Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

Options for Iraq

124678

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Clandestine you refuse to allow yourself the notion that Americans are afraid of being attacked again and losing 3,000 people again or more. You want to brush over that fact like it's nothing. You're not getting the beliefs and fears here.

    Your last post made a lot of sense though...I liked it without the warmongoring part.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by DJP


    ...then why didn't you (collectively; those against the war) brought impeachment proceedings against Daddy Bush?

    Is it because you'd lose?

    10 ring. ;)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Impeachment is at the best of times extremely hard to achieve. Youll note that despite the technical impeachement of Clinton, no charges or removal from office ensued.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Me_and
    So we all just sit here with a gun to each other's heads. That'll be productive. What's more, America and Britain have a battery of sub-machine guns to the head of Iraq's antique flint-lock pistol.

    Even a "flint-lock" can kill... ;)

    But yes, we do need to stand firm. Much as he may feel that he needs to, and I take your point on that.

    Put this way, and I'm not suggesting that Saddam is Hitler, but in the thirties we sat back precidely because we didn't want to appear agressive. At the point that Hitler was elected, he didn't appear to be a direct threat. History shows otherwise.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK, I would suspect that lingering memories of devastating loss of human life incurred only a generation prior had more to do with the unwillingness to rush to war than "not wanting to appear aggressive". You vastly oversimplify, tut tut! :p
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    MoK, I would suspect that lingering memories of devastating loss of human life incurred only a generation prior had more to do with the unwillingness to rush to war than "not wanting to appear aggressive". You vastly oversimplify, tut tut! :p

    I agree that WW1 had a major impact on our lack of will in the 30s. Still doesn't distract from the fact that our delays cost hundreds of thousands (or millions) of deaths in WW2 which could have been avoided.

    Funnily enough, we are hearing similar messages now about the potential loss of life, and I agree there will be largescale loss of life in the event of another war. I just don't subscribe to the figures banded around by the anti-war protestors (quelle surprise!) and I won't accept that just going down a diplomatic route will prevent loss of life. It will just put it off.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Put it off until what?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Until perhaps the American electorate is stupid enough to vote a third Bush into office. :lol:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't understand how diplomatic channels would just 'put it off' so diplomavy is merely the precursor to war?

    Is diplomacy all just a charade before the 'inevitable' war? If so then the human race hasn't advanced since the middle ages.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Simbelyne

    Is diplomacy all just a charade before the 'inevitable' war? If so then the human race hasn't advanced since the middle ages.

    You thought we had?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    MoK, I would suspect that lingering memories of devastating loss of human life incurred only a generation prior had more to do with the unwillingness to rush to war than "not wanting to appear aggressive". You vastly oversimplify, tut tut! :p

    Kind of like the US failure to take action against Pol Pot...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Simbelyne
    I don't understand how diplomatic channels would just 'put it off' so diplomavy is merely the precursor to war?

    No, diplomacy is an attempt to prevent war. Unfortunately it will only work if both sides are willing to co-operate. In the case of Iraq and the US that isn't going to happen. So yes, war is inevitible.

    @ Clandestine/Toady - Yes, put it off. War will happen, diplomacy is just delaying that at the moment. As yesterday's comments from the UN highlight, the level of co-operation has reduced since the last Sec Council meeting and the anti-war protests. The message those sent to Saddam was that he didn't need to comply - so why would he?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There's already been a benefit to the pending war in Iraq. Syria just pulled 3,000 troops out of Lebenon. America just arrested a college professor in Florida and 9 others who were raising funds for a terrorist Palestinian organization that has killed over 100 people.

    The Syrians don't want to associate themselves with the terrorists they've been giving haven to in Lebenon.

    Beyond ignroing, Iraq, Iran and North Korea were warned in 2001 that countries giving safe haven to or assisting terrorist groups are against us. Remember the "you're with us or against us" speech that pissed off Europe.

    Bush has incredible support in the US. The war is supported by over 70%...it went up 3% after the socialist/anti-American peace marches.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How readily the sheep swallow the lies. Baah Baaah Baaaaah!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    the socialist/anti-American peace marches.

    :lol:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin and Clandestine are humanitarians in my eyes. But dudes, they sooo weren't republicans marching.:eek:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat


    You thought we had?

    Wishful thinking I know...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You cannot say that without having polled every last one of them. There are many liberal Republicans who may well be against the way in which the administration was taken over by ultra-right wing hawks.

    Best to put an end to your blanket generalisations my friend, they make you look like a simpleton.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    Aladdin and Clandestine are humanitarians in my eyes. But dudes, they sooo weren't republicans marching.:eek:

    Are you implying that you have to be a Republican to be a pro-American? :lol:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    His programming is almost complete Aladdin. :lol:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It sounds like a classic case of 'ListeningToBushitis'
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    Are you implying that you have to be a Republican to be a pro-American? :lol:

    Nah, that they were either socialists in disguise, or closet anti-americans... ;)

    Guess this is the problem when you only have a two party system. At least we can label them all Liberals... :)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Probably why Bush refers to youth as "OUR future".
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My "humanitarian" remark regarding Aladdin and Clandestine was a compliment.

    Sincerely,

    the Simpleton.:(
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Even a "flint-lock" can kill... ;)
    But yes, we do need to stand firm. Much as he may feel that he needs to, and I take your point on that.
    Put this way, and I'm not suggesting that Saddam is Hitler, but in the thirties we sat back precidely because we didn't want to appear agressive. At the point that Hitler was elected, he didn't appear to be a direct threat. History shows otherwise.
    I agree with you on this, but what you're saying is that both the US & friends and Iraq have the right to have WMDs that they can point at each other. If we feel the need, lets keep troops near Iraq ready to attack if needs be, lets keep our WMDs and missiles, etc, but we must accept that Iraq should be allowed the same. America, however, appears to want to have all the weapons and not to allow anyone else to have any.
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    You thought we had?
    We've come a long way from medeval times. Now we can kill several thousand people, destroy a city, and cause genetic mutations for years, just by flicking a switch.
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    No, diplomacy is an attempt to prevent war. Unfortunately it will only work if both sides are willing to co-operate. In the case of Iraq and the US that isn't going to happen. So yes, war is inevitible.
    But which side is not willing to co-operate. To me, Iraq seems a lot more willing to find a peaceful agreement than America is.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Me_and
    I agree with you on this, but what you're saying is that both the US & friends and Iraq have the right to have WMDs that they can point at each other. If we feel the need, lets keep troops near Iraq ready to attack if needs be, lets keep our WMDs and missiles, etc, but we must accept that Iraq should be allowed the same. America, however, appears to want to have all the weapons and not to allow anyone else to have any.

    Hmmm...can you point to any administration currently in power that has actually used WMD? Oh, yes. One.

    United Kingdom
    France
    India
    China
    Pakistan
    Israel
    Russia

    Mind telling me who on that list the USA is trying to take weapons away from?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Me_and
    I agree with you on this, but what you're saying is that both the US & friends and Iraq have the right to have WMDs that they can point at each other. If we feel the need, lets keep troops near Iraq ready to attack if needs be, lets keep our WMDs and missiles, etc, but we must accept that Iraq should be allowed the same.

    I respect their "right" to have weaponry to allow them to defend themselves. Unfortunately that isn't how Iraq has used these weapons. therefore the international community has the "right" to say that they won't allow a country to arm themselves in a offensive manner.

    remember it wasn't the US who said that Saddam shouldn't have WMD, it was the UN.
    But which side is not willing to co-operate. To me, Iraq seems a lot more willing to find a peaceful agreement than America is.

    Oh purlease.

    In the past twelve years, Saddam has only used diplomacy to avoid[/]i compliance. They have not, and are not complying with the UN resolutions. How can that be an attempt to avoid war?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    I respect their "right" to have weaponry to allow them to defend themselves. Unfortunately that isn't how Iraq has used these weapons. therefore the international community has the "right" to say that they won't allow a country to arm themselves in a offensive manner.
    Well by attacking Iraq, America would be using itsweapons in an offensive manner
    remember it wasn't the US who said that Saddam shouldn't have WMD, it was the UN.
    I have never said I agree with the UN resoloutions, the UN just seems more anti-war than America, and therefore is the 'lesser evil'
    In the past twelve years, Saddam has only used diplomacy to avoid compliance. They have not, and are not complying with the UN resolutions. How can that be an attempt to avoid war?
    They were not complying. However, there is little evidence that they are not complying. I find it hard to believe that Iraq wants a war. If Iraq were to get into a war, it would be blown apart by the rest of the world, and since Iraq would be attacking first, the anti war community would have very little grounds to argue their case. I would not be suprised if Bush & Co are secretly praying for Iraq to mess up and kill an inspector or something to give them an excuse to attack.

    *edited to correct formatting
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Me_and
    Well by attacking Iraq, America would be using itsweapons in an offensive manner

    WMD? Really? Jumping to a bit of a conclusion, aren't you?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    WMD? Really? Jumping to a bit of a conclusion, aren't you?
    Not just it's WMDs, but by using any weapon pre-emtivly it is showing aggression.
Sign In or Register to comment.