Hitler whose sole mission was to kick the Russians out of the Ukraine and provide liebensraum for the German population.

 

How many decades between WW2 and the start of major hostilities in Vietnam?

Ony two in fact. A mere blink of an eyelid in world history.

 

As an old saying goes "there's no one who gets religion more than a reformed hooker"

[HeadingNorth]

Couldn’t agree more, whichever conflict you look at there’s always someone or some ‘super power’ behind the scenes making billions, it was only after Thatcher came to power that our debt owed to the USA for its help during WW2, was paid off

 

Actually it wasn't until about 2006. And the reason for that was, when offered by American presidents from Eisenhower onwards to have that debt written off, the British government has always refused the offer, saying that it was a debt of honour, we owed our freedom to their help and it deserved to be paid.

[Jim Hardie]

My ! how conveniently you manage to forget history pre-Vietnam.

 

Who declared war on Hitler who had no intention of going to war against England.

Who was it by his speeches and a huge government propoganda machine convinced the Btitish public to endure bombing, food rationing and other acute hardships for five long years to wage wara against Hitler whose sole mission was to kick the Russians out of the Ukraine and provide liebensraum for the German population.

 

How many decades between WW2 and the start of major hostilities in Vietnam?

Ony two in fact. A mere blink of an eyelid in world history.

 

As an old saying goes "there's no one who gets religion more than a reformed hooker"

 

Not sure what your point is HM. Neville Chamberlain declared war on Germany after the Munich Agreement of 1938 proved to be worthless. I assume you are referring to Winston Churchill's speeches. So who is the reformed lady of easy virtue?

[Harleyman]

We live in a democratic society , does the public get a vote about war ? Have they ever had a say in the matter ?

 

And yes we have never been involved in so many different conflicts at any one time ..

 

Most of the public cant understand anything beyond the sports pages of the Daily Mirror.

That said should such people have a voice in deciding what decisions should be made in the matter of highly complex world affairs? Or should decisons if it were the right to vote for or against war be left only to the highly educated and the nation's intelligensia?

[Harleyman]

Not sure what your point is HM. Neville Chamberlain declared war on Germany after the Munich Agreement of 1938 proved to be worthless. I assume you are referring to Winston Churchill's speeches. So who is the reformed lady of easy virtue?

 

If the anti-war, anti-American views expressed here were representative of Britain as a whole then that lady would be Britain.

 

Cutting off West Prussia from the rest of Germany to create the Polish Corridor was in hindsight a foolish idea perpetrated by the victorious countries after WW One. Imposing drastic hardships on Germany in the form of war compensation which resulted in chaos and anarchy in that country was the perfect setting for someone like Hitler to come along.

It was all the fault of shortsighted statesman such as LLoyd George and French Premier Foch set on revenge rather than their ability to foresee what the ramifications of their actions would result in later on.

 

Britains involvment in WW One was only because of a treaty with France, (Britains traditional enemy for centuries beforehand). France and Germany had been squabbling neighbours for a few centuries also. There was no need for Britain to get involved in that war but certain British statesmen conjoured up a threat that with the unification of the German states into one and Bismacrk's nationalism in addition to his building a German naval fleet that a united Germany posed some threat to the British empire although history shows no evidence that this was the case. It was just a case of Jerry flexing his new found muscles just as Britain and France had been flexing theirs for a couple of centuries beforehand.

 

This mindset popular amongs French and British statesmen was the start of the belief that Germany was a dangerous rival in the power games going on in Europe at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century and which indirectly led to World War One which of course paved the way for World War Two.