Turn on thread page Beta

Is 'terrorist' the correct and appropriate label for these delusional criminal thugs? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehjonny)
    The aftermath of The Gulf War didn't occur? The tribal and religious antipathies increasingly evident across the M.E. and Persia in particular did not exist before the invasion, or indeed before the Ba'athists?
    The Ba’ath party maintained control over Iraq for over twenty years. There was no pending doom within Iraq’s borders as there is now (lets say within the last ten years). Regarding the Persians, yes there is and always has been conflict and bad blood between Iran and Iraq, but the war did nothing to hinder or suppress this. (US involvement in this conflict is a large reason Hussein eventually became a problem).
    You said the key thing yourself. It was a stable REGIME. I wouldn't extrapolate that to a stable population myself.
    What does the fact that it was a regime have to do with anything? There are a lot of bad regimes out there, there are a lot of bad leaders and militants out there that the US supports. IMO it was because of the regime that peace was maintained, possibly a necessary evil.
    You're right, if we hadn't done in these things wouldn't be happening. Instead Saddam would still be in charge, and whilst far few people would be dying I agree, I think our moral position would actually be worse. Though I don't think this is something we could have avoided ultimately.
    Seriously, I am curious as how our moral position would have been worse. Look at the people we support in say .. Afghanistan, and the People’s Democratic Republic of Congo. They are just as bad as Hussein, yet they receive our aid and our legitimacy. We propped up Hussein because he allowed us to promote our interests in the region and we will continue to prop up leaders like him in the same way.

    Do you think morality really has anything to do with our foreign policy decisions in the middle east?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Play nicely kids. I'm watching this thread.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Sorry, how is my thoroughly explained point about legal and logical causation a "baby personal insult"? That is what I want you to respond to - why you fail to use basic principles of causation in attributing responsibility for things in this case. It is not a case of interpreting information differently - it is a case of you throwing basic logic and law of causation out the window in order to come to a conclusion you like. Then again, compared to your absolute howler about Saddam's Iraq defending minority rights (!!), your other illogical point pales in comparison.
    I will say this one more time. If you want to discuss/debate issues with me, then stick to this issues and not why I fail to respond to them in the way you would like me to.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "In the way I would like you to", meaning, AT ALL.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    Oh, the poor man was mislead? It wasn't really his fault? Oh, my heart bleeds.
    I was taking the piss out of his phrasing, which you seem to have missed. Bush, did not, as a single man, invade anywhere. He is not some tinpot dictator shoving pins into an international map, and despite what you would like to think, he had the support of his government.

    When someone says 'Bush did this/that' I feel compelled to take the piss out of them. He didn't do anything single-handedly, and it is simply a rallying cry for people who didn't care prior to 2003.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    The Ba’ath party maintained control over Iraq for over twenty years. There was no pending doom within Iraq’s borders as there is now (lets say within the last ten years). Regarding the Persians, yes there is and always has been conflict and bad blood between Iran and Iraq, but the war did nothing to hinder or suppress this. (US involvement in this conflict is a large reason Hussein eventually became a problem). What does the fact that it was a regime have to do with anything? There are a lot of bad regimes out there, there are a lot of bad leaders and militants out there that the US supports. IMO it was because of the regime that peace was maintained, possibly a necessary evil. Seriously, I am curious as how our moral position would have been worse. Look at the people we support in say .. Afghanistan, and the People’s Democratic Republic of Congo. They are just as bad as Hussein, yet they receive our aid and our legitimacy. We propped up Hussein because he allowed us to promote our interests in the region and we will continue to prop up leaders like him in the same way.

    Do you think morality really has anything to do with our foreign policy decisions in the middle east?
    Your ideas surrounding international relations are extremely naive. We do what is best for us, not what is nicest for them. That is how it should be, and how it always will be. I don't believe in unilateral unreciprocated altruism when it comes to foreign policy, unlike most on TSR it seems.

    Again, I will re-use an excellent point that JonH made earlier. Why should our foreign policy be acceptable to maniacal religious zealots? Why should this be more important that said foreign policy serving our needs?

    For the record I don't think the war did serve our needs, but in general in the M.E. we have done what we considered in our best interests, I don't see anything wrong with that.

    I ask, why are you still complaining about this? Do something about it, or stop and find a contemporary topic. Because Kondar, crying 'troops out of Iraq' isn't going to do anything, and even if they did pull out, it wouldn't be any better.

    This is what annoys me, the choosing of your evils. Yes, we've done wrong, so has every country on this planet pretty much. Yet it is only the UK/US that are constantly held accountable for the entirety of the worlds evils (wrongly). If we did this to other countries, I imagine it would be 'racist'...

    It was the left that called for Saddam's removal. Now it has been done, but oh, it wasn't done 'nicely' so you will continue to complain. Get it into your skull, removals of 20yrs powerful tyrants do not go down 'nicely', and it was you that wanted it originally. What did you think was gonna happen, send him some choccies with a note saying 'Saddam, please stand down'. Naivety again and again.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    Do me a favor and actually say something, make a case, prove me wrong.

    Who do you think authorized the war? Who do you think promoted the war? Who went to Congress and asks for funds to supply the war? Who defends the war on a daily basis?

    Are you actually going to claim that Bush had no role in this war? Now tell me who's delusional?
    Like you are doing regarding JonH's point I presume?

    I am not claiming he had no role. I am suggesting it would be more accurate to say 'US government'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehjonny)
    Like you are doing regarding JonH's point I presume?

    I am not claiming he had no role. I am suggesting it would be more accurate to say 'US government'.
    I'll give you this: It would be more accurate to say 'Bush administration'. But it was the Bush administration that seemed to force this war on the rest of the country and ultimately the rest of the world.
    Your ideas surrounding international relations are extremely naive. We do what is best for us, not what is nicest for them. That is how it should be, and how it always will be. I don't believe in unilateral unreciprocated altruism when it comes to foreign policy, unlike most on TSR it seems.
    I know this and have never denied it. The two statements that seemed to cause a lot of reaction were

    1) Iraq was stable and the havoc there now is due to the US invasion

    2) that Iraq was secular and the most progressive Muslim nation in the ME

    -somehow I am a brainwashed, left winger for mentioning what most people consider to be facts.

    Again, I will re-use an excellent point that JonH made earlier. Why should our foreign policy be acceptable to maniacal religious zealots? Why should this be more important that said foreign policy serving our needs?
    Well, I guess in a word; sovereignty. And is Saddam Hussein a religious zealot? Throughout this thread people like Bismarck and JonH keep reinforcing this idea that everything is either black or white. There are no universal truths, there is no homogeneous voice in the middle east. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are two very different people with very different beliefs. Trying to lump everything into one category is sad.
    For the record I don't think the war did serve our needs, but in general in the M.E. we have done what we considered in our best interests, I don't see anything wrong with that.
    I don't give Bush that much credit. I think that Iraq will bring dire consequences throughout the next 50 years. Just like the Soviet Afghan war was a breeding ground for Al Qaeda, I think that the Iraq war will bring about the birth of a new generation of terrorists. I do not think he was a threat at the time of invasion and that while he was a bad guy the insane amount of effort and resources we have spent is not worth it. Even more I think we are worse off because of it.
    I ask, why are you still complaining about this? Do something about it, or stop and find a contemporary topic. Because Kondar, crying 'troops out of Iraq' isn't going to do anything, and even if they did pull out, it wouldn't be any better.
    WE got off on a tangent and I never suggested the solution would be an immediate withdrawal.
    This is what annoys me, the choosing of your evils. Yes, we've done wrong, so has every country on this planet pretty much. Yet it is only the UK/US that are constantly held accountable for the entirety of the worlds evils (wrongly). If we did this to other countries, I imagine it would be 'racist'...
    I have only criticized my own nation. Is that ok? I do live in America and this is a discussion forum...
    It was the left that called for Saddam's removal. Now it has been done, but oh, it wasn't done 'nicely' so you will continue to complain. Get it into your skull, removals of 20yrs powerful tyrants do not go down 'nicely', and it was you that wanted it originally. What did you think was gonna happen, send him some choccies with a note saying 'Saddam, please stand down'. Naivety again and again.
    I never said I wanted him removed. It has been argued by some that perhaps in the Original Iraq war he should have been removed, but I never said this. If anything I thought he stabilized the nation and for now was a necessary evil. Furthermore, removing him proved relativley easy. It was the lack of preparation for a post Saddam Iraq that has caused us so much trouble.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    Well, I guess in a word; sovereignty. And is Saddam Hussein a religious zealot? Throughout this thread people like Bismarck and JonH keep reinforcing this idea that everything is either black or white. There are no universal truths, there is no homogeneous voice in the middle east. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are two very different people with very different beliefs. Trying to lump everything into one category is sad.
    The only thing I've been doing is attacking your logic (or lack thereof). You don't seem to understand that you can't attack one thing without attacking similar things.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The only thing I've been doing is attacking your logic (or lack thereof). You don't seem to understand that you can't attack one thing without attacking similar things.
    Ok, so lets get this straight. According to you I cannot criticize the Iraq war because civilians are killed, as they are killed in all wars. Following that logic I should not be able to criticize any aspects of war that are universally linked to warfare; expenditures, military deaths, civilian deaths, etc...

    Am I right B (or is this Tony Snow?)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    Ok, so lets get this straight. According to you I cannot criticize the Iraq war because civilians are killed, as they are killed in all wars. Following that logic I should not be able to criticize any aspects of war that are universally linked to warfare; expenditures, military deaths, civilian deaths, etc...

    Am I right B (or is this Tony Snow?)
    No, it means you can't blame all the casualties on the US just because it initiated hostilities, just like you can't blame the US for the death of hundreds of thousands following the first Gulf War and just like you can't blame the UK for the Western front casualties in WWII.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    No, it means you can't blame all the casualties on the US just because it initiated hostilities, just like you can't blame the US for the death of hundreds of thousands following the first Gulf War and just like you can't blame the UK for the Western front casualties in WWII.
    Well, unlike your first example, the US and the UK did not initiate hostilities in the latter two. I still do not see how mentioning civilian casualties in a debate concerning the Iraq war is ... illogical.

    True/False
    1) 75,000 Iraqi's have died because of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    No matter what asterisk you throw on this, it does not make it any less true.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    Well, unlike your first example, the US and the UK did not initiate hostilities in the latter two. I still do not see how mentioning civilian casualties in a debate concerning the Iraq war is ... illogical.

    True/False
    1) 75,000 Iraqi's have died because of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

    No matter what asterisk you throw on this, it does not make it any less true.
    Sure they did. The US declared war on Iraq (without a formal declaration), and the UK declared war on Germany.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Sure they did. The US declared war on Iraq (without a formal declaration), and the UK declared war on Germany.
    No, Iraq invaded Kuwait and Germany invaded Poland. The US and the UK responded to these hostilities, they did not initiate them. Is it cool to mention that or am I being illogical? You didn't answer my question.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    No, Iraq invaded Kuwait and Germany invaded Poland. The US and the UK responded to these hostilities, they did not initiate them. Is it cool to mention that or am I being illogical? You didn't answer my question.
    Erm, so what? Iraq did not attack the US. Why is it America's business if some other country gets attacked? It was under no obligation to respond. Britain might have had a treaty obligation to respond, but it violated its treaty with Czechoslovakia, so it was hardly declaring wars for legal reasons. Fact is that neither of those conflicts were necessary. The US could have stayed out of the Iraq/Kuwait conflict, and the UK probably could have stayed out of WWII.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehjonny)
    It was the left that called for Saddam's removal. Now it has been done, but oh, it wasn't done 'nicely' so you will continue to complain. Get it into your skull, removals of 20yrs powerful tyrants do not go down 'nicely', and it was you that wanted it originally. What did you think was gonna happen, send him some choccies with a note saying 'Saddam, please stand down'. Naivety again and again.
    The "left" wanted what was best for the Iraqi people. Evidently not invading would have been just that.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invocation)
    The "left" wanted what was best for the Iraqi people. Evidently not invading would have been just that.
    The same left that was condemning the sanctions that were keeping Saddam in check?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The same left that was condemning the sanctions that were keeping Saddam in check?
    Utterly irrelevant. But I can only speak for my self.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invocation)
    Utterly irrelevant. But I can only speak for my self.
    Ah, so sanctions are bad. War is bad. Saddam with WMD is bad (i.e. Iraq without sanctions). Let's just condemn everything and pretend that no one has to make any tough decisions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The same left that was condemning the sanctions that were keeping Saddam in check?
    The sanctions were keeping Saddam in check but were also far too harmful to ordinary Iraqis. They should have been more carefully targeted to keep his millitary weak, instead they crippled not just his millitary but almost everything, including the Iraqi medical infrastructure banning many vital medicines.
 
 
 
Poll
Should Banksy be put in prison?
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.