Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Breaking the Geneva conventions does not mean that it is an excuse in attacking Iraq.
    The excuse being that the covnention meant nothing/hardly anything, as you implied...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    That doesn't make sense, as Iran and Iraq are 2 seperate countries. The Iraqi war and that documentary about Iran are different matters.
    But, as I know it, Iran and Iraq have been inextricably linked in the past (wars and what have you) so in SOME aspects, opinion about one will affect opinion about the other. This is not a generalisation, but a truth (and yes, we in the west are wrong to think the two countries are interchangable but as I know it they have a history of being interlinked.)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    1.) No, for the Iraq nvasion it was mainly oil. I was talking about that in the posts which you found that quote.
    1) In that quote on which I quoted you, I was referring to Afghanistan. And so were you.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    1. So you are contesting that America (through all their foillibles) are the most economically powerful/militarily powerful country in the world?

    This has nothing to do with people liking it. It is a fact.
    Actually Phil, I made no mistake in that post.

    You said to me: "Do you wish to contest this" - I said "no, but the USA abuse their powers at the expense...."
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    The excuse being that the covnention meant nothing/hardly anything, as you implied...
    The Geneva convention means nothing in times of war. But I was not implying that it was a reason for attacking Iraq.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by bono)
    That doesn't make sense, as Iran and Iraq are 2 seperate countries. The Iraqi war and that documentary about Iran are different matters.
    Well yes - that's what I thought

    But your arguement seems to keep confusing the two and implying that they're related.

    Please clarify exactly *what* you are argueing in favour of/against for the sake of everyone.

    In a single, calm, thought out, logical post
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    In a single, calm, thought out, logical post
    I wish you good luck. I was arguing with him for over 6 pages.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blissy)
    But, as I know it, Iran and Iraq have been inextricably linked in the past (wars and what have you) so in SOME aspects, opinion about one will affect opinion about the other. This is not a generalisation, but a truth (and yes, we in the west are wrong to think the two countries are interchangable but as I know it they have a history of being interlinked.)
    They are 2 seperate countries, USA haven't invaded Iran, and Iran has more positive features in regards to the country than Iraq at present (Phil implied that he agreed with this by saying that there are not even any good things to comment on about Iraq really).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    Actually Phil, I made no mistake in that post.

    You said to me: "Do you wish to contest this" - I said "no, but the USA abuse their powers at the expense...."
    Good, thank god, we clarified one point at least.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Well yes - that's what I thought

    But your arguement seems to keep confusing the two and implying that they're related.

    Please clarify exactly *what* you are argueing in favour of/against for the sake of everyone.

    In a single, calm, thought out, logical post
    The argument has swayed. Before we were talking about media coverage of Iran from the West (US/UK) and how it was one sided, and now about how the USA government wanted bad publicity about Iraq to aid their plans for invading Iraq.

    The only similairty is that the press for both countries is negative, but the USA haven't invaded Iran or anything so it's 2 seperate matters really.

    We have discussed both.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    They are 2 seperate countries, USA haven't invaded Iran, and Iran has more positive features in regards to the country than Iraq at present (Phil implied that he agreed with this by saying that there are not even any good things to comment on about Iraq really).
    You said that America threatened Iran (you put that as an example against America attacking Iraq) as the example suggested America "superiority" over the Middle Eastern nations.

    Does Iran have more positive features? With all those nuclear issues going about?

    My comment on Iraq was related to the timeline when Saddam was in power.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Good, thank god, we clarified one point at least.
    You were the one who got it wrong. You forgot the question you asked me in your last post, hence when my answer started with "no..." you thought I implied something else; as in America not having power, which obviously they do have...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    They are 2 seperate countries, USA haven't invaded Iran, and Iran has more positive features in regards to the country than Iraq at present .
    I know they're two separate countries, I'm not an idiot! I was just saying that because Saddam, the USA and Iraq and Iran are all involved in some way (Iran was invaded by Saddam with the US's approval/encouragement - I am saying nothing more about Iran, please read nothing more into it) people tend to associate them - whether this be correctly or not. I was merely saying that pretty much everyone KNOWS they are two different countries, but they are still somewhat linked in the minds of most westerners. Please please please stop taking everything as an attack, this is supposed to be a friendly debating forum.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by bono)
    The argument has swayed. Before we were talking about media coverage of Iran from the West (US/UK) and how it was one sided, and now about how the USA government wanted bad publicity about Iraq to aid their plans for invading Iraq.

    The only similairty is that the press for both countries is negative, but the USA haven't invaded Iran or anything so it's 2 seperate matters really.

    We have discussed both.
    Actually bono - I think you find if you read the backlog that you have digressed from Iran and negative media to the Iraqi war being encouraged by the media.

    I was never quite sure exactly what digression from the point that was intended to prove - unless you were implying that the BBC is intending to invade Iran?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Does Iran have more positive features? With all those nuclear issues going about.
    Iran has many positive features to comment upon, which are purposefully ignored by the USA press as they try to stir up negative perceptions towards the country.

    As for comparing this to Iraq, considering that Iraq have fell victim to the pouring of bombs and plentiful killings, I strongly believe that at present it is in a worse state than that of Iran.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    The argument has swayed. Before we were talking about media coverage of Iran from the West (US/UK) and how it was one sided, and now about how the USA government wanted bad publicity about Iraq to aid their plans for invading Iraq.

    The only similairty is that the press for both countries is negative, but the USA haven't invaded Iran or anything so it's 2 seperate matters really.

    We have discussed both.
    We were arguing about the "superiority" of America against the Middle East. And how the Western media was getting "money" and incited America to be superior to the Middle Eastern countries. /"Brainwashing" the public with bad "truths" so an attack would be more acceptable.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Actually bono - I think you find if you read the backlog that you have digressed from Iran and negative media to the Iraqi war being encouraged by the media.
    Yes, that's what I said, the discussion gradually changed. First we discussed Iran, but as the topic was generally to do with Middle eastern nations, it then swayed to Iraq....(inevitably lol).
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Oh and please bono

    Take you time, think through each post....re-read it (and the post it's in reply to) before you hit the post button and decide if there is anything you want to add to it.

    Take a couple of seconds to stare out the window and look at the sunshine then re-read it again.

    This is a forum not a chatroom - noone will judge you harshly for taking 5-10 minutes to produce a well thought out reply...in fact it's far more preferable than producing 5-10 rashly typed replies within a couple of minutes.

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bono)
    Iran has many positive features to comment upon, which are purposefully ignored by the USA press as they try to stir up negative perceptions towards the country.

    As for comparing this to Iraq, considering that Iraq have fell victim to the pouring of bombs and plentiful killings, I strongly believe that at present it is in a worse state than that of Iran.
    So you are implying that before this American invasion that Iraq was better than Iran? Or in the same field as Iran?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blissy)
    I know they're two separate countries, I'm not an idiot! I was just saying that because Saddam, the USA and Iraq and Iran are all involved in some way (Iran was invaded by Saddam with the US's approval/encouragement - I am saying nothing more about Iran, please read nothing more into it) people tend to associate them - whether this be correctly or not. I was merely saying that pretty much everyone KNOWS they are two different countries, but they are still somewhat linked in the minds of most westerners. Please please please stop taking everything as an attack, this is supposed to be a friendly debating forum.
    "I was just saying that because Saddam, the USA and Iraq and Iran are all involved in some way" - Not when discussing the Iraq war - The only tenuous relation is that America are against many middle eastern countries and throw around mild threats, but that's it.

    "Please please please stop taking everything as an attack, this is supposed to be a friendly debating forum." - What attack? It's a discussion, i think you are seeing this in a different light. Since when did I suggest that it was a ansty/attacking debate?! :confused:
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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.