Is it not interesting to look at events in Iraq over the last few years and note that the governments and journalists use the term "war"?

Using a historical context, I generally assume war to mean one of two things. Either a nation defending itself from attack, or a nation attacking another for material gain of some sort. In either event, the aim of the soldiers who fight in that war is to kill any combatants they find who support the other side.

I don't recall any historical "wars" where the intention was to spend a lot of money to take over a nation and them immediately give everything back to the people you've just beaten ...

I mean, for kick off, going to war costs a lot of money (and lives), so how come we spent many billions of pounds going to war and then, after winning, walked away without trying to recoup at least some of that expense?

As a Tax payer I'm a little pissed of about this.

If I were a soldier, an injured soldier or a soldier's widow, I'd be wanting to know why we weren't extracting compensation for those involved before walking away .. instead of some of the things I hear about the way the armed forces are treated. Whatever happened to the quote; "to the winners go the spoils" ?

What is a soldier?

On top of that, you've got to ask .. historically you might consider a soldier to be an aggressive character, trained to fight wars and kill people.

If this is not true, technically we may have a problem in the event of a war.

If it is true, then why are we using people who are so trained as a "peace keeping" force?

Maybe we should be using an International Police force instead of the army, that is of course if we just want to sent our people across to be target practice for terrorists.

But they have rights!

You can't fight a war against people and give them rights at the same time, unless of course those people as a nation accept those rights and provide a mutual agreement that they will give you those same rights.

The Geneva convention for example, because that's worked so well in the past .. at least when the parties concerned have felt like following the rules.

So ...

If the British government are going to fight a war, then fight the sodding war!

If they're going to fight Iraq, then do it. If they're going to pussyfoot around and effectively lead our soldier through mine fields and in front of Iraqi firing squads then (a) they should get the hell out and (b) the people responsible should be sent in the place.

Let's have Tony wandering around Basra with a machine gun and we'll see how good an idea he things going to "war" was.

Did you support the War?

Initially, yes.

It was said Saddam had Nukes and Bio's, taking them off him seemed to be sensible.

The advert was "war" and not "peacekeeping" aka not paying to get your asses shot off.

If you buy a beer, take it home, open it and start drinking it .. then discover the contents are not what's shown on the tin .. say it's vinegar instead of beer, do you;

• Keep drinking it because you've paid for it
• Pour it down the sink and throw the can in the bin
• Take it back to the off-license and demand a refund
• Take it back to the off-license and stuff it down the owners throat

??

Anyway, it seems like we're drinking vinegar.

I have this strange feeling that Tony and his cronies should be drinking it instead!