Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    fair enough...i didn't know that. Regardless, it is still a possibility that they were exported.
    It's good that you're not easily drawn into 'Conspiracy theories'. I'm not either, but I really don't believe this WMD cover story, I mean why should I when the only 'Reliable Source' admitted that he made the whole thing up?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-lies-iraq-war
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    Rubbish. Suggesting Saddam possessed these weapons was a perfectly plausible hypothesis given his dodging of inspections, his previous programmes, etc. Anyone who has taken the time to consider the circumstances and the nature of the Iraqi regime will shun this ridiculous "they lied about the whole thing" hypothesis.
    I find it ridiculous that the threat of WMDs were used as a reason to go into Iraq. I remember the run up to the war, the tabloids repeatedly ran that line as did the politicians. Certainly the emphasis wasn't on regime change.
    There was no concrete evidence Sadaam had nuclear weapons, not agreeing to inspections from foreign forces is not a sign that you have WMDs. Even if they had them there was no plausible reason they would be used or they were capable of being used against the west. The regime had next to no links with Al Qaeda, yet politicians constantly linked this to the war on terror, in and the aftermath of 9/11 that was so irresponsible. Further Sadaam, whatever else he was, was not a religious zealot who would have fired WMDs at the U.S or the U.K without fearing the consequences for himself or his country.

    So much B.S went on with regards to that war, the people involved deserve to be on trial.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonstudent1)
    I find it ridiculous that the threat of WMDs were used as a reason to go into Iraq. I remember the run up to the war, the tabloids repeatedly ran that line as did the politicians. Certainly the emphasis wasn't on regime change.
    There was no concrete evidence Sadaam had nuclear weapons, not agreeing to inspections from foreign forces is not a sign that you have WMDs.
    First of all you have to determine the principle of proof. Deciding to invade a country when you yourself live thousands of miles away and have no knowledge of the workings of the alleged weapons programme is not an easy decision. It is certainly not as cut-and-dry as people like yourself often make it out to be. Why would the UK have any reason to believe otherwise - i.e. why would they not think that weapons were being developed? Consider: this was the time of increasing weapons proliferation in the region; the regime was unstable and extremely anti-Western; it had a past weapons programme; they stated their desire to develop them in the future; inspectors were restricted and the regime shut itself off from the United Nations and the international community. With no direct knowledge of a lack of weapons development it was entirely reasonable that the government should be concerned. Again, the question rests entirely on the burden of proof, and it is perfectly justifiable to criticise them in hindsight, but to suggest they were all trotting out some fabricated story in order to cover up some "hidden" meaning (usually expressed as "war for oil", although I imagine most people with a dint of sense may have given that one up by now) is simply not realistic. The intelligence failure was not a conspiracy set up to provide a subtext - Germany's intelligence agency said that Saddam was three years away from developing WMD even though Germany was a country staunchly against the invasion. Saddam's WMD programme was only temporarily halted during the untenable sanctions and inspections regime. The Duefler Report, whilst admitting that Saddam did not have the capability in 2003, said that he certainly aimed to redevelop the weapons. Quite simply, how could our intelligence agencies disprove the claim that Saddam was seeking WMD? With issues like this it is best not to take risks, especially considering Saddam's track record.

    Even if they had them there was no plausible reason they would be used or they were capable of being used against the west.
    I don't know what possible grounds you would have for stating this. During the Gulf War Iraq fired biological/chemical weapons at Israel - a country that was not involved in the invasion at all and that had a long-established ceasefire with Iraq dating from the 1948 war, and yet was targeted because of its association with the West.

    The regime had next to no links with Al Qaeda, yet politicians constantly linked this to the war on terror, in and the aftermath of 9/11 that was so irresponsible.
    Not strictly true. The regime had well-established links with terrorist organisations and frequently flaunted these associations.

    Further Sadaam, whatever else he was, was not a religious zealot who would have fired WMDs at the U.S or the U.K without fearing the consequences for himself or his country.
    The issue was not just the threat he posed to the US or UK. His regime was a source of instability in the region and any weapons programme he had would have violated the defence of those countries that were part of the West's "defence umbrella" - notably Kuwait, a country that Saddam had already invaded and annexed for no reason other than to display his brute force.

    So much B.S went on with regards to that war, the people involved deserve to be on trial.
    For what, exactly? Acting in preemptory self-defence? Liberating a country from a tyrant? You can disagree with the war all you want but to leap to the suggestion that they should be in the Hague is just an appeal to demagogic nonsense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    Why would the UK have any reason to believe otherwise - i.e. why would they not think that weapons were being developed?
    This is a rather insane point. You cannot assume every country has WMDs and invade countries who may have them.

    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    Consider: this was the time of increasing weapons proliferation in the region; the regime was unstable and extremely anti-Western
    Holds true for many countries and areas in the world, not anywhere near a good enough reason for an invasion.

    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    it had a past weapons programme; they stated their desire to develop them in the future; inspectors were restricted and the regime shut itself off from the United Nations and the international community. With no direct knowledge of a lack of weapons development it was entirely reasonable that the government should be concerned. Again, the question rests entirely on the burden of proof, and it is perfectly justifiable to criticise them in hindsight
    What country doesn't have a weapons program or the intention to improve and increase it? The primary reason we were given was that Iraq had WMDs and they were an imminent threat to the West. What you have posted shows no evidence of this.

    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    but to suggest they were all trotting out some fabricated story in order to cover up some "hidden" meaning (usually expressed as "war for oil", although I imagine most people with a dint of sense may have given that one up by now) is simply not realistic. T
    I don't believe the reason we went to war was based on the fear that WMDs could be used against us. I don't believe we went in there because we wanted to remove the evil dictator who the U.S originally put there.
    If that makes me a crazy conspiracist, I don't really care. I think our government has given us plenty of reasons to distrust them.

    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    Germany's intelligence agency said that Saddam was three years away from developing WMD even though Germany was a country staunchly against the invasion. Saddam's WMD programme was only temporarily halted during the untenable sanctions and inspections regime. The Duefler Report, whilst admitting that Saddam did not have the capability in 2003, said that he certainly aimed to redevelop the weapons. Quite simply, how could our intelligence agencies disprove the claim that Saddam was seeking WMD? With issues like this it is best not to take risks, especially considering Saddam's track record.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...esh-wmd-claims

    There was a ton of intelligence, some if went one way some of it went the other way. Intelligence said Russia were about to fire nuclear weapons at the U.S during the cold war. Clearly due to the way intelligence is gathered, it can't always be trusted and I am yet to see concrete evidence that Iraq has WMDs and had intentions of using them against the U.S and the U.K.

    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)


    I don't know what possible grounds you would have for stating this. During the Gulf War Iraq fired biological/chemical weapons at Israel - a country that was not involved in the invasion at all and that had a long-established ceasefire with Iraq dating from the 1948 war, and yet was targeted because of its association with the West.
    Israel fired unprovoked at Iraq during Sadaams reign. Israel was targeted because of its perceived persecution of Palestine and that they stole the land etc etc. To try and tie the firing of missiles at Israel with any real threat that the U.K faced from a WMD from Iraq is ridiculous.

    Not strictly true. The regime had well-established links with terrorist organisations and frequently flaunted these associations.


    [/QUOTE]

    Im not reading a random book that may offer some vague links to some terrorist organisations. Its well known that many Muslim states offer help to Palestinian terrorist organisations because of their views on Israel. That in no way puts the UK and the US from threat of a WMD from Iraq. The conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, was that there was not a cooperative effort between Al Qaeda and Saddam and that he did not support the 9/11 attacks. That the difference in ideology between Saddam and al-Qaeda made cooperation in any terrorist attacks very unlikely. The Senate Report discussed the possibility of Saddam offering al-Qaeda training and safe-haven, but confirmed the CIA's conclusion that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two.

    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)

    The issue was not just the threat he posed to the US or UK. His regime was a source of instability in the region and any weapons programme he had would have violated the defence of those countries that were part of the West's "defence umbrella" - notably Kuwait, a country that Saddam had already invaded and annexed for no reason other than to display his brute force.
    The reason given for the war was not for the stability of the middle east it was because of the direct threat the U.K and U.S faced. If Sadaam invaded an ally such as Israel, then sure the U.S and the U.K should have removed Sadaam, although this should have happened during the gulf war.

    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)

    For what, exactly? Acting in preemptory self-defence? Liberating a country from a tyrant? You can disagree with the war all you want but to leap to the suggestion that they should be in the Hague is just an appeal to demagogic nonsense.
    For foreign aggression that has resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 civilians. If you think thats nonsense, maybe you should question your own views.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonstudent1)
    For foreign aggression that has resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 civilians. If you think thats nonsense, maybe you should question your own views.
    It's worth noting that the majority of civilian casualties are caused by the insurjent forces. Do you advocate surrendering to an abominable enemy because they are willing to slaughter civilians? You'd have a regime worse than Saddam erected in a couple of years and every life lost would have been for nought.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonstudent1)
    This is a rather insane point. You cannot assume every country has WMDs and invade countries who may have them.

    Holds true for many countries and areas in the world, not anywhere near a good enough reason for an invasion.
    You have completely misrepresented my argument.

    What country doesn't have a weapons program or the intention to improve and increase it? The primary reason we were given was that Iraq had WMDs and they were an imminent threat to the West. What you have posted shows no evidence of this.
    This point assumes that all weapons programmes are created equal. The weapons programme of the United States is not a threat to us; an Iraqi weapons programme would have been. I refer you once more to my argument concerning the burden of proof.

    Israel fired unprovoked at Iraq during Sadaams reign. Israel was targeted because of its perceived persecution of Palestine and that they stole the land etc etc. To try and tie the firing of missiles at Israel with any real threat that the U.K faced from a WMD from Iraq is ridiculous.
    Israel did not fire at Iraq first. Saddam used the Gulf War as a pretext to reign chemical weapons on Tel Aviv - on a country he had a ceasefire with and that was not engaged in hostilities against him. His deranged perceptions (or yours for that matter) of Israeli policy towards its neighbours do not matter a dolt. Because he disagreed with the treatment of Palestinians is not an excuse to use a war fought over his annexation of Kuwait as a pretext by which to fire biological weapons at a third party. Furthermore, his credentials on the matter of aggression show that the UK and USA had every right to be worried.

    Im not reading a random book that may offer some vague links to some terrorist organisations. Its well known that many Muslim states offer help to Palestinian terrorist organisations because of their views on Israel. That in no way puts the UK and the US from threat of a WMD from Iraq. The conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, was that there was not a cooperative effort between Al Qaeda and Saddam and that he did not support the 9/11 attacks. That the difference in ideology between Saddam and al-Qaeda made cooperation in any terrorist attacks very unlikely. The Senate Report discussed the possibility of Saddam offering al-Qaeda training and safe-haven, but confirmed the CIA's conclusion that there was no evidence of operational cooperation between the two.
    In other words, you are not willing to confront the evidence. Your argument was that "the regime had next to no links with Al Qaeda", and I and a great deal of others have demonstrated this to be patently false. This is not to suggest that Saddam was behind 9/11. In fact, I do not remember suggesting that, and nowhere in that document I linked will you find that suggested. But to say that he had no links with AQ or that the toppling of Saddam was not part of a wider strategy in the War on Terror (since that war concerns more than Al Qaeda and 9/11) is wrong.

    The reason given for the war was not for the stability of the middle east it was because of the direct threat the U.K and U.S faced. If Sadaam invaded an ally such as Israel, then sure the U.S and the U.K should have removed Sadaam, although this should have happened during the gulf war.
    I agree that they should have removed him during the Gulf War, but they did not, and we are talking about 2003.

    For foreign aggression that has resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 civilians. If you think thats nonsense, maybe you should question your own views.
    So you are going to hold Blair and Bush personally responsible for crimes that they did not commit? There is no logic behind ascribing all of the 100,000 dead to the Coalition. Most of the casualties were caused by the Islamic insurgency. I do not believe that Blair and Bush can be held responsible for the fundamentalist jihadists and their appetite for murder. Of all the civilian deaths in Iraq, only 12% are attributable to the USA, according to a KCL study. Given that the USA is responsible for only just under an eighth of deaths, why do you feel that they worse than the terrorists who have tried their best to drag Iraq back into the ground? I would also remind you that there is no prohibition in international law on causing innocent deaths in a war. Otherwise all wars would be illegal...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    It's worth noting that the majority of civilian casualties are caused by the insurjent forces. Do you advocate surrendering to an abominable enemy because they are willing to slaughter civilians? You'd have a regime worse than Saddam erected in a couple of years and every life lost would have been for nought.
    They were killed because of the instability in Iraq after the invasion and the insurgents had support because people didn't want to live under the foot of the U.S or the puppets who they put in charge of Iraq.
    If the reason we invaded Iraq was to get rid of a dictator to improve the life of the citizens there were many other countries we could have chose and we could stop installing dictators of our own while were at it, lets not forget where Sadaam came from.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonstudent1)
    They were killed because of the instability in Iraq after the invasion and the insurgents had support because people didn't want to live under the foot of the U.S or the puppets who they put in charge of Iraq.
    The insurgency are exploiting sectarian tensions to establish an Islamic Iraq. They are not fighting for anyone's freedom other than their freedom to tyrannise people. They deserve nothing other than to be quashed.

    If the reason we invaded Iraq was to get rid of a dictator to improve the life of the citizens there were many other countries we could have chose and we could stop installing dictators of our own while were at it
    This argument amounts to "the police can't catch all criminals so let's abolish the police". Just because we can't intervene everywhere does not mean we should intervene nowhere.

    lets not forget where Sadaam came from.
    Ah, the Argument from Original Sin. Your argument seems to be:

    P1. We were responsible for the crisis;
    P2. Any intervention would show us to be hypocrites;
    C. Therefore we should not intervene.

    There are three major arguments against this fallacy, all of which make more sense.

    Firstly, even if the Coalition nations armed Saddam, does that not increase our moral responsibility to disarm him?

    Secondly, even if Saddam was armed by the USA and its allies, many contextual factors have changed since that time. If a government passes an act this year saying that no citizen is allowed to smoke, does this mean that in ten years' time when a new government comes to power they have no right to repeal the act? If one accepts the arguments of the anti-war crowd then the case for repealing any laws made by previous governments falls flat, since we are apparently bound by the actions of those who ruled us in the past. If, say, a Republican administration, sold some weapons to Iraq in the 70s, does this mean that a completely new administration elected under a totally different mandate thirty years later could not fight to disarm this regime? Similarly, because we invaded Iraq and occupied it in 2003, does this compel us to keep our troops there forever because pulling them out is contradictory?

    Thirdly, Saddam became a lot more dangerous as time went on. Very often our actions in the present belie what we will experience in the future. At the time when "we" supposedly armed Saddam he had not yet orchestrated the invasion and abolition of the state of Kuwait, nor had he engaged in what could only be termed a genocide against his Kurdish civilians. The Genocide Convention has been signed and ratified by the USA and the UK, and mandates its signatories to intervene to prevent any acts of genocide wherever they may take place in the world. This included Saddam's Iraq, a bully state by any standards, and a rather striking precedent was put in place thanks to our intervention in Kosovo.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    You have completely misrepresented my argument.
    Your argument is insane, no matter how much waffle you try to fill it with.

    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)

    This point assumes that all weapons programmes are created equal. The weapons programme of the United States is not a threat to us; an Iraqi weapons programme would have been. I refer you once more to my argument concerning the burden of proof.
    Ofcourse all weapon programs aren't equal. There still wasn't enough evidence that Iraq was capable of firing WMDs at the U.K or the U.S and that they had the intention to do so. You can't invade every country who you may percieve to have some threat, who next, Iran, Pakistan, Russia etc etc.

    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)



    Israel did not fire at Iraq first. Saddam used the Gulf War as a pretext to reign chemical weapons on Tel Aviv - on a country he had a ceasefire with and that was not engaged in hostilities against him. His deranged perceptions (or yours for that matter) of Israeli policy towards its neighbours do not matter a dolt. Because he disagreed with the treatment of Palestinians is not an excuse to use a war fought over his annexation of Kuwait as a pretext by which to fire biological weapons at a third party. Furthermore, his credentials on the matter of aggression show that the UK and USA had every right to be worried.
    Israel attacked Iraq first in 1981 during Sadaams reign. Guess what the pretext was then? That they were afraid Iraq was building a nuclear weapon.
    I don't have a deranged perception of views towards Iraq. Its just common knowledge that pretty much every Muslim country in the world see Israel as an occupier of Palestinian land. To try and tie that to a threat to the U.K is ridiculous.

    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    In other words, you are not willing to confront the evidence. Your argument was that "the regime had next to no links with Al Qaeda", and I and a great deal of others have demonstrated this to be patently false. This is not to suggest that Saddam was behind 9/11. In fact, I do not remember suggesting that, and nowhere in that document I linked will you find that suggested. But to say that he had no links with AQ or that the toppling of Saddam was not part of a wider strategy in the War on Terror (since that war concerns more than Al Qaeda and 9/11) is wrong.
    Youv'e linked a document thats 125 pages long and suggest I try and find vague links to terrorist groups, without even hinting what they are or where they are.
    The consensus is that Sadaam and Al Qaeda were ideologically at loggerheads, any links would have been minimal. Are you so biased that you've seen some vague link and now believe that Sadaam was removed as part of wider terror plot. What other major terrorist organisations did Sadaam have links to that could credibly threaten the U.S?

    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)


    So you are going to hold Blair and Bush personally responsible for crimes that they did not commit? There is no logic behind ascribing all of the 100,000 dead to the Coalition. Most of the casualties were caused by the Islamic insurgency. I do not believe that Blair and Bush can be held responsible for the fundamentalist jihadists and their appetite for murder. Of all the civilian deaths in Iraq, only 12% are attributable to the USA, according to a KCL study. Given that the USA is responsible for only just under an eighth of deaths, why do you feel that they worse than the terrorists who have tried their best to drag Iraq back into the ground? I would also remind you that there is no prohibition in international law on causing innocent deaths in a war. Otherwise all wars would be illegal...
    Not just Bush and Blair, but in general yes I say they are responsible for foreign aggression which was the cause of 100,000 deaths. I'm not comparing them to anyone, I am simply stating there actions there consequences and that in my view they should face a trial.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonstudent1)
    They were killed because of the instability in Iraq after the invasion and the insurgents had support because people didn't want to live under the foot of the U.S or the puppets who they put in charge of Iraq.
    If the reason we invaded Iraq was to get rid of a dictator to improve the life of the citizens there were many other countries we could have chose and we could stop installing dictators of our own while were at it, lets not forget where Sadaam came from.
    Some people didn't like Saddam either, they just didn't have the freedom or ability to fight in the same way the Islamist insurjents do now.

    And I don't think we've ever claimed that the invasion of Iraq was purely humanitarian. You're arguments are very superficial.

    People die in warzones, people die due to instability, does that mean we should never engage in conflict? No matter the cost? Equally, if we have made a poor decision in foreign policy previously, why does that prevent us from trying to intervene to change something in the modern day?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Iraq was a failed state by 2003 which had effectively lost control of the North anyway.

    I doubt the US and the UK actually thought he was actively producing weapons. However, they probably thought there would enough incriminating evidence which they could pin on Saddam.

    Having said that, let's remember what was being said at the time: Iraq was a dangerous state that was actively producing WMDs, had links to 9/11 and Al Qaeda.

    Those were the claims that Bush, Blair and his cronies made.

    Unfortunately, everyone focuses in on the WMDs and forgets the other absurd claims made
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    Your argument seems to be:

    P1. We were responsible for the crisis;
    P2. Any intervention would show us to be hypocrites;
    C. Therefore we should not intervene.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    The insurgency are exploiting sectarian tensions to establish an Islamic Iraq. They are not fighting for anyone's freedom other than their freedom to tyrannise people. They deserve nothing other than to be quashed.
    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.

    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)


    This argument amounts to "the police can't catch all criminals so let's abolish the police". Just because we can't intervene everywhere does not mean we should intervene nowhere.

    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Some people didn't like Saddam either, they just didn't have the freedom or ability to fight in the same way the Islamist insurjents do now.

    And I don't think we've ever claimed that the invasion of Iraq was purely humanitarian. You're arguments are very superficial.

    People die in warzones, people die due to instability, does that mean we should never engage in conflict? No matter the cost? Equally, if we have made a poor decision in foreign policy previously, why does that prevent us from trying to intervene to change something in the modern day?
    In my view we have no right to instigate regime changes or meddle in the affairs of foreign countries for our own interests unless we are under real threat of attack.
    We have done both these things over a number of years in Iraq and other countries. I don't believe this war was truly about regime change for a greater good or a credible threat from Iraq to the U.K and the U.S.
    I therefore believe that the U.S and the U.K should be held responsible for the deaths that have occurred since on those responsible should be put on trial.

    When Civilians die as a result of war, in some circumstances it should be punishable, in others not.
    When Civilians die as a result of foreign intervention to secure your own interests that should be punishable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonstudent1)
    In my view we have no right to instigate regime changes or meddle in the affairs of foreign countries for our own interests unless we are under real threat of attack.
    We have done both these things over a number of years in Iraq and other countries. I don't believe this war was truly about regime change for a greater good or a credible threat from Iraq to the U.K and the U.S.
    I therefore believe that the U.S and the U.K should be held responsible for the deaths that have occurred since on those responsible should be put on trial.

    When Civilians die as a result of war, in some circumstances it should be punishable, in others not.
    When Civilians die as a result of foreign intervention to secure your own interests that should be punishable.
    For our own interests? What do you think the world runs on?

    In 2003, Iraq was a dangerous, failing state in the hands of a genocidal dictator. There was clear evidence of genocide, that's a pretty good reason. There was clear evidence of use of chemical and biological weapons, a program aimed at the production of more of these aswell as the pursuit of ever more dangerous WMDs. Then there are other factors to consider, such as regional security and stability.

    Your assertion that the US and UK should be held responsible for the deaths that have occured there are ridiculous. Let us make an analogy here.

    A man, Ryan, breaks into a house in order to stop a husband beating his wife to death. With the door broken in, a stray dog runs in and savages a child before Ryan can stop the dog.

    In this situation, is the savage dog Ryan's fault? Now, of course, the dog could not have gotten in without Ryan breaking down the door. But had Ryan not broken down the door, the husband would have beaten the wife to death. The dog is at fault, the husband is at fault, Ryan? Not so much.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    For our own interests? What do you think the world runs on?

    In 2003, Iraq was a dangerous, failing state in the hands of a genocidal dictator. There was clear evidence of genocide, that's a pretty good reason. There was clear evidence of use of chemical and biological weapons, a program aimed at the production of more of these aswell as the pursuit of ever more dangerous WMDs. Then there are other factors to consider, such as regional security and stability.
    My point is that all those reasons are incidental. We went into Iraq for our own interests. We helped Sadaam get weapons when it suited us.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-weapons.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war
    We are largely responsible for the destabilization of the middle east through our constant intervention in a number of countries.
    Your point about the dog is irrelevant and simplified.
    The deaths that occurred as a result of the instability are down to us. The insurgents believe they are fighting for the freedom of Iraq and that anyone helps the U.S is a traitor. This gives them their support. The sectarian divides have been intensified through our involvement. We are therefore at least partly responsible for the deaths that have since occurred.

    And your point in bold is disgusting, but its exactly the mindset that allows these atrocities to go on. That people think securing our foreign interests is worth spilling innocent civilian blood.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    You'll see we were talking about the issue yesterday regarding whether or not 'war should be thought in the shadow of prosecution'. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are an interesting example of this, and so it is fitting to "bang on about" them.
    The reason I've raised it is that people forget that the casualty levels seen their were no different to conventuals bombing raids.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonstudent1)
    My point is that all those reasons are incidental. We went into Iraq for our own interests. We helped Sadaam get weapons when it suited us.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-weapons.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...%80%93Iraq_war
    We are largely responsible for the destabilization of the middle east through our constant intervention in a number of countries.
    Your point about the dog is irrelevant and simplified.
    The deaths that occurred as a result of the instability are down to us. The insurgents believe they are fighting for the freedom of Iraq and that anyone helps the U.S is a traitor. This gives them their support. The sectarian divides have been intensified through our involvement. We are therefore at least partly responsible for the deaths that have since occurred.

    And your point in bold is disgusting, but its exactly the mindset that allows these atrocities to go on. That people think securing our foreign interests is worth spilling innocent civilian blood.
    You are so very naive.

    You make a point about how instability is our fault, and then admonish us for securing our own interests and supporting certain dictators. You clearly have no understanding of what is at stake. If we don't support a certain regime, what are we to do, declare the area a forsaken zone and have nothing to do with it? How well has that worked with NK, the Concentration Camp State? We must be involved in those areas, for our own benefit and the benefit of the people, as bad as Saddam was, he was the devil we knew. Look at that area, it's history of bloody sectarian violence, religious extremism and so forth. If we have nothing to do with them, the dictators have less power, the people are abused even more and we gain nothing. If we are involved, we have a measure of control over the dictator and can secure our own intersts. Saddam stepped out of line, his regime was abusing too many people and cooperating with too few.

    Before we were involved there was an authoritarian, rouge dictatorship committing genocide. Now there are backward Islamist insurjents killing their own people. Yet when we support the dictatorship, we're in the wrong. When we remove the dictatorship, we're in the wrong. And when we have nothing to do with the state, nothing goes well. People like you live in a niave little bubble and have no concept of the intricacy of international relations.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    You are so very naive.

    You make a point about how instability is our fault, and then admonish us for securing our own interests and supporting certain dictators. You clearly have no understanding of what is at stake. If we don't support a certain regime, what are we to do, declare the area a forsaken zone and have nothing to do with it? How well has that worked with NK, the Concentration Camp State? We must be involved in those areas, for our own benefit and the benefit of the people, as bad as Saddam was, he was the devil we knew. Look at that area, it's history of bloody sectarian violence, religious extremism and so forth. If we have nothing to do with them, the dictators have less power, the people are abused even more and we gain nothing. If we are involved, we have a measure of control over the dictator and can secure our own intersts. Saddam stepped out of line, his regime was abusing too many people and cooperating with too few.

    Before we were involved there was an authoritarian, rouge dictatorship committing genocide. Now there are backward Islamist insurjents killing their own people. Yet when we support the dictatorship, we're in the wrong. When we remove the dictatorship, we're in the wrong. And when we have nothing to do with the state, nothing goes well. People like you live in a niave little bubble and have no concept of the intricacy of international relations.
    Im sorry but what a load of rambling that was ^

    My point is that we have destabilized the middle east and installed a number of puppet regimes and dictators that are there only to secure our own interests.
    People acting like our government are in these countries down to some sense of greater good and a real threat of attack are misguided. This point is particularly ridiculous when it comes to Sadaam as we were so willing to supply and support him for a number of years.
    North Korea's situation has been made possible by Chinese intervention, to again secure their foreign interests.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonstudent1)
    Im sorry but what a load of rambling that was ^

    My point is that we have destabilized the middle east and installed a number of puppet regimes and dictators that are there only to secure our own interests.
    People acting like our government are in these countries down to some sense of greater good and a real threat of attack are misguided. This point is particularly ridiculous when it comes to Sadaam as we were so willing to supply and support him for a number of years.
    North Korea's situation has been made possible by Chinese intervention, to again secure their foreign interests.
    I give up. :facepalm:
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
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

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