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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anonstudent1, you have my full support. I agree with you :five:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonstudent1)
    The insurgents believe they are fighting from freedom from the U.S and thats what gives them support. I'm not saying they are right, I am just saying its America who have created the situation.

    No my argument is that we were told we were going in because of the threat of WMD's. If we were told the main reason we were going in is because we feel we need to put another dictator or puppet government in charge, I doubt they would have received popular support.

    My argument is that I don't believe we invaded because we feared Sadaam would hit the U.K or the U.S with WMD's.

    My other point is that we wouldn't have invaded if our main reason was to change regimes. You are trying to paint the U.K and the U.S as the force of good around the world. I am saying they are the ones who caused the dictator Sadaam to come to power and others around the world, to protect their interests. The rights and protection of these citizens is the last thing on their mind.
    I believe they are responsible for the deaths that later occurred and that any good that may come from this is incidental to the U.S and the U.K.
    Essentially, your morally relativistic argument boils down to let's blame the USA for all deaths, even the ones that the anti-American extremists did. Your desire to shift blame away from the mass murderers of the insurgency and onto US forces - the same forces who spent years fighting that insurgency - is deplorable, and tells me everything about you and your absurd views on this issue. You've misrepresented my argument time and time again, refuse to acknowledge that burden of proof is a more difficult concept than you think, refuse to see the obvious and well proven ties between Saddam and terrorist groups (even going so far as to say that they held opposite views - laughable; I suppose next you'll be telling me that Saddam was a secularist!), and have some incredibly strange views on the danger that Saddam's regime actually posed to the region. You seem to think that even if he did develop weapons then he wouldn't be a danger until the moment that one of them struck London or DC. Absurd.

    By the way, the defensive Israeli strike on a confirmed nuclear reactor in 1981 does not count, especially considering that what you try and portray as Saddam's "retaliation" came a good decade later and involved targeting civilian areas in Israel with biological weapons. Not quite the same thing buddy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    Essentially, your morally relativistic argument boils down to let's blame the USA for all deaths, even the ones that the anti-American extremists did. Your desire to shift blame away from the mass murderers of the insurgency and onto US forces - the same forces who spent years fighting that insurgency - is deplorable, and tells me everything about you and your absurd views on this issue.
    Ive told you (repeatedly) what my argument is. That I don't think we went into Iraq because we feared the U.K and the U.S were at threat from WMD from Iraq. I also don't believe that we working to change regime as part of a humanitarian project to remove evil dictators. I believe our intervention which was down to securing our foreign interests, has caused instability which has allowed insurgents and militant extremists to come to the fore. I therefore hold the U.S and the U.K responsible for the deaths. I am not saying the insurgents are not also responsible for their crimes.
    Saying I have misrepresented your arguments is therefore completely hypocritical.

    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    You've misrepresented my argument time and time again, refuse to acknowledge that burden of proof is a more difficult concept than you think, refuse to see the obvious and well proven ties between Saddam and terrorist groups (even going so far as to say that they held opposite views - laughable; I suppose next you'll be telling me that Saddam was a secularist!), and have some incredibly strange views on the danger that Saddam's regime actually posed to the region. You seem to think that even if he did develop weapons then he wouldn't be a danger until the moment that one of them struck London or DC. Absurd.
    I'm saying there clearly wasn't enough evidence to invade Iraq on the threat of WMD's. You're pointing to intelligence reports, when there was a ton of evidence to say Sadaam had no WMD's. Im saying we shouldn't invade countries unless we are sure we face a realistic threat of attack. You've again produced a paragraph of waffle and again tried to put words in my mouth.
    I have said Sadaam had minimal links with Al Qaeda, which the CIA and other intelligence agencies have reported. I also agreed he had links to Palestinain terrorist groups and have explained why that did not make him a direct threat to the U.K or even the U.S
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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