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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It is also a despotic regime with a history of human rights abuses and, here's the difference, KNOWN nuclear capabilities. Iran is the same.
We all know why, but that still has nothing to do with the fact that Saddam had to be removed from power.
Unless you were OK to sit back while he had his people tortured/murdered and allowed them to die of starvation/disease while he built another palace or two, that is.
True. But again, it has nothing to do with the Iraqi conflict.
...But has nothing to do with Iraq, right?
Protesters arent going to protest purely because they want Bush to leave Iraq thats not it at all, many know that now its started you cant just leave. I for one would be disgusted if the soldiers left now after everything they have done. they are protesting to show that Tony Blair is continuously ignoring public opinion and consistently doing things contrary to what much of the public want. going to war in the first place, not yet giving Iraq democracy and inviting Bush over. That is what is is about. Many people dont want him in the country. Simple.
The difference with Iraq is that it has still not been proven that Iraq has WMD. We know that Iran and North Korea do, so why not go after them? America cannot style themselves as the police of the world, especially when there are so many ulterior motives at work. A lot of bad things go on in the world, but at the end of the day what business is it of the West what goes on within countries. It's when countries start aggressing others (like the coalition have just done, one might say) that intervention is necessary.
kiezo grow up little boy! it's called widening the debate ...d.e.b.a.t.e. .......................................... .. ... .... .... ....
Consider this for a second:
Imagine, in some far fetched, way out there reality that the leaders of countries have access to intel. from their, and allied countries' intelligence agencies, that for good reason, you don't have access to.
You really think it's as simple as the troops going in, over-throwing the old regime that's been in power for more than 20 years, and just 'giving' them democracy?
You're really not getting this
I know exactly what you're saying, and I agree with it, but it still has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
But what is it that they want heard?
"People don't want Bush here"? It'll will be a bit late then, because he'll already be here. So what do you think that you will achieve.
In the Sixties the anti-Vietnam protest had a goal. Stop the war, and they did manage to change the Govt. But this protest comes to late for most of the things the protestors apparently want.
So what do people see as the "Goal" of the protest?
Impact, yes.
Action? No.
It didn't work earlier, the war still took place.
It's one thing to be heard, but entirely another to get people to listen to you.
Ah, and here was me thinking you were just going off on incoherent t.a.n.g.e.n.t.s..................................................... .... ... . . .. . .. ..
But what is it that the public want?
Agreed, the public are apparently un happy wit hthat. But you cannot change that now, it has already happened.
Oh come on, that is a typical response from someone who has grown up with such democracy in place. Look at the countries where democravcy exists and see how long it took them to get there.
Until a few months ago many Iraqis weren't allowed to even have an opinion. Do you think you can change an entire culture overnight?
He is the Head of State of one of our biggest "allies". Would you object if Chirac recieved the same welcome?
Did you protest against the Chinese delegation?
Why shouldn't he be invited over?
it is your belief that tony and george were so concerned about, people being tortured/murdered and allowed to die of starvation/disease while he built another palace or two, that it begs the question why we don't invade north korea for those very reasons and those reasons being legitamate in the case of north korea except it's atom bombs that they're building as opposed to palaces! there are a hundred other countries that our caring leaders should be more concerned about don't you think?
Kiezo- of course i know its not that simple, please dont insult my intellegence that much, but, until British public see how they are working towards making the country a democracy of course we are going to question whether thats what they are actually doing. People need evidence. Because to many people, Bush is occupying the country illegally.
Somedody said earlier one of the reasons Bush went to war was to finish off what his father started. And i whole heartedly agree. I dont think it was to free the Iraqi people. It was between Suddam and Bush.
Man of Kent- the public want Blair to show respect for their wishes. He has goine against the wishes so many times. Im sure you are aware of what the public want, its been said so many times before. And yes, it may be too late once Bush is in the country, but the organisers of the protest have said to Blair that we dont want him here and if he comes we will protest. You cant make a trheat and not carry it out.
Bush may be one of our biggest allies but many people feel he is acting unlwafully and immorally, many people dont want Bush as an allie, and that is what they wish to demonstrate.
*claps* completly agree.
I've already said it isn't.
What I'm saying is it doesn't matter what Bush & Blairs reasons were, Saddam was still a problem that had to be dealt with.
*sighs*
Yes, I know - that's what I've been saying all along, but it still doesn't change the fact Saddam was a problem that had to be dealt with.
Yes, but Saddam was still a problem that had to be dealt with.
How many times do I need to say it?
The inspectors found nothing, nothing has been found since, by the looks of things the trade bans had worked, he wanted to build things but couldnt.
What sort of threat was he?
Did I say he was?
I never said he did. We all know it was because of oil.
You were quite happy to sit back knowing of the attrocities he has, and was continuing to cause without retribution then?
I said he didnt have to delt with 'in this way', thats not the same as saying he should have just been left to get on with it.
Wouldnt there have been a better way of securing our oil supply, I mean I'm not an expert on international trade but this couldnt have been the only option.
the two biggest mistakes, both of wich caused the people of iraq immense harm were this invasion and before that ten years of crippling sanctions ...even on vital medicines.
we have harmed the people of iraq on a mass scale that hussien couldn't have dreamed of!
we had got to the point where most of the world were in agreement that iraq posed no threat to the world or his nieghbours and that sanctions should be lifted but then came 9/11 ...which had nothing remotely to do with iraq ...and years of hard work was reduced to nothing.
it's all to easy to forget what was happening before 9/11. how many of you remember that the international community were talking about iraq resuming it's exports of oil without constraints?
in that way iraq could rebuild her economy, resume it's place in the world of trade, big contracts back on the agenda with russia, china, france, germany, the u.k. the people of iraq would be benefitting greatly now. but the bush dynasty stopped all that ...for what?
Riiight :yeees:
Let me ask you then, what would you have done? Have him remain in power and continue the way he was?
I know what you said, but what do you propose we do? 10 years of sanctions didn't work, so maybe we could just ask him nicely? Or perhaps attack him with raised voices and strong language?
If it was soley about securing Iraqs oil supply, do you really think the rest of the world would have just stood by and let them take it? Of course not, they'd have to have a cover story.
The way you're talking, it's like Saddam all of a sudden became a huge problem that had to be dealt with immediately. On the contrary, the only reason this whole thing started was for the reasons we explained earlier - Saddam's human rights abuses have been known about for years. If it wasn't Bush in charge it wouldn't even be discussed. They, and the lies about WMD, were convenient foils for the invasion.
when iran was the big enemy we backed saddam to the hilt to fight the iranians and the kurds. whatever he wanted he got from us. when he wanted chemical warheads to kill and maim iranians and kurds we obliged and cheered him on when he used them.
he was our monster.
what can be stopped?the war started the war happened people died our people died there people died,cest la vie.
people are protesting against Bush comming to England,all he wants to do is say thanks to the people who supported him,protests wont stop him comming.
im bored of hearing about it now.
Then you're reading it wrong.
Yes, as I have said more than once already.
What did I just say?
Yeah - we used him to achieve our own goals because it was convenient for us. Noone with any sense could have possibly thought we would back his every move from then on.
Unless it suited us, of course.
LMAO! Out of the goodness of his heart?!
Does it actually matter if he was a threat to us?
At what point does it become acceptable for someone to kill and torture (which is what you mean by "nasty") before the international community steps in and says "enough"?
Mr Roll makes a valid point that there are other, equally degenerate, regimes around the world. The question we should be asking isn't "why did we do something about Iraq" but why aren't we doing something about these regimes?
Excellent, and on the basis of what our Govts claimed was "reason for war" this should be enough to prove them wrong. But does that mean that we should sit back and watch someone oppress our fellow humans?
We would step in a feed them if they were being starved, so why not remove a regime which was systematically killing them?
But what are those wishes? To stop a war that's already finished, to not let Bush into the country even though he will already be here.
As I said, what is it that you want him to do now, and how isn't he doing that?
In any event, if he doesn't do what you want, then you can vote him out within the next couple of years. Such is the joy of democracy and that is the only protest which a politician will actually pay attention to. Oh, and his response will be - at least you have the option of voting - the Iraqis didn't.
He currently feels invulnerable, he has such a huge majority that it would take an swing on the 1997 scale to get him out of office. The difference between then and now is that there is still no viable alternative Govt in waiting - hell the Tories supported the war too!