Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I must say I do nto have that much against Kerry. I actually think it could be good if you got a democratic president in teh US as it would then not be so much pride in it for France and Germany not to cooperate with the US about Iraq.
    france had its own motives with vetoing......like hmmmm oil deals with iraq?

    i like dean, if not dean, nobody.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Well at least he is living liek a president ...
    so? he blatently lied to the public, BEFORE he became pres. i dont even want to think what could happen after!

    i have homework! goodbye.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curryADD)
    i was, on the basis of human rights violations, however, that happens to NOT be the platform the administration took, and i am now feeling betrayed that bush LIED to me......

    thus said, i am now a dean fan!
    where do u think he lied to you?
    why dean and not the other candidates?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    where did you hear this about kerry?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    where do u think he lied to you?
    why dean and not the other candidates?
    bush said they were enriching uramiun in libya, the CIA said it wasnt true and told him......miraculously, its still the the State of the Union 2003.

    dean is awesome, he was against the war
    kerry has voted for every bush war proposition and tax cut act.....
    dont know about edwards
    liked clark, but now he's gone....
    liked braun, but now shes gone.......
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curryADD)
    bush said they were enriching uramiun in libya, the CIA said it wasnt true and told him......miraculously, its still the the State of the Union 2003.

    dean is awesome, he was against the war
    kerry has voted for every bush war proposition and tax cut act.....
    dont know about edwards
    liked clark, but now he's gone....
    liked braun, but now shes gone.......
    Lets just hope that this election will not be as screwed up as the last one.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    im interested to hear about your ideas of defense based on hindsight and retrospect. your not in the french army are you? the lack of WMDs is a fault of the intelligence services not heads of state that act on such information to protect the ppl of their respective countries.
    I hope that is the case. I agree with the war in that if Bush and Blair really did trust the intelligence they received then I think they were completely justified in going to war, I dont think it matters whether there were other benefits or motives, that intelligence was enough to justify war, in which case the failure to find such weapons is due to unreliable intelligence rather than a failure of the governments to act correctly. But i think that further enquiries are necessary to establish that they acted due to a reliance and belief in this intelligence to silence the doubters. i think the Hutton Report is unsatisfactory not because it is a bad report but because the lines of investigation were quite narrow, further enquiries would hopefully solve this problem.

    If the government knew that the intelligence was false then I think that war was unjustifiable even if it resulted in the greater good for the people of Iraq simply because we dont have the right to interfere with other nations with no justification. however I dont think this is the case I think the intelligence was acted on correctly and we were largely justified in going to war.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    She turned this into personal insulting me and my wife.
    How exactly is it an insult I thought it was quite an effective illustration of the point myself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    How exactly is it an insult I thought it was quite an effective illustration of the point myself.
    It was absolutely out of place and from a 'person' who wasn't even in the conversation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    But later on she made it quite clear that she felt those who agreed that america's actions on Iraq were not justified, were stupid, just ebcause their opinion differed - despite it being a valid argument and can be well backed up.

    She further expressed this when I chatted to her, she infact said "you only say that because its an asian thing" - if we're gonna be picky like you are (purposely so you avoid teh core point of what i say, i may add) then thats ridiculous as well.

    Although the point of the matter is - People will always have differing opinions, but neither is stupid if both can be justified and argued well - as is the case in the iraq war.

    Its a simple concept to understand, and its one that the education system values entirely.

    Thats all i have to say. (for the 10th time)
    Bono, if you are taking time out to quote people, at least get it right.

    "despite it being a valid argument and can be well backed up." How do you know it is valid?!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Bono, if you are taking time out to quote people, at least get it right.

    "despite it being a valid argument and can be well backed up." How do you know it is valid?!
    Here below are some valid reasons for why one would disagree with you, and it would not make them stupid whatsoever:

    - Broke Geneva Conventions
    - Invaded another country's land
    - Thousands of people died, INCLUDING US AND BRITISH PEOPLE WHO WERE FORCED TO GO TO WAR.
    - Iraqi's are worse off now that before the war, in terms of poverty etc.
    - Hundred's of thousands of british peope and US people share the same view.
    - The official motive to go to war was 'due to the threat of weapons of mass destruction' - One year later, none of this has been found, which puts the whole reason of going to war into major jeapordy.

    These are all justifiable and valid arguments for being against the actions of America - Clearly this view can be very well backed up and justified, despite you disagreeing with this view. Just because they don't agree, it does not make them 'stupid' - the fact we are having a 13 page+ debate on this issue, with people being both for and against the war and giving their reasons, means that their are justifiable points to be made either way. Neither is stupid for such an opinion, and calling people stupid just because they disagree is quite hypocritical.

    And also you said that the conclusion is more important than the motive - Thats rubbish, because as a leader of a country you have to plan things and not make irrational judgements. You can't rely on the conclusion to be good to back up your motives - you have to have good reasons to do something in the first place. Especially when you are prepared to spend million and millions of pounds and risk people's lives and make families distraught.

    One cannot have no justifiable moral or ethical reasons to propose an action at the expense of human lives, at the hope that it will all work out ok in the end - clearly you said that his reasons for going to war were irrelevant because it worked out ok i.e.) they caught Saddam - This clearly does not change the fact that PEOPLE ARE JUSTIFIED TO CRITICIZE HIS ACTIONS, THEY ARE NOT "STUPID."

    If you base your view on the outcome and not the principle reasons for the actions, then theres a flaw in your arguemnt - More to the point, people ARE NOT STUPID FOR DISAGREEING.

    And btw - I did quote you properly in the posts before, which is besides the point..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    I hope that is the case. I agree with the war in that if Bush and Blair really did trust the intelligence they received then I think they were completely justified in going to war, I dont think it matters whether there were other benefits or motives, that intelligence was enough to justify war, in which case the failure to find such weapons is due to unreliable intelligence rather than a failure of the governments to act correctly...

    If the government knew that the intelligence was false then I think that war was unjustifiable even if it resulted in the greater good for the people of Iraq simply because we dont have the right to interfere with other nations with no justification. however I dont think this is the case I think the intelligence was acted on correctly and we were largely justified in going to war.
    Taking a country into war should be avoided at all costs, it should quite obviously be a last resort. Most of the world decided that Iraq posed no threat to any nation. All Mr Blair needed to do was to give the inspectors more time- only one more month. So when going into war he was effectively arguing, in one month Britain will be obliterated with some sort of extoc weapon of mass destruction, so we must ignore the inspectors and accept vast numbers of deaths like an empirical fact. Maybe Mr Blair did believe the intelligence was correct but surely the roles of presidents and priministers should be to carefully review such evidence presented to them instead of using whatever they can find to sell a war to the public (cast your mind back to that rather embarrassing plagiarised dossier)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    But i think that further enquiries are necessary to establish that they acted due to a reliance and belief in this intelligence to silence the doubters. i think the Hutton Report is unsatisfactory not because it is a bad report but because the lines of investigation were quite narrow, further enquiries would hopefully solve this problem.
    What do you mean by the Hutton report being narrow, what sort of line of investigation do you propose just out of interest? Something like "Were there any political motives behind this war"?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The invasion is better for the iraqi's in the long run, they lose sadam, they get freedom, all we will get is a bit of losy oil.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Now...please would some other sane person agree with me before I go crazy!
    I respect any opinion as I mentioned before, but I think you should be critical about the basis you make your decision on. This basis is, as for all of us, the media. And they are not 100% free, so how can you be 100% sure about anything? How can it, for example be, that the German media show things you won´t find on BBC, which are particular embarassing details about the way information was processed to create certain images? And what about the american media, which even show less content than the British? Why? Don´t they have to hide anything?

    It is up to you how you vote, think and speak. But you have to be critical, that´s what democracy is based on!

    By the way, don´t get me wrong, but aren´t you muslim, being from Pakistan?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viviki)
    I hope that is the case. I agree with the war in that if Bush and Blair really did trust the intelligence they received then I think they were completely justified in going to war, I dont think it matters whether there were other benefits or motives, that intelligence was enough to justify war, in which case the failure to find such weapons is due to unreliable intelligence rather than a failure of the governments to act correctly. But i think that further enquiries are necessary to establish that they acted due to a reliance and belief in this intelligence to silence the doubters. i think the Hutton Report is unsatisfactory not because it is a bad report but because the lines of investigation were quite narrow, further enquiries would hopefully solve this problem.

    If the government knew that the intelligence was false then I think that war was unjustifiable even if it resulted in the greater good for the people of Iraq simply because we dont have the right to interfere with other nations with no justification. however I dont think this is the case I think the intelligence was acted on correctly and we were largely justified in going to war.
    i agree with that analysis. the Hutton inquiry established that the Government had no prior knowledge of the errors in intelligence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    He probably thought that the great unwashed would never swallow any other reason. Only problem is he got caught.
    You know what, guys? I found it very interesting, didn´t Blair say he "might have misunderstood" the secret service reports (I only saw that on german TV, so I don´t know the exact words)? Schroeder would have to resign immediately after admitting such a major mistake! I mean the Iraq war wasn´t exactly a walk in the park!
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    I wasn't on that job.
    We need a conservatory built if you have a free 5 minutes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i agree with that analysis. the Hutton inquiry established that the Government had no prior knowledge of the errors in intelligence.
    But the errors were obvious, and the British governemnt used information that was out of date, don´t tell me they are that incapable! If you look at the interpretation of some pictures (a normal truck, why should there be chemical weapons in it?) you come to the same conclusion. ANyway, some CIA people spoke up and said there are no really clear sources of information, but nobody listened to them! Cause nobody wanted to hear what they had to say.

    Well, the Iraq war existed. I find it embarassing that Bush&Blair can´t just admit they actually WANTED that war but play such a childish game now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moncal)
    The invasion is better for the iraqi's in the long run, they lose sadam, they get freedom, all we will get is a bit of losy oil.
    How do you want to know that? Ever heard of self-governing and independence as the most important part in human life? Americans always dwell on that, now they seem to have forgotten about it.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.