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
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
I submit these exceprts from the first link and hope people will finally lay aside their media fed filters and read with objective clarity...
On a final note, I ask readers to reflect further on the nature of any and all modern governments, be they classifiable as "tyrannies" or "democracies" (Republics or otherwise) and how even OUR OWN leaders would react (and indeed have reacted) to mass uprisings intended to topple the prevailing system of the day.
I cannot speak for British history (though im sure some students here could provide documented cases), but I can point to both the Kent State Massacre of the 1960's and the Bonus March massacre of the 1950's (where the US government massacred protesting VETERANS) as demonstrable and documented evidence that Saddam does not stand out as unique in the application of force on "one's own people" to ensure the continuance of the domestic status quo.
Our leaders apply liberal use of the phrase "the rule of law", yet seek every angle possible to avoid adhering to it even as they demand (upon threat of military force) that weaker nations do so. The more things change, the more they stay the same and in this matter, we seem to find ourselves (for all the efforts of the past century to establish multilateral mechanisms for non-violent conflict resolution) right back in the imperial age of the 19th century.