The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

jacketpotato
An excellent post.

One can make the argument that British troops are supposed to serve British interests, and that Iraq is in a bit of a state at the moment, but I think in the long-term Iraq will be better off as a result of this war. If I am right, I most definitely think the Iraq war was justified, even if Britain loses out. Hopefully Iraq can now move towards a stable democracy, it certainly wasn't going anywhere with Saddam. History's judgment of the Iraq war will likely depend on how Iraq fares over the next 20 or so years.


So basically your own country can go to the dogs but heaven forbid if Iraq, a country inhabited by a people not worth the life of a single British soldier who burn British troops in mobs, doesn't prosper.
Grim_the_Reaper
So basically your own country can go to the dogs but heaven forbid if Iraq, a country inhabited by a people not worth the life of a single British soldier who burn British troops in mobs, doesn't prosper.


And so the racism inherent in a large chunk of the anti-war brigade becomes apparent. :eek3:
UniOfLife
As I said in my last post this is an ideological divide. On the one hand we have those who think that human rights and freedom are universal and that it is the responsibility of all who can to ensure that everyone has these freedoms and rights. On the other we have those who think that human rights are fine in principle but that it isn't our problem if there are people in other parts of the world living under horrible dictatorships.


It's called idealism and realism. We'd all like everyone to be free but in practice it's just not possible, and even if it is the leaders of free nations only spread freedom when it suits them.

We may have spread freedom to Iraq but we have no problem supporting a brutal dictatorship in Uzbekistan.

http://news.scotsman.com/uzbekistan/UK-government-under-fire-over.2638502.jp
UniOfLife
And so the racism inherent in a large chunk of the anti-war brigade becomes apparent. :eek3:


If it's racist to tell it like it is then that's fine by me.
First off Grim, it is completely nonsensical to oppose the spreading of freedom to one place because those in charge won't spread it everywhere.

Second, if you're happy being a racist, good for you. But let's not pretend that the opposition to the spread of democracy is based on anything other than selfish desires often based on racist notions either that "they" aren't worth it or that "they" aren't "ready" or "designed" for democracy.
UniOfLife
Second, if you're happy being a racist, good for you. But let's not pretend that the opposition to the spread of democracy is based on anything other than selfish desires often based on racist notions either that "they" aren't worth it or that "they" aren't "ready" or "designed" for democracy.


Fine, but let's also not pretend that the support for the spread of democracy is based on anything other selfish desires to satisfy your own ego. You don't care how many brave British troops die, or how much our own country degenerates. As long you get your ego boost you're happy.
Grim_the_Reaper
Fine, but let's also not pretend that the support for the spread of democracy is based on anything other selfish desires to satisfy your own ego. You don't care how many brave British troops die, or how much our own country degenerates. As long you get your ego boost you're happy.


That's novel. How exactly do I get an ego boost by supporting the spread of democracy and freedom?

Methinks you're clutching at straws.
UniOfLife
That's novel. How exactly do I get an ego boost by supporting the spread of democracy and freedom?

Methinks you're clutching at straws.


You seem to prioritise another's country's interests over your own. This suggests you care far more about this vanity project in Iraq than your own countrymen.
Grim_the_Reaper
You seem to prioritise another's country's interests over your own. This suggests you care far more about this vanity project in Iraq than your own countrymen.


Yeah, you're spouting nonsense.
As right/wrong as providing the same fate to british and american citizens as iraqis suffered/are suffering.
UniOfLife
Yeah, you're spouting nonsense.


Think whatever you like, I'm proud to be concerned about my country's interests first and foremost.
The reason for the invasion is that

'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.' - Rebuilding Americas Defences - PNAC.

There are also the memos detailing how to manufacture a pretext to invade.

How do those who still cite Saddams removal as the reason to invade square this with western intelligence helping him into power in the first place?
UniOfLife
To all those banging on about how bad it was, a simple question:

Are you going to tell the Iraqi people they ought to still be living in fear of Saddam?


Are you going to tell the Iraqi people who died, injured severely, lost their homes, relatives and jobs, basically their entire lifestyles that they ought to welcome all the bombs, killings, murder and torture (including in abu Ghraib - this is just one of many incidents that actually managed to be leaked) that they are 'free'?
Grim_the_Reaper

Right so all those who oppose the war are Saddam supporters? Great argument. We don't hear you lot pressuring to get Mugabe or Kim Jong-il removed. I take you support these dictators?


How much oil deposits do they have control over?
maths-enthusiast
Are you going to tell the Iraqi people who died, injured severely, lost their homes, relatives and jobs, basically their entire lifestyles that they ought to welcome all the bombs, killings, murder and torture (including in abu Ghraib - this is just one of many incidents that actually managed to be leaked) that they are 'free'?


I do not support the murder or torture, so no. But I would tell the people who lost their loved ones in the initial invasion that the invasion was the right thing to do because it removed Saddam from power.

Will you tell all those who voted in the recent poll that they shouldn't have that right and should go back to living under a brutal dictatorship of fear and torture?
UniOfLife
I do not support the murder or torture, so no. But I would tell the people who lost their loved ones in the initial invasion that the invasion was the right thing to do because it removed Saddam from power.

Will you tell all those who voted in the recent poll that they shouldn't have that right and should go back to living under a brutal dictatorship of fear and torture?


Enough said.
In other words, in your view no one may do anything if it results in someone's death. Glad you don't run things - only those who don't care about rules and law would be allowed to use force and so we'd all end up under the boot of dictators and thugs.
Where did your conclusion come from?
maths-enthusiast
Where did your conclusion come from?


OK, slowly and step by step.

1) You highlight my statement and reply "enough said".
2) You disagree with me about the war
3) One and Two combine to conclude that you disagree with the statement you put in bold
4) Three leads to the conclusion that you think it wrong to kill people to remove Saddam
5) Assuming you do not actively support brutal and torturous dictatorships
6) Four and Five lead me to conclude that you consider the killing of people to be so bad that nothing can ever justify it
7) Six leads to the conclusion that in your view no one should ever kill
8) Assuming that generally good people keep to the rules and bad people do not
9) Seven ad Eight combine to conclude that if we lived by your rule in which killing of any sort is against the rules only those who were generally bad would kill
10) Nine means that only those who ignore the rules can use force
11) Using force is an effective means to take control especially when unopposed
12) ergo - living under your rules where all killing of any sort is banned only the generally bad use it and use unopposed force to take control we all fall under the control of the generally bad.
UniOfLife
In other words, in your view no one may do anything if it results in someone's death. Glad you don't run things - only those who don't care about rules and law would be allowed to use force and so we'd all end up under the boot of dictators and thugs.


Your view seems to be that we should prance around the world starting wars in a pathetic attempt to pretend that Britain is still a world power, all while problems are abound in Britain.

All the money wasted in Iraq could be used to update our poorly equipped army, give them military hospitals, make sure pensioners don't freeze in their homes and generally help to fix Britain.

Latest

Trending

Trending