Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 36 Posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1006 times:
Tabloid or not, the Sun is the UK 's best selling newspaper. While I do not always value it's opinions, quality or page three girls (ok sometimes I do...), it is considered an accurate voice of the British working class. Here are some segments from an article published yesterday
The good fight
THE world stands at a pivotal point in its history.
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney made this brilliantly clear in New York yesterday.
The forces of evil are gathering against us as we prepare to mark the anniversary of September 11.
Vigilance around the globe has thwarted many terrorist attacks.
But men like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein remain a deadly threat to world peace.
The mood of America should not be underestimated.
It has vowed to fight to preserve the liberty that was handed down by the Founding Fathers.
America will fight not just for itself, and the 9/11 widows we feature here, but for the entire world.
As George W. Bush and Tony Blair meet at Camp David today they shoulder a heavy burden.
Those who do not back their resolve to make the world safe are misguided for two reasons.
The argument goes that attacking Saddam will turn the Arab world against the West.
But as a powerful editorial in The Economist points out, much of the Arab world already loathes the West for supporting Israel.
By deposing Saddam and seeking peace in the Middle East, we can forge a stable new order.
The other point that is overlooked is that we are at war with Iraq already and have been for more than a decade.
This year alone, U.S. and British bombers have made 35 major raids on Iraqi military sites, all of them sanctioned by the United Nations — and not a soul protests.
Mr Cheney yesterday set out his country’s destiny in simple, powerful terms: To protect all humanity and preserve freedom.
We applaud him.
America, there are many that support your cause, not all in the UK, telegraph, SAS23 etc are against you
Ryanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3221 posts, RR: 16 Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 958 times:
At the end of the day the UK WILL support the US - we would just prefer it if a little more world support was gained.
By the way, you must be mistaken of you believe the Telegraph is against the US or a war on Iraq. The Telegraph would be the most pro-Bush newspaper in the UK - it is the newspaper of the Conservative right-wing. Maybe you are confusing it with the Guardian which is a pile of leftist cr*p usually read by students before they get to understand what the real world is! I wouldn't use the Guardian to wipe my a*s!
I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
Go Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 953 times:
Ryan, i can see were people get this view of the torygraph(telegraph) from, its because a certain user who shall remain nameless keeps posting polls from the newspaper saying the majority in the uk dont support war on iraq. What i have always said is that the torygraph takes great delight in attacking tony blair through any route possible.
An recent aol poll of uk users had a majority supporting war on iraq as did a sky news active poll.
the two anti-war papers are likely to be that repubilican, anti-estabilishment, anti-american, anti-israeli, anti-conservative, anti-goverment,anti-war on terror,'liberal' rag otherwsie known as the guardian. The other will be the daily mirror, most of readers will support a war but the mirror is trying to become a respected newspaper(as if!) so its taken to hiring anyone it can find to write articles for it.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12968 posts, RR: 79 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 934 times:
Actually though The Guardian is skeptical about an Iraqi attack, (though generally supportive of the war on terror), it prints plenty of articles by writers in favour of deposing Saddam.
However, today's leader in it's Sunday sister paper, The Observer, seems to be tilting towards attacking Iraq-with UN support.
That's what a good paper does, present different points oF view, it's supposed to be what a free press does.
Murdoch, who owns The Sun, also owns Fox News, apparently when Bush recently stated that Iraq 'had been 6 months away from having an atomic weapon' (meaning at the time of the Gulf War-everyone reckons it was 2 years away then but never mind), Fox flashed up on the screen 'Iraq 6 months from having the bomb!' clearly implying that it was 6 months from now, which no serious commentator or military expert agrees with.
Murdoch-a modern day 'Citizen Kane'?
Ryanb741 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 3221 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 915 times:
I understand now Artsyman - but the truth of the matter is that SAS23 would manipulate official Likud statements to make them seem anti-Israeli!
Personally, aspects of Israeli policies I am against, but manipulating articles for your own means is childish (are you listening SAS23).
However, be assured of this - in your hour of need we Brits will be 110% the USA. Friends stick together through thick and thin and the USA will NEVER get any of the rhetoric statements of 'support' that other EU members pledge. At the end of the day we Brits are behind you all the way, regardless of what some silly newspaper polls say.
I used to think the brain is the most fascinating part of my body. But, hey, who is telling me that?
RogueTrader From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 884 times:
It is great that you are strong enough to support a friend regardless of whether it is the unpopular view. As you suggest, I think Britain and eventually the rest of America's friends will come around to support America's views - Denmark and the Netherlands already have. (OK - so the Danish navy hasn't won a battle since ?forever?, its the moral support that counts.)
What is truly bothersome to Americans is that some support the continuing criminal regime of Saddam - its completely unfathomable to me. Anyone that suggests that refusing weapons inspectors is no justification for military action is a Saddam supporter.
Its like the lessons of history have never been learned. Furthermore, hiding behind 'international law' or suggesting UN approval is required is plainly disingenuous. People who suggest this don't care about international law in and of itself, they use it as a tool to promote or reject agendas they seek for other, most likely economic, reasons. The people who say that the UN should decide whether or not Iraq should be invaded are simply people who don't want Iraq invaded - they have no respect for the UN or concern about the Iraqi people, they will just suggest whatever they can to avoid toppling Saddam.
Their lack of respect for the UN is proven by the fact that they have no problem with Saddam violating UN resolutions and breaking international law. Because it seems sure that the UN Security Council would veto an invasion - they say the UN must be consulted; however, if the UN were sure to advocate invasion, these same people would be telling us that the UN is worthless and irrelevant. They seek to use the UN in yet another attempt in their never ending quest to have some non-American control over US policy.
Finally, no modern American president has taken the country to war without a very clear smoking gun. The country would not stand for it. I can't say for sure, but I feel that the UK is probably the same way. In this light, I am sure Bush and Blair will reveal a damning package of evidence against Saddam when the time is right for their many political/international/personal agendas. Blair knows that committing Britain to America's side would be a disaster politically if the evidence is weak - thus we have to assume that the evidence is strong.
After all the arguing, it really doesn't matter - we're just talking political niceties at this point. The US could invade Iraq, establish a democracy and leave it at that and the whole world would just forget about it or pretend they wanted Saddam out all along. I'm afraid the arguments of many on this thread have brought me over to the side that believes it really doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks - unless one is willing and able to act on their words, their words are irrelevant.
This will end - and Saddam will either allow full inspection access or will be out of power. That's all there is to it and everyone is free to pick the side they are and will be on, I'm sure the UK will chose correctly.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 879 times:
I think Tony Blair....who, when he was opposition leader posed across from John Major at Questiontime came across as a nerdish yuppie, has returned the UK's credibility and standing as an unquestioned world power to its' higest point since the end of World War II. The man is standing for something right.... in the best Churchillian sense. A battle against evil. And he's not backing down, even in the face of public pressure. Would that all politicians learn that tactic.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12968 posts, RR: 79 Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 872 times:
What ever you think of Blair's stance, and most generally approve of his support for the War On Terror, he's sincere, deadly serious, no spin.
Apparently he's been very concerned about Saddam since becoming PM, an aide in a recent programme about British PM's relationships with US Presidents since WW2 reckons he was deeply shocked at a report he read about Iraq in November 1997 .
There was no question of his support for the 'Desert Fox' airstrikes on Iraq in 1998.
The Trade Unions don't like it, nor left wingers in his own party, but he didn't get where he is by ever listening to them.
How all this affects his permiership will depend on what happens in Iraq, and the region.
For a 'control freak', he's certainly putting his future out of his own control.
RogueTrader From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 843 times:
70% of the Dutch population support[ed] UN-backed military action in Iraq, the highest percentage in Europe.
---Het Financieele Dagblad (English) September 6, 2002
An opinion poll of 6,001 people in six European countries, conducted in June and published yesterday, found 60 per cent approval for a military strike on Iraq if it had UN backing.
---The Independent (London), September 5, 2002
So, the only issue seems to be whether or not a military strike has UN support. Put another way, the task for Blair and Bush is to show that a military attack is already justified under UN resolutions - perhaps by pointing out that there has never been an accepted cease fire from the Gulf War and that allied forces continue to take military action in Iraq almost daily. Kuwait and the West are still at war with Iraq, a cease fire was never accepted.
In any event, it is somewhat gratifying that the majority of Europeans support an attack on Iraq- they just want a peace of paper issued by the UN saying its ok. I think this is a formality that will be easily overcome.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12968 posts, RR: 79 Reply 14, posted (11 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 853 times:
The UK people who will really need balls will be the service personnel involved.
I expect some special forces, like the SAS/SBS, and possibly the airborne brigade forward air controllers and recce platoons, are probably in theatre now.
Of course we are in action in Iraq already, very often, in the shape of the RAF
If a UN mandate can be secured, then support will rise.