Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by politixx)
    if you don't condone them then surely you would support an invasion of the USA? No? Then you are a hypocrite.
    No. I don't condone the use of nuclear weapons, that doesn't mean I believe we should invade any country who has used them offensively.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by politixx)
    Exported to Syria? That means Syria is now a nuclear state and is untouchable... so why are people so why are we and France so keen to start funding the rebels there?
    Because we are stupid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    No. I don't condone the use of nuclear weapons, that doesn't mean I believe we should invade any country who has used them offensively.
    You don't believe we should invade countries that have used nuclear weapons, but you do believe we should invade ones that have used chemical weapons like Iraq?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    old news?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by politixx)
    You don't believe we should invade countries that have used nuclear weapons, but you do believe we should invade ones that have used chemical weapons like Iraq?
    In Iraq, Saddam burned schools, hospitals, villages etc., deliberately targeting civilians in an attempt to eradicate the Kurds in his own country.

    I don't condone the use of nuclear weapons, including their use by the USA 70 years ago. If they did not, I think those who orchestrated the bombing should stand trial. We brought Saddam to trial, however, the decision to hang him was, regrettable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    I don't condone the use of nuclear weapons, including their use by the USA 70 years ago. If they did not, I think those who orchestrated the bombing should stand trial. We brought Saddam to trial, however, the decision to hang him was, regrettable.
    Whether or not you like this fact they probably saved lives by dropping those bombs.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norton1)
    Whether or not you like this fact they probably saved lives by dropping those bombs.
    They probably did, they also killed a lot of civilians, which in my opinion, means they should stand trial to determine whether or not that course of action was justifiable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    They probably did, they also killed a lot of civilians, which in my opinion, means they should stand trial to determine whether or not that course of action was justifiable.
    That was the way that war was fought, it was total war. You can't fight a war like that in the shadow of prosecution.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norton1)
    That was the way that war was fought, it was total war. You can't fight a war like that in the shadow of prosecution.
    War does not justify the slaughter of civilians.

    If civilians are killed on such a massive scale, such as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there should be an investigation into whether or not that action was justifiable.

    You can and must fight war in the shadow of prosecution, war is no excuse to commit immoral or unjustifiable acts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is a good thing the regime in Washington did. peace is for women and the weak, empires are forged by war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As an Iraqi, the majority of us despise Saddam Hussein (he´s the reason I don´t live in Iraq) and were very happy when he was excecuted.
    But the idea that the US attacked Iraq because Saddam had WMD´s is bull****. The Americans very well knew that Iraq didn´t have any WMD´s, and it was supported by various reports from the CIA which Bush completely ignored.
    Also the idea that Iraq were responsible for 9/11 is also pure bull****, so it wasn´t to combat international terrorism either.
    The reason the US invaded Iraq was to gain strategic control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market.
    This because in September 2000 the idiot Saddam decided that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency making the dollar weaker in comparison to the euro. (In mid-2003 the euro was valued approx. 13% higher than the dollar)

    The reason is money and always has been.

    As a result of the war more than a million Iraqis have died and every day there is a car bombing in which at least 20 innocent people are killed.
    We might be a more democratic country now than before but in terms of the amount of people dying today it´s still worse than before.
    Hopefully one day we will have absolute control of our country.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    Rubbish. Suggesting Saddam possessed these weapons was a perfectly plausible hypothesis given his dodging of inspections, his previous programmes, etc. Anyone who has taken the time to consider the circumstances and the nature of the Iraqi regime will shun this ridiculous "they lied about the whole thing" hypothesis.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halab...k#mw-mf-search
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    War does not justify the slaughter of civilians.

    If civilians are killed on such a massive scale, such as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there should be an investigation into whether or not that action was justifiable.

    You can and must fight war in the shadow of prosecution, war is no excuse to commit immoral or unjustifiable acts.

    I really do wish people wouldn't bang on about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What was the problem?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shwareb)
    As an Iraqi, the majority of us despise Saddam Hussein (he´s the reason I don´t live in Iraq) and were very happy when he was excecuted.
    But the idea that the US attacked Iraq because Saddam had WMD´s is bull****. The Americans very well knew that Iraq didn´t have any WMD´s, and it was supported by various reports from the CIA which Bush completely ignored.
    Also the idea that Iraq were responsible for 9/11 is also pure bull****, so it wasn´t to combat international terrorism either.
    The reason the US invaded Iraq was to gain strategic control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market.
    This because in September 2000 the idiot Saddam decided that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency making the dollar weaker in comparison to the euro. (In mid-2003 the euro was valued approx. 13% higher than the dollar)

    The reason is money and always has been.

    As a result of the war more than a million Iraqis have died and every day there is a car bombing in which at least 20 innocent people are killed.
    We might be a more democratic country now than before but in terms of the amount of people dying today it´s still worse than before.
    Hopefully one day we will have absolute control of our country.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halab...k#mw-mf-search
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by politixx)
    Exported to Syria? That means Syria is now a nuclear state and is untouchable... so why are people so why are we and France so keen to start funding the rebels there?
    Well if they stand but doing nothing at all, and the rebels end up getting into power, I highly doubt the new government will be very western friendly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    And that is why the no fly zone was eventually put in place.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    I really do wish people wouldn't bang on about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What was the problem?
    You'll see we were talking about the issue yesterday regarding whether or not 'war should be thought in the shadow of prosecution'. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an interesting example of this, and so it is fitting to "bang on about" them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    So let me get this straight, the government lied to you about an entire war. Then whisle blowers turn around talking about reports that 'suggest' Iraq had no WMDs and you are going to take that without a pinch of salt?

    Why are you so keen to believe a government that has supposedly lied to you?

    A book by a General in the Iraqi Air Force claimed the weapons had been exported. Why not believe him? The book is 'Saddam's Secrets'.
    I remember watching a documentary on this not long ago, the guy admitted that he lied. I will try to find it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RealRecReal)
    I remember watching a documentary on this not long ago, the guy admitted that he lied. I will try to find it.
    fair enough...i didn't know that. Regardless, it is still a possibility that they were exported.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Halabja poisoning attack occured in 1988, a time when Saddam had a large stock of chemical weapons. However, by 2003, the amount he had was far less (due to it being destroyed after the first Gulf War) and out-of date, and would hence only cause minor damages if any to the people...

    Also I don't think you can attack a country because it has a small stock of chemical weapons (even if they are fully "functional"). Many countries possess chemical weapons (far greater amounts than what Saddam had) but they were never attacked.
    Also Saddam was never a threat to the US, even if Bush, Rice and Powel desperately tried to portray such a picture to convince the Congress to let them go to war.

    Needless to say I was very happy that the scum was brought down, but I would have wished that we the Iraqis alone would´ve brought him down ourself
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.