Home General Chat
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 ✨

Personal motives behind the war

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
When protesting against the War these days, a lot of people seem to use the argument that Bush isn't really interested in liberating the people of Iraq, and that therefore the War is unjust and that they're not going to be stupid enough to believe all the American propaganda - of course, that's true, I hardly see Bush going to war with Iraq completely out of the goodness of his heart - if he really cared about people, he might start thinking about removing Robert Mugabe, Sam Nujoma and Thabo Mbeki (spelling?) from their respective countries. I doubt that will happen though - there is no capital gain in liberating Africa. :)

Fair points, but I don't see how Bush's personal motives behind the war should influence a persons decision when deciding whether the War is just or not though - sure, America will no doubt make money out of this, but does that automatically make it wrong? Should we not be focusing on the fact they will be liberating the people of Iraq, despite their questionable motives? People are too quick to dismiss an idea if they don’t like what they assume to be the reasons behind it, without even bothering to think about all the good things that idea could achieve.


Another thing being mentioned a lot is the lack of action being taken against North Korea - after all one could argue they possess a much greater threat to the world than Iraq seen as we know they have Nuclear weapons. Can they really expect the US to deal with both North Korea and Iraq at once?

Don't you think for a moment that the US has dropped the ball on North Korea. It's just that they have to deal with one priority at a time. Both are pressing issues, but going after Iraq first is good for several reasons.

1) Iraq won't be nearly as challenging as N. Korea. That being said, it's a good place to build up your military and establish a presence in the area. Meaning, if something were to go down with N. Korea, American forces aren't really that far away.

2) N. Korea is doing what it is doing, as a form of black-mail. Something that worked the first time, but won't the second. Its peoples are starving, yet all the food we give to the country is spent feeding and making the military grow. If we ignore them, I doubt they would have the balls to launch an attack against the US. If they did, well, they're pretty much a hole on the map.

Of course there are several pressing issues at the moment, and it's always easy to stand back and say, "You should be going after these people instead, they are the real threat." Then again, it's like a Command + Conquer or some other crappy War sim game. It truly is. You're going to follow the path of least resistance, and best opportunity, to make sure that you don't lose the game. Why not set up your base first, and make it strong, before taking on an army that has over 1 million troops?

Taking care of Saddam will bring some stability in the region. The war on terror hopefully will move along as planned. North Korea is in a situation that gives them... and I don't want to use this word... credit.

They've got nukes. They've got a BIG army. It's not really a smart move going against them, for there, you will encounter some real losses. It's best to deal with this kind of situation with diplomacy. I mean, did America attack Russia during the fifty years of the cold war? No. Did Russia attack America? No. They were both smart enough to realize that war would bring about absolutely no good, there would be no victor.

However, does Kim Jong see this the same way? Who knows, but from what I know, the man isn't too stable. However, even that being so, I don't personally believe that man will launch a nuclear weapon. He has it to keep his enemies at bay, to become a world player, to use as a bargaining chip - and to maybe, someday, fulfill every manga artist's dream, and blow Tokyo to the ground. Or not.

Either way, Kim is too much a threat to just go in and eliminate him. Besides, have you seen how he's brain-washed the country? Those people are in love with him, they're fanatics, and they'll fight to the death for him. Something that only a small minority of the Iraqi population have been willing to do.

In the end, it's all subjective. You have to remember though; one step at a time.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My personal view is that we should have stayed closer to Europe than the US (in more than just geographical terms).

    It's great that the people of Iraq will be liberated.

    A great problem is (apart from the obvious loss of life), how will the UK be seen by the world after the event?

    Will the UK profit from this, as the US will?
    We will certainly spend money on it...however, would it not have been best to leave the agression to the US, and spend the same amount on the restructuring and humanitarian aid?

    This should be in Politics :p

    I know this post is as selfish as hell.
    My thoughts are with the people (and familys of) that are doing the "dirty work".

    Edited for silly little mistakes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mbeki, as in the democratically elected president of South Africa? :confused:

    Your thinking higlights the madness of much of the arguments behind the war.

    N.Korea is a larger threat but we will use diplomacy there because we aren't but iraq isn't really a threat at all but we will go to war....madness.

    Also:

    You think the war will stabilise the middle-east?

    :crazyeyes
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    Mbeki, as in the democratically elected president of South Africa? :confused:

    Your thinking higlights the madness of much of the arguments behind the war.

    N.Korea is a larger threat but we will use diplomacy there because we aren't but iraq isn't really a threat at all but we will go to war....madness.

    Also:

    You think the war will stabilise the middle-east?

    :crazyeyes

    In the long term, yes, because it will put it under our (the West's) influence and strategic control.

    The argument in respect to Iraq and North Korea is that Iraq wants WMD and is trying to build them, so we should nip the problem in the bud as it were, whereas NK has already got WMD and we can't therefore just rushinand whoop them without considerable risk to ourselves, like we can in Iraq. (at least thats how Peter Mandelson puts it in this month's GQ magazine ;) )
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well if so then mandelson is talking arse because the whole point is that Saddam is meant to already have considerable undeclared WMD that the inspectors are unable to locate and destroy thus providing a justification for war.......

    Any country might get WMD and many probably want them, don't mean we are going to invade.

    As for the stability issue we will have to wait and see.........
Sign In or Register to comment.