|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 13, 2005 17:26:50 GMT -5
DAMN BARMY u are passionate here ,do u hate americans geezer  ,no disrespec but u seem uptight on this i dont hate americans at all - spent 14 weeks living and working in the states last year - it became like home ;D Iraq is a subject Im passionate about and ive read a lot about the country, its history etc and there are alot of ppl who hold firm views over iraq even tho they are mis informed or ill informed on the topic such flippant remarks over the death of 20,000 ppl amazes and saddens me greatly |
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Apr 13, 2005 17:30:57 GMT -5
saddam hussein supposedly killed bout 1m iraqis between 1979 - 2003 however: sanctions 1991 - 2003 UN figures - 1.7m Iraqis dead as a direct result of US and UK sanctions Its a fictitious thing to do to compare the two but basically the US and UK are responsible for nearly twice as many dead iraqis as saddam was in half the time. u cant justify the war on the basis that 'saddam was a bad, nasty man' its the kind of argument you'd expect from an under-developed child who is unable to grasp complex arguments (no particular personal offence is intended to you dixonhill  ) its always interesting to see intelligent, articulate left-wingers like yourself talking bollox... the words are great! saddam 'supposedly' killed people but the US and UK 'directly' did and then you call your own argument 'fictious' ;D genius - do you write for the Guardian? |
|
|
|
Post by globe on Apr 13, 2005 17:31:05 GMT -5
i think dixonhill makes the only point that really matters - how many of his own people did saddam hussein have to kill for the world to finally act? Why? because you agree with him? |
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Apr 13, 2005 17:39:24 GMT -5
Why? because you agree with him? hehe! see i like your style there mate! but its bollox really when push comes to shove - are you saying that the mass killing and torture of people isnt reason enough to remove the man who is responsible? correct me if im wrong by all means, but im pretty sure that exterminating thousands of people based on their ethnic origin using chemical weapons is slightly illegal? and the UN's response was Hans Blix wasnt it? wow |
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 13, 2005 17:40:28 GMT -5
its always interesting to see intelligent, articulate left-wingers like yourself talking bollox... the words are great! saddam 'supposedly' killed people but the US and UK 'directly' did and then you call your own argument 'fictious' ;D genius - do you write for the Guardian? the 1m is an alleged figure, there's no way to prove it - it is through speculation and extrapolation that ppl have arrived at that figure the UN used the word 'directly' it is a fictitious thing to do to say he killed less than they did so he's better. murder is wrong is a qualitative not quantatative consideration. I appreciate being called intelligent and articulate! thanks pal ;D until the UN grows some balls (and personally i dont think it can for a long time yet because the world just isnt ready for multilateral solutions to these problems- too many people are pulling in different directions) countries are going to act however they want in order to protect or enhance their own interests international terrorism? was it bollox. it was war. thats why we have international law - to regulate state behaviour. just like I cant kick the fuck out of someone in the street because I feel like it, a country can't just declare a war on another country because it feels like it. and yes it was war - what helped you reach that conclusion? it was also an illegal one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2005 17:41:35 GMT -5
moderators..time to lock this thread
|
|
|
|
Post by globe on Apr 13, 2005 17:43:57 GMT -5
hehe! see i like your style there mate! but its bollox really when push comes to shove - are you saying that the mass killing and torture of people isnt reason enough to remove the man who is responsible? correct me if im wrong by all means, but im pretty sure that exterminating thousands of people based on their ethnic origin using chemical weapons is slightly illegal? and the UN's response was Hans Blix wasnt it? wow Well, the points you make are valid DS, of course Saddam had to be got rid off but what sticks in my throat about Iraq is that why wasnt all this done 10-15 years ago then? Why did Bush suddenly become this hero for the Iraqi people and the rest of the world? Cant remember that being a policy when he first ran for President. I wouldnt be suprised if he didnt even know where Iraq was before he was elected. |
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 13, 2005 17:49:39 GMT -5
but its bollox really when push comes to shove - are you saying that the mass killing and torture of people isnt reason enough to remove the man who is responsible? correct me if im wrong by all means, but im pretty sure that exterminating thousands of people based on their ethnic origin using chemical weapons is slightly illegal? dont be naive. the very suggestion that blair and bush went to war for altruistic humanitarian reasons is laughable - why havent they 'liberated' zimbabwe or sudan? neither are as geo-politically as important and neither have oil. ill tell u wot else is illegal - this war. if u want me to give u the international law I will. just ask. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2005 17:52:39 GMT -5
allright time to end this.bush went to iraq cause A hussein tried to kill his father and he was waitin for a chance to get at him.B-once it became clear we could not get bin laden he needed to redirect our focusaway from bin laden and iraq was a the next logical step.
c- politics is a fucked up buisness we helped hussein get in power now we are tryin to tear down his version of iraq.
OK WE ARE NOT THE BEST COUNTRY FOR MORALS OR THE BEST FOR POLITICS BUT WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE WE ARE THE FIRST CHOICE ANY NATION LOOKS TO FOR A ALLY IN WAR OR HELP IN AID..END OF STORY
|
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 13, 2005 17:54:30 GMT -5
allright time to end this.bush went to iraq cause A hussein tried to kill his father and he was waitin for a chance to get at him.B-once it became clear we could not get bin laden he needed to redirect our focusaway from bin laden and iraq was a the next logical step. c- politics is a fucked up buisness we helped hussein get in power now we are tryin to tear down his version of iraq. OK WE ARE NOT THE BEST COUNTRY FOR MORALS OR THE BEST FOR POLITICS BUT WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE WE ARE THE FIRST CHOICE ANY NATION LOOKS TO FOR A ALLY IN WAR OR HELP IN AID..END OF STORY and that justifies the deaths of 20,000 iraqis? not u too kalas... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2005 17:57:52 GMT -5
and that justifies the deaths of 20,000 iraqis? not u too kalas... NO BARMY i dont justify it i am just explainin as to why. I DO NOT CONDONE THE USA IN IRAQ |
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 13, 2005 17:59:33 GMT -5
NO BARMY i dont justify it i am just explainin as to why. I DO NOT CONDONE THE USA IN IRAQ sorry i thought those were ur beliefs...but some ppl do use those arguments as a justification for the war |
|
|
|
Post by globe on Apr 13, 2005 18:00:14 GMT -5
allright time to end this.bush went to iraq cause A hussein tried to kill his father and he was waitin for a chance to get at him.B-once it became clear we could not get bin laden he needed to redirect our focusaway from bin laden and iraq was a the next logical step. c- politics is a fucked up buisness we helped hussein get in power now we are tryin to tear down his version of iraq. OK WE ARE NOT THE BEST COUNTRY FOR MORALS OR THE BEST FOR POLITICS BUT WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE WE ARE THE FIRST CHOICE ANY NATION LOOKS TO FOR A ALLY IN WAR OR HELP IN AID..END OF STORY lol, this story will never end mate! |
|
|
|
Post by pizzy on Apr 13, 2005 18:01:38 GMT -5
allright time to end this.bush went to iraq cause A hussein tried to kill his father and he was waitin for a chance to get at him.B-once it became clear we could not get bin laden he needed to redirect our focusaway from bin laden and iraq was a the next logical step. c- politics is a fucked up buisness we helped hussein get in power now we are tryin to tear down his version of iraq. OK WE ARE NOT THE BEST COUNTRY FOR MORALS OR THE BEST FOR POLITICS BUT WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE WE ARE THE FIRST CHOICE ANY NATION LOOKS TO FOR A ALLY IN WAR OR HELP IN AID..END OF STORY I think you mistake criticism for the current American government as criticism for America, which isn't true. I'm a huge fan of America, but it's people like George Bush who negate all that is good about America. Bush and Blair privatley agreed to go to war before the weapons inspections were completed (source: Hans Blix). So obviously they weren't invading Iraq as a means of self protection. They weren't 'freeing' the people for reasons given above. Of course it was about oil, of course it was about handing out contracts to 'friends' of Bush. It's incrediblly insulting for both governments to cover this up, and incredibilly stupid for anyone to accept their lies. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2005 18:02:37 GMT -5
sorry i thought those were ur beliefs...but some ppl do use those arguments as a justification for the war I DONT THINK WE SHOULD BE THERE IF BILL CLINTON WAS IN POWER IT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE..BUT AGAIN WE ARE THE NATION EVERYONE LOOKS TO IN TIMES OF CRISIS ,SO THERE WILL BE ALOT OF BAD MISTAKES ,LIKE BUSH GOIN TO IRAQ,BUT DONT HATE THE PEOPLE |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2005 18:04:16 GMT -5
I think you mistake criticism for the current American government as criticism for America, which isn't true. I'm a huge fan of America, but it's people like George Bush who negate all that is good about America. Bush and Blair privatley agreed to go to war before the weapons inspections were completed (source: Hans Blix). So obviously they weren't invading Iraq as a means of self protection. They weren't 'freeing' the people for reasons given above. Of course it was about oil, of course it was about handing out contracts to 'friends' of Bush. It's incrediblly insulting for both governments to cover this up, and incredibilly stupid for anyone to accept their lies. I AGREE |
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 13, 2005 18:05:11 GMT -5
I think you mistake criticism for the current American government as criticism for America, which isn't true. I'm a huge fan of America, but it's people like George Bush who negate all that is good about America. Bush and Blair privatley agreed to go to war before the weapons inspections were completed (source: Hans Blix). So obviously they weren't invading Iraq as a means of self protection. They weren't 'freeing' the people for reasons given above. Of course it was about oil, of course it was about handing out contracts to 'friends' of Bush. It's incrediblly insulting for both governments to cover this up, and incredibilly stupid for anyone to accept their lies. saddam was a bad, naughty man and thank goodness the knights in shining armour bush and blair came in and saved the day. lets not forget saddam had WMDs as well and he was so close to having an A-bomb. ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2005 18:06:33 GMT -5
saddam was a bad, naughty man and thank goodness the knights in shining armour bush and blair came in and saved the day. lets not forget saddam had WMDs as well and he was so close to having an A-bomb. ;D THE real problem is deeper but if i say why then this board will never end with opinions |
|
|
|
Post by pizzy on Apr 13, 2005 18:12:30 GMT -5
saddam was a bad, naughty man and thank goodness the knights in shining armour bush and blair came in and saved the day. lets not forget saddam had WMDs as well and he was so close to having an A-bomb. ;D yeah... but all the weapons of mass destruction magically disappeared into thin air ;D and even from the point of view of an american of brit, I don't think young people should be put in a position of great danger by being in iraq, serving supposed freedom, but really serving an unlawful, unmoral invasion.........the pain their families must have to go through. How can any country be free if there is an foreign occupying army. |
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 13, 2005 18:12:35 GMT -5
THE real problem is deeper but if i say why then this board will never end with opinions personal animosity - in one of saddams palaces there was a floor with george h w bushes face that ppl would walk in a wipe their feet on. saddam also tried to assasinate him too. vindictive chimp  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2005 18:15:23 GMT -5
wow
|
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Apr 13, 2005 18:44:53 GMT -5
While I mostly agree with what noel's barmy army has said I think that there is something, not much but something to the argument taht saddam would have killed a lot of people too
I understand that just as I can't kick people so too can't a nation - but the fact that saddam would have killed a lot of people is an argument (by the way the fact taht 1.9 million died b/c of sanctions is also in a way saddam's fault - if he complied there would be no need for them) - also the idea of incommensurability of human life is valid - BUT it is still true that 2 incommensurable lives being saved is better than 1 incommensurable life being saved so yes there is something to the argument that saddam would have killed more - as he had done - and so the US being in there isn't SUCH a bad thing (admittedly bad, but not as bad as if
there were no redeeming features)
HOWever, even that argument might be a bit off - b/c if you look up the Carnegie Endowment's stats on the US' attempts to build democracies they are pretty shitty - so this might end up being really bad and so no better off anyway
ie - none succeeded unless they were already developed countries (germany and japan) oh and two really really small countries
NO democratizing attempts succeeded where there were surrogate regimes, where the population was large, where there was not a prior civil history of democracy, where there were ethnci conflicts, a lack of social capital etc - I'm just saying - it doesn't bode well...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2005 18:58:47 GMT -5
I hope that was a joke Kalas, hating or liking americans has nothing to do with it - you can hate americans and think they did something wrong or you can love them and think they did something wrong or you can hate them and think they did something right etc this "hating americans" business is very unhelpful and obscures the issues at hand dude i got no idea what you are sayin....i asked barmy a question ,i am american and did not pursue it any further,i wanted to know if he was america hating,he said no ,so end of story, wat ru on about |
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Apr 13, 2005 19:16:47 GMT -5
Sorry, I thought you were asking if he was america hating b/c I thought you might be confusing his statements as that when they were not intended to be that - I'm not trying to attack you and I just wanted to make sure that you didn't think that he was attacking you or americans in criticising their government - this discussion has gone really well so far as people have seemed to not interpret critiques as personal attacks which is good because they are not, thumbs up everyone
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2005 19:21:13 GMT -5
Sorry, I thought you were asking if he was america hating b/c I thought you might be confusing his statements as that when they were not intended to be that - I'm not trying to attack you and I just wanted to make sure that you didn't think that he was attacking you or americans in criticising their government - this discussion has gone really well so far as people have seemed to not interpret critiques as personal attacks which is good because they are not, thumbs up everyone I AGREE... i was never arguing here guys |
|
,no disrespec but u seem uptight on this
)
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5