The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
ich mag nicht ihre Meinungen...
Hitler
ich mag nicht ihre Meinungen...


Your German is terrible...
Reply 42
Hitler
ich mag nicht ihre Meinungen...


its ich mag ihre Meinung nicht idiot
waiting2smile
Now i seriously wonder who's argument is naive? :rolleyes: "Look, I know what I believe and what I believe is right." / "To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."– George Bush Sr. --A World Transformed (1998)

I could easily argue that the Bush administration was not fighting for democracy but for the expansion of the American empire, for the greed of the oil cartels + for the political ambitions of Mr G.B!


Just for the record to have an Empire you must be an Emperor.

Ever since the end of Saddam's invasion of Iran, the United Nations has tried to keep Saddam Hussein at bay. The U.N. Security Council has passed 16 resolutions ordering Saddam to comply. He has broken every single one of those resolutions. The protestors are asking for a peaceful solution. For a dictator who has invaded two countries, shot missiles at a third, and openly develops and uses weapons of mass destruction, 16 resolutions in twelve years should be overwhelming "peaceful diplomacy." This peaceful diplomacy has failed. If nothing is done now, the next time Saddam Hussein becomes the aggressor in a military conflict might be the end for a nation or the whole region. Saddam with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons will be virtually unstoppable. That is why it is essential to act now before Iraq has full capability to create and unleash these weapons at will. 12 years of unsuccessful peace talks now force us to use military action to do more than just enforce the resolutions. They force us to remove Saddam Hussein's rule completely to avoid more future deceptions and remove the potential risk that he poses.
Reply 44
Little Britain
Just for the record to have an Empire you must be an Emperor.

Ever since the end of Saddam's invasion of Iran, the United Nations has tried to keep Saddam Hussein at bay. The U.N. Security Council has passed 16 resolutions ordering Saddam to comply. He has broken every single one of those resolutions. The protestors are asking for a peaceful solution. For a dictator who has invaded two countries, shot missiles at a third, and openly develops and uses weapons of mass destruction, 16 resolutions in twelve years should be overwhelming "peaceful diplomacy." This peaceful diplomacy has failed. If nothing is done now, the next time Saddam Hussein becomes the aggressor in a military conflict might be the end for a nation or the whole region. Saddam with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons will be virtually unstoppable. That is why it is essential to act now before Iraq has full capability to create and unleash these weapons at will. 12 years of unsuccessful peace talks now force us to use military action to do more than just enforce the resolutions. They force us to remove Saddam Hussein's rule completely to avoid more future deceptions and remove the potential risk that he poses.


look you can say this but at the end of the day it reeks.

Israel has broken FAR more UN resolutions than iraq ever has, by 1992 the number broken was around 45(?-i will have to check this) furthermore it has over 400 nuclear weapons, it has fired missles at Syria. but it takes 16 resolutions and no/little evidence of WMD to justify war against iraq. UN sanctions on food imports to iraq have killed far more people than saddam ever had. saddam is an evil man yes, but nobody complained when we actively encouraged his invasion of Iran, in which he used poison gas and weapons sold to him by the US.

People can carry on about how evil and wrong and how he should have been stopped, but, at the end of the day the politics of the west decides who is evil, we will happily abuse other countries and uphold false morality for our own gain, its politics.
MattG
look you can say this but at the end of the day it reeks.

Israel has broken FAR more UN resolutions than iraq ever has, by 1992 the number broken was around 45(?-i will have to check this) furthermore it has over 400 nuclear weapons, it has fired missles at Syria. but it takes 16 resolutions and no/little evidence of WMD to justify war against iraq. UN sanctions on food imports to iraq have killed far more people than saddam ever had. saddam is an evil man yes, but nobody complained when we actively encouraged his invasion of Iran, in which he used poison gas and weapons sold to him by the US.

People can carry on about how evil and wrong and how he should have been stopped, but, at the end of the day the politics of the west decides who is evil, we will happily abuse other countries and uphold false morality for our own gain, its politics.

You make some excellent points = afterall the West has the military superiority to be able to make such decisions on who is evil or not and then carry the threat through. To my knowledge the likes of Sharon and Mugabe (if not right now) were butchers - responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in the 70s. However neither have been tried as war criminals for their human rights abuses and i think this i hypocrisy on the part of the West concerning moral standards = double standards in actuality. God help us all if they ever decide that the likes of China/Russia/Korea are suddenly a threat to security!
Reply 46
MattG


Israel has broken FAR more UN resolutions than iraq ever has, by 1992 the number broken was around 45(?-i will have to check this) .


it was 65 broken by 1992 (just checked) god knows what its at now :mad:
Reply 47
Kurdt Morello
You make some excellent points = afterall the West has the military superiority to be able to make such decisions on who is evil or not and then carry the threat through. To my knowledge the likes of Sharon and Mugabe (if not right now) were butchers - responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in the 70s. However neither have been tried as war criminals for their human rights abuses and i think this i hypocrisy on the part of the West concerning moral standards = double standards in actuality. God help us all if they ever decide that the likes of China/Russia/Korea are suddenly a threat to security!

which Korea :wink:

For a while, Russia was a threat to security! Korea was also a threat - enough of a threat to start a war over.

If they decided now that North Korea was a threat, and acted on it with an attack, then North Korea have been quite insistent that they would launch nuclear weapons. Us in the west arent to keen on that, so we havent touched N. Korea that much since the 50s.
Reply 48
MattG
ok hypothetical siutuation and all.....

if your home country was under-threat, your livehoods in doubt, would you take up arms?

conscription is gone and leaving most european countries, but if you were needed would you be willing?

Not in a fully fledged war of attrition I wouldn't lol........."canon fodder squad, soldier no.100,000 to 200,000 go and charge into the blast of that Hydrogen bomb and save your livelyhoods, long live King George and the the Empire etc." Guess I am a wuss.....
Reply 49
yes, i probably would. Easy to say now though isn't it?
Reply 50
ich mag nicht ihre Meinungen...


be careful, he IS hitler afterall... :rolleyes:

Would i? Depending on who invaded and whether my govt. deserved it.
As soon as i watched the film<Saving the priviate Ryan> ,i prepared to fight for my homeland !!
Reply 52
Original post by &#26071
As soon as i watched the film<Saving the priviate Ryan> ,i prepared to fight for my homeland !!


lol
MattG
look you can say this but at the end of the day it reeks.

Israel has broken FAR more UN resolutions than iraq ever has, by 1992 the number broken was around 45(?-i will have to check this) furthermore it has over 400 nuclear weapons, it has fired missles at Syria. but it takes 16 resolutions and no/little evidence of WMD to justify war against iraq. UN sanctions on food imports to iraq have killed far more people than saddam ever had. saddam is an evil man yes, but nobody complained when we actively encouraged his invasion of Iran, in which he used poison gas and weapons sold to him by the US.

People can carry on about how evil and wrong and how he should have been stopped, but, at the end of the day the politics of the west decides who is evil, we will happily abuse other countries and uphold false morality for our own gain, its politics.


well done i dont think anyone could have said it better
and i especially agree with u when u say the west decides who is evil. so true
MattG
ok hypothetical siutuation and all.....

if your home country was under-threat, your livehoods in doubt, would you take up arms?

conscription is gone and leaving most european countries, but if you were needed would you be willing?


Personally, I hate this country.

So no.
Little Britain
It is only a matter of time before the UK has a terrorist incident like New York and Spain, you can't have 100% security all the time, however when it does happen we are ready to slap these people down.


I thought we already have.
Reply 56
I definitely wouldn't want to fight for the UK. In fact, I wouldn't want to fight for any country. It seems pointless these days, unless there's some evil tyrant who needs ridding of. I don't see why people have to fight for their country. It's just a piece of land and everyone is supposed to be human and equal right?
NDGAARONDI
I thought we already have.

if ur talking about iraq i dont
ok for the record; everyone is entitled to their point of view, so i don't mean to offend anyone by this post, and hopefully it won't come across as offensive.
I think Saddam was an evil dictator, however I don't think war was the right thing to do because i dont think America's reasons were the ones they stated to the public. I agree with MattG that there are countries much worse than iraq, which to me proves that the war wasnt because of WMD's that weren't found (and were given to iraq by the US anyway) or the fact it was a dictatorship, after all US forces were stationed in Kuwait which isnt really too democratic. I think its really stupid that there has to be any kind of war, especially needless ones, we should live in peace. Im not a big US-hater person but the US has WMDs-and yet it was invading iraq to get rid of theirs?
Anyway, sorry to get into that.
Reply 59
leah_mushroom

I think Saddam was an evil dictator, however I don't think war was the right thing to do because i dont think America's reasons were the ones they stated to the public. I agree with MattG that there are countries much worse than iraq, which to me proves that the war wasnt because of WMD's that weren't found (and were given to iraq by the US anyway) or the fact it was a dictatorship, after all US forces were stationed in Kuwait which isnt really too democratic. I think its really stupid that there has to be any kind of war, especially needless ones, we should live in peace. Im not a big US-hater person but the US has WMDs-and yet it was invading iraq to get rid of theirs?
Anyway, sorry to get into that.
Yea, instead of wasting resources on finding WMD to make up excuses for going to war, they should focus more on rebuilding Iraq, even though it's not that successful at the moment. I wonder what happened to Afghanistan? That was only like 2 years ago but I haven't heard a single thing about them for a long time. I read some article a few days ago about how the USA are the terrorists with all their WMD and stuff and I partially agree. They will just send in troops with even the slightest bit of nuclear activity.