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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Zapsta i wouldnt bother even trying to explain
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zapsta)
    That a large number of people in Iraq were constantly living in fear of being killed by their own leader? That as much as a word against him, if it got back to the wrong person, would result in death? That Hussein didn't just kill people but torture them, with recorded activities including the removal of ears and being strung up by the testicals? That even his own party members weren't safe? And that if you wanted out, the chances are that your passport would have been removed long ago so you didn't really have an option? I think that's a pretty good reason for going to war with a country. Next stop, Zimbabwe.
    those are good points and i agree with you, but clearly the war was for oil not to protect those innocent people, mr bush does not give a **** about them, you know that i know that and the old lady down the road knows that
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If it was purely to "save the people" why do people from Iraq have priority over those from central Africa, in terms of funding given? Proportionally the money given towards countries with huge HIV problems is tiny compared to the money ploughed into "saving Iraq".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Do Chickens Fly)
    Oh I see... that's kind of like people ****ing for virginity, right?

    Yeh of course we're by definition, terrorisits. Our only saving grace is that we outnumber those we choose to label true terrorists.
    So, er, in every war we've fought in, and every war every other country has fought, every country has been fighting as terrorists? Sometimes war can have a just cause. How else are we meant to stop terrorism, may I ask? Write a letter to Bin Laden? How are we meant to stop Saddam Hussein from brutally killing his own citizens? Phone him up on his mobile and have a little chat? War for peace is entirely possible. Think about it. If the war had never happened, more innocent people would have died under the hands of Saddam Hussein and his regime. Iraq was clearly a threat to itself and other countries, and Mr Bush may not have given "a ****" about the innocent people, but we do. Tony Blair may have cared about the innocent people, and so do a vast majority of the citizens in this country. We, in this country, are not trying to intimidate, we are doing our best to help.

    jumpunderaboat- the are hundreds of charitable organisations who donate to African countries. Governments give masses amount of money already to help these people in Africa.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by glance)
    jumpunderaboat- the are hundreds of charitable organisations who donate to African countries. Governments give masses amount of money already to help these people in Africa.
    They may give "masses", but relative to the populations they spent alot more on "liberating" Iraq in the past year or so.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by glance)
    So, er, in every war we've fought in, and every war every other country has fought, every country has been fighting as terrorists? Sometimes war can have a just cause. How else are we meant to stop terrorism, may I ask? Write a letter to Bin Laden? How are we meant to stop Saddam Hussein from brutally killing his own citizens? Phone him up on his mobile and have a little chat? War for peace is entirely possible. Think about it. If the war had never happened, more innocent people would have died under the hands of Saddam Hussein and his regime. Iraq was clearly a threat to itself and other countries, and Mr Bush may not have given "a ****" about the innocent people, but we do. Tony Blair may have cared about the innocent people, and so do a vast majority of the citizens in this country. We, in this country, are not trying to intimidate, we are doing our best to help.

    jumpunderaboat- the are hundreds of charitable organisations who donate to African countries. Governments give masses amount of money already to help these people in Africa.
    why did britain and america choose to 'help' the people of iraq and not the people in zimbabwe? may be because there is not many valuable resources in zimbabwe which they could help them selves to? if this country was doin its best to help, why do they sell guns and other weapons to poor african countrys? maybe britain dont give a **** bout anyone but them selves and how to get more money
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dmitrij_savicki)
    run their country in the way we want with out their say.
    precisely the opposite.

    And why did we start the war on iraq? the only answer is oil, since the counrty was peacefull
    sure.
    Offline

    14
    I am not a terrorist, is that what you were asking?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dmitrij_savicki)
    are we living in a terrorist regime? well since tony acts on behalf of the people in england, and he chooses to go to an illegal was with iraq and ill inoccent people, are we therefore terrorist our selves since tony is acting on out behalf?
    Guess that's one way to TRY and use representational democracy....

    Do we favour regocide? East Timor anyone?

    Tony is not just acting on behalf of the people in England.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dmitrij_savicki)
    why did britain and america choose to 'help' the people of iraq and not the people in zimbabwe?
    Because Iraq was a threat to them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by glance)
    Because Iraq was a threat to them.
    how wa iraq a threat?

    Mod Expression - Language
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dmitrij_savicki)
    how wa iraq a threat?
    It wasn't a threat, but the WOMAD issue was a convenient excuse with regards to Iraq's liberation. Because people are stupid and selfish, if they were told that their government was sending their army to liberate another country, the British people, and indeed the Americans, wouldn't be too happy. However, if you can say that the country may provide a threat to us then you can go and help out with relatively little bother. At the moment there is no other reason to liberate Zimambwe other than the fact that it is under an oppresive dicatorship, but the general attitude of people would just be that it's not our problem and we don't care. Therefore, going to war would politically be a bad move.

    As for AIDS in Africa - well, there's only so much money that's worth devoting to lost causes.


    Mod Expression - Language
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by glance)
    Because Iraq was a threat to them.
    Whoever de-repped me for this post, commenting "you c*nt" really needs to relax. It was only a bit of healthy discussion.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
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.