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

Why hasn't Geroge Bush or Tony Blair been executed for crimes against humanity? Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Worry not. God has greater punishment in store for them.
    And when he does punish them, He will be in gross violation of the European Convention of Human Rights, in fact every human right there is. Burning the skin to repeated castrations ( i hope) etc etc.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hash007)
    If Hussein was so bad, why did America supply him with money and weapons for the war against Kuwait?
    They supplied him against Iran, not specifically for Kuwait.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    And these nuclear weapons have been found and President Bush did not admit that there were no WMDs in Iraq right?

    How do you plan on invading Iraq which is alleged to have WMDs? You realise that there would be disastrous consequences, right? Namely the fact that Israel and its entire population would be wiped off the face of the earth.

    You see what I did there? The only difference being that this didn't seem to deter the US when they invaded Iraq.

    Resorting to insults again, not the best debater are you?
    Enriched uranium was found, scud missiles were found and biological and chemical weapons were found, which further shows Saddam's complete and utter disregard for the UN resolutions.

    I don't think anyone seriously believed that Iraq had WMDs, the problem with Iraq was that if given time and left alone it would've been capable of developing one; after all, Saddam tried in the 80s but Israel destroyed it. It was only a matter of time before he tried again.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Enriched uranium was found, scud missiles were found and biological and chemical weapons were found, which further shows Saddam's complete and utter disregard for the UN resolutions.

    I don't think anyone seriously believed that Iraq had WMDs, the problem with Iraq was that if given time and left alone it would've been capable of developing one; after all, Saddam tried in the 80s but Israel destroyed it. It was only a matter of time before he tried again.

    But this is not a problem which is exclusive to Iraq. Any dictator will try to maximise their security by trying to get hold of WMDs. North Korea was able to do this and it looks like Iran is going the same way.

    Why was Iraq more of a threat than any other authoritarian regime?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    But this is not a problem which is exclusive to Iraq. Any dictator will try to maximise their security by trying to get hold of WMDs. North Korea was able to do this and it looks like Iran is going the same way.

    Why was Iraq more of a threat than any other authoritarian regime?
    North Korea was able to because of its ally, China, which is a nuclear armed state. Furthermore, China has it on a tight leash, hence why it did not respond to South Korea's drill today.

    Iran will not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. Just ask Netanyahu what he thinks of a nuclear Iran.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    North Korea was able to because of its ally, China, which is a nuclear armed state. Furthermore, China has it on a tight leash, hence why it did not respond to South Korea's drill today.

    Iran will not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. Just ask Netanyahu what he thinks of a nuclear Iran.
    Yes I agree that North Korea's relationship with China is a major obstacle to serious action.

    However, why would your argument against Iran's acquisition of a bomb not apply to Iraq? Unless you believe military action against Iran is also inevitable?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tw68)
    Yes I agree that North Korea's relationship with China is a major obstacle to serious action.

    However, why would your argument against Iran's acquisition of a bomb not apply to Iraq? Unless you believe military action against Iran is also inevitable?
    It is the obstacle; an obstacle which we cannot surpass unless China distances itself from the rogue state.

    Of course action - be it military or diplomatic - against Iran is inevitable.

    Israel has already shown the world that it will not allow another state in the Middle East to acquire a nuclear weapon. Libya and Iraq now no longer pose a threat and Iran will be silenced before it acquires a nuclear weapon.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleangel9914)
    yeah but i don't get why countries such as the UK and US can have nuclear weapons but not others isn't it normal for a contry to want to develop nuclear weapons so it has a hope of defending itself if a powerful country like the US was to start a war with it
    If they want other countries to stop developing nuclears weapons shouldn't they destroy their own first
    You don't need nuclear weapons, and will never be invaded by the West, if you respect your citizens.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    You don't need nuclear weapons, and will never be invaded by the West, if you respect your citizens.
    yeah you keep telling yourself that face it the west are hypocrites that want to control the world not the other way around
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleangel9914)
    yeah you keep telling yourself that face it the west are hypocrites that want to control the world not the other way around
    Sure, there are exceptions to what I've just said such as Iran in '53, however, that was almost 60 years ago; don't you think a lot has changed since then?

    The U.S. no longer invades democratic, human rights-respecting countries; instead it pursues the rogue states, namely North Korea, Iran etc. And rightly so, these regimes should not be allowed to exist.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Sure, there are exceptions to what I've just said such as Iran in '53, however, that was almost 60 years ago; don't you think a lot has changed since then?

    The U.S. no longer invades democratic, human rights-respecting countries; instead it pursues the rogue states, namely North Korea, Iran etc. And rightly so, these regimes should not be allowed to exist.
    yet the US starts wars that kill the very civillians they claim they are protecting (iraq)
    Also aqain i know it was a while ago but before WW2 started countries such as the US knew exactly what was happening to the jews yet they did nothing They only declared war on germany because they thought hitler was becoming to powerful and when pearl harbour was bombed they realised it would effect them thats what i call selfless
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleangel9914)
    yet the US starts wars that kill the very civillians they claim they are protecting (iraq)
    Also aqain i know it was a while ago but before WW2 started countries such as the US knew exactly what was happening to the jews yet they did nothing They only declared war on germany because they thought hitler was becoming to powerful and when pearl harbour was bombed they realised it would effect them thats what i call selfless
    The U.S. intervened in Iraq in order to put an end to the madness that was Saddam Hussein; Bush didn't intervene simply to kill a few Iraqis and the vast majority of Iraqi deaths were/are due to sectarian violence, advocated by a group of Bronze Age ideals-supporting Islamofascist thugs.

    No country declared war on Germany because of its maltreatment of the Jews, surely Britain, France, the Soviet Union, Argentina and Cuba should all receive the same lambasting, no?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    They supplied him against Iran, not specifically for Kuwait.
    You keep speaking of Saddams mistreatment of Iranians, now you're saying America supplied him to do this?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hash007)
    You keep speaking of Saddams mistreatment of Iranians, now you're saying America supplied him to do this?
    Of course they did, the U.S. supplied Saddam against the Khomeini because of his involvement in overthrowing the Shah. The British did exactly the same thing, as did the French. However, whilst U.S. administrations and British cabinets changed, Saddam didn't and this is the fundamental difference.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Whether Bush and Blair invaded Iraq due to Saddam's maltreatment of the Iraqi people; his war against Iran; his invasion of Kuwait; his attempt to commit genocide against the Kurds; or the nuclear threat he posed is irrelevant due to the outcome, which remains exactly the same.
    It's not really irrelevant if the invasion in 2003 was launched under false pretenses.

    I accept that leaders should not lie but at the end of the day, Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated and that's all that matters.
    It's good that they have been liberated from how they were ruled before, however that isn't all that matters.

    Afghanistan is a ****hole and nuking it wouldn't make much of a difference, but I agree, removing the Taliban and ensuring that it was no longer a breeding ground for terrorism - at least not to the same extent is was prior to 9/11 - is an achievement.
    True.
    However now that the taliban no longer rule all the major faults in the workings of the country come to light. The poverty, the crime, and most certainly the corruption. This is something that will take generations to fix.

    By invading in 2001, a can of worms has been opened.


    (Original post by hash007)
    America still have the death penalty?
    Um yes they do in some states, and you point is?.....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can't say i am an over huge fan of either, but at the sametime someone who strongly supports them could say that against David cameron or cleg over something... so its a bit of a questionable subject. Also execution is illegal in the Uk anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)

    Um yes they do in some states, and you point is?.....
    Someone was asking where they would be executed in the western world if it was to happen. I said America because they still have the death penalty.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 21, 2010
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.