Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    No, no, no .. we may have missiles that can reach the outer atmospheres of Earth, but one that can reach the UK is impossible, or at least according to the TSR member called "Stalin" ...
    Good job on yet again, failing to quote exactly what I said.

    Iraq couldn't have hit the UK back in 2000, it simply didn't have the capabilities to send a missile that far across the globe. Moreover, why would it want to attack and thus declare war on a nuclear armed country, albeit, one of the most powerful countries in the world. I don't know who/what's more idiotic, you or your argument.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    And in the meantime, he could have used the WMDs against us ... what then??!!

    The only difference between you and Blair is the ultimate decision. To either sit back, wait and do nothing or take decisive action before it was too late (i.e. strike while the iron is hot).
    Do you have Down's syndrome?

    Why on earth would Saddam attack a nuclear armed country? This argument of yours is flawed from start to finish, it's completely and utterly unreal.

    Had a missile been sent towards the UK from Iraq, it would have passed through NATO airspace, and thus would've been shot down. So even if this scenario was possible, which it clearly wasn't and still isn't, the threat would've been dealt with and NATO would've struck back 100x harder.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Noam Chomsky's book on the Iraq war, Failed States, is pretty fascinating, I suggest you read it Lord Hysteria.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Do you have Down's syndrome?

    Why on earth would Saddam attack a nuclear armed country? This argument of yours is flawed from start to finish, it's completely and utterly unreal.

    Had a missile been sent towards the UK from Iraq, it would have passed through NATO airspace, and thus would've been shot down. So even if this scenario was possible, which it clearly wasn't and still isn't, the threat would've been dealt with and NATO would've struck back 100x harder.
    Again, what is it with you and babble. Can't you just debate without all the infantile comments ~ "do you have Down's?"

    I am merely saying again that the difference is in the ultimate decision that was taken. You would choose to do nothing whereas Blair decided to act. That is it.

    No, of course, we realised there were no WMDs but did he make the right decision under the circumstances? I think so. You clearly don't. So let's just leave it at that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Again, what is it with you and babble. Can't you just debate without all the infantile comments ~ "do you have Down's?"

    I am merely saying again that the difference is in the ultimate decision that was taken. You would choose to do nothing whereas Blair decided to act. That is it.

    No, of course, we realised there were no WMDs but did he make the right decision under the circumstances? I think so. You clearly don't. So let's just leave it at that.
    It would be incredibly foolish to enter a fight with a knife when you know your enemy is in a tank. Saddam was a tyrant, not a loonatic devoid of the sense of survival. There was no threat, and he wasn't exactly a potential problem while we were supporting his regime was he?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I am merely saying again that the difference is in the ultimate decision that was taken. You would choose to do nothing whereas Blair decided to act. That is it.
    Blair jumped into it with his eyes closed whereas I would've have jumped into it after evaluating the entire scenario(i.e making sure Saddam actually had WMDs and waging a diplomatic war). That is the difference between me, Blair and your good self.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by TheLandOfNorwegia)
    It would be incredibly foolish to enter a fight with a knife when you know your enemy is in a tank. Saddam was a tyrant, not a loonatic devoid of the sense of survival. There was no threat, and he wasn't exactly a potential problem while we were supporting his regime was he?
    We believed there was a threat ...
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Blair jumped into it with his eyes closed whereas I would've have jumped into it after evaluating the entire scenario(i.e making sure Saddam actually had WMDs and waging a diplomatic war). That is the difference between me, Blair and your good self.
    ... and by the time you finished evaluating, Saddam could have used his WMDs & you could have stopped him.
    Seriously, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    We believed there was a threat ...
    Given the situation at the time, where was the threat? NATO's offensive capability far outstrips Saddam's, even with a handful of nuclear weapons, it would be fruitless to try any kind of offensive attack. The man was not going to do anything, it would have been pure suicide to do so.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    ... and by the time you finished evaluating, Saddam could have used his WMDs & you could have stopped him.
    Seriously, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
    I feel like I'm beginning to repeat myself...

    Had he sent a WMD towards the UK, it would have gone through NATO airspace. Passing through countries like Turkey, Germany and France.

    Do you seriously think it would've even reached the UK? If so I don't believe we should continue debating this.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Stalin)
    I feel like I'm beginning to repeat myself...
    No ****!!

    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I think we're going to have to agree to disagree
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    No ****!!
    Why do bypass most of the things I say?

    Had he sent a WMD towards the UK, it would have gone through NATO airspace. Passing through countries like Turkey, Germany and France.

    Do you seriously think it would've even reached the UK? If so I don't believe we should continue debating this.
    Answer that or shall we end the debate - because quite frankly you're wasting my time.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Why do bypass most of the things I say?



    Answer that or shall we end the debate - because quite frankly you're wasting my time.
    I am not a WMD expert, and I doubt you are too. What's the point in this speculation?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I am not a WMD expert, and I doubt you are too. What's the point in this speculation?
    It's not speculation it's common sense.

    There's absolutely no way it would've reached the UK in the first place, it would've either fallen in mid air or been shot down by NATO, therefore the UK was never under any sort of threat, thus making the war illegal right from the word go.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Stalin)
    It's not speculation it's common sense.

    There's absolutely no way it would've reached the UK in the first place, it would've either fallen in mid air or been shot down by NATO, therefore the UK was never under any sort of threat, thus making the war illegal right from the word go.
    Are you a weapons expert? Do you claim to know every single weapon on the planet and their capabilities?

    EDIT ~ It's extraordinary that you can make such a statement. Then again, you are no stranger to babbling :blah:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Are you a weapons expert? Do you claim to know every single weapon on the planet and their capabilities?
    No I don't claim to know every single weapon on the planet and their capabilities.

    However, when you look at all the facts they simply do not add up.

    If Saddam was a threat to the UK, he'd have been a threat to every single country around him forming a 6000 mile radius. Which would involve most of Europe, Israel, Iran, India etc.

    Now considering the fact that only a handful of countries invaded Iraq, was he really a threat? Surely all of NATO would've jumped in had Saddam specifically targeted the UK. The fact that they didn't shows only one thing, that the UK and the US deceived the world, and most importantly that the UK was never, ever under any threat whatsoever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    No I don't claim to know every single weapon on the planet and their capabilities.

    However, when you look at all the facts they simply do not add up.

    If Saddam was a threat to the UK, he'd have been a threat to every single country around him forming a 6000 mile radius. Which would involve most of Europe, Israel, Iran, India etc.

    Now considering the fact that only a handful of countries invaded Iraq, was he really a threat? Surely all of NATO would've jumped in had Saddam specifically targeted the UK. The fact that they didn't shows only one thing, that the UK and the US deceived the world, and most importantly that the UK was never, ever under any threat whatsoever.
    Or... the UN and NATO etc. only wanted to 'jump in' when there was a direct threat, when saddam actually started building WMDs for example. Whereas the US and the UK wanted to prevent this/not even allow him to start building WMDs as they percieved it to be much more risky to go then rather than now (2003)

    And the UN and NATO forces did fight/are over there now.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrChem)
    Or... the UN and NATO etc. only wanted to 'jump in' when there was a direct threat, when saddam actually started building WMDs for example. Whereas the US and the UK wanted to prevent this/not even allow him to start building WMDs as they percieved it to be much more risky to go then rather than now (2003)

    And the UN and NATO forces did fight/are over there now.
    The NATO forces are in Afghanistan not in Iraq. The only country to have joined was Turkey.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Do you have Down's syndrome?
    How is that relevant? Also using Downs syndrome to suggest someone is stupid or misguided or whatever is moronic beyond words. It's not big or clever. I was going to neg someone else but I'll neg you instead.

    Unless you can jusitfy it's usage.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Please can someone remind, me what WMD's were actually found?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.