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
Yes, a hallmark delivery of the promised "liberation" by the "liberal interventionists". Oh, bravo! :rolleyes:
Onto the argument at hand, i think, as i said i stopped reading a way back except for the jist of things, apart from intervention to actually remove a dictator from power, what alternatives are available to the "free" world to stop a dictator or totalitarian state?
If one subscribes to true principles of democracy, is not incumbent upon the citizenry of that nation in question to become the arbiters of their own politicaql future?
The idea of intervention is in essence little more than a long used neo-liberal excuse to mask the real intention of manipulating the internal political ethos and processes of other nations (generally those weaker than the intervening nations) for the exapnsion of market control and domination. It has nothing to do with any magnanimous rhetorical notions of "liberation" or "social justice" (particularly given that the pursuit of war against an entire people is in itself a crime of monstrous proportions against both people and property).
Our own societies achieved "democratic" processes (albeit having been long subjugated to oligarchical interest through popular complacency) organically, through revolution. Why should that responsibility be any less valid for the citizenries of various despotic nations today?
Then the West does something about it, the only thing they can do and the people bitch about that as well!!!
You can't win!
Iraq War = Good intentions and bloody poor execution.
Would you condone dropping a few nuclear weapons on Tehran to get rid of that nasty Iranian President? And if not, why not?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
If by now you have concluded that such thing would be completely unnaceptable and that the end doesn't justify the means, try to apply the same logic to the war on Iraq.
Understand now why lines have to be drawn and why you cannot just do anything you want even if the end result appears the right thing on paper?
Did they? I think not - certainly they have bitched about sanctions and the interference which invariably leads to such people coming to power in the first place, but you'd struggle to find anyone (the exception being airheads who will change their mind at the drop of a hat) who suddenly switched position.
It would all be so much easier aladdin, if dictators left power when we asked nicely. A cup of tea and a nudge on the arm, saying "go on, pack it in, you know you want to". Would make the world a better place. But real life is not like that.. If you want something doen then you need real action adn unfortunately, thats what dicators and oppressive regimes respond to, and yes people gt hurt doing that. Its life.
Im shocked to discover an agreement between us on this issue Cland.
I am all for leaving nations to their own business and allowing internal affairs to go on as they do. I mean, what happens in Zimbabwe to innocent people is none of my business after all, it is the business of that nations Citizens. However there are some issues. Business and business dealings are one issue as, even if you do not sell weapons or things like, you just trade everyday things like whiskey, cigerettes, cars, dvds, etc, it is still trade with a nation led by a despot who has been responsible for mass murder. If you do not trade with that nation in way shape or form, other nations will do, so a potentially profitable market is lost. If all Western countries refuse to trade the despot will simply open up markets with other nations in similar situations, nations who are enemies to the West, nations who are poor and have been abused, etc.
The people of a country would find it hard to revolt if they are all famine and disease sufferers while the leadership and army are all still well fed, well armed, etc. Maybe though that would be a spark for revolution. But where would they be armed from? outside nations or steal weapons internally?
What about Yugoslavia? That was a case of civil war, one nation imploding, should the west have stepped back and allowed Serbia to use its army to maintain control of all the states of that Nation? or would the west still become involved in issues of Genocide, even when it occurs internally to a nation?
It is one hell of a complicated issue to think about i find, the more i look at international relations and foreign policy.
Who are "they"?
Wasn't that the exact point of what i was saying in that part of my post?
Has anyone said we will??
Well its a double sided coin.
On one hand, a swift tatical nuclear strike would bring a sharp end to the build up there, and could act as a strong sign of not messing with the west. It could even bring some of the insurgency in Iraq down and the threat against the wets, if they they think the yanks will use their nukes.
However the whole psychology of nukes now is so large that the yanks would be condmened I dare say and depending on what nuke they used and where they targetted the strike, it could leave a lot of innocents dead as well as make the region a no go zone and so provoking more resentment and maybe even a wider conflcit if other countries decide to aid Iran.
I reckon the Isrealis will deal with Iran for us like they used to with Iraq. though tthey do have their own issue snow so maybe not.
Maybe something will hapen before a strike on Iran is needed and so it will be forgotten about.
Depends on the circumstances.
As I have told you countless times, these situations ar enever black and white and such speculation serves no purpose.
What utter, utter shit.
Killing people is always wrong.
What a simplistic, child like view.
You truly are mad.
Describe to me a time and place when killing someone is actually a good thing and I will buy you a gold clock.
Happens on a monday.
You find the guy, you kill him.
Thats right to me.
Or, someoen breaks in your house, you have a weapon, they go for you, you fight, you kill him.
Legally and morally right.
Are you sure that your subsequent murder of him would be a good thing? I think it's an understandable bad one.
Again, understandable and regrettable bad thing has happened.
In both cases it can easily be seen that there are preffered options to the two solutions you suggest.
And I won't tease your good hearted but rather dim self with comparisons between killing an intruder and your calling Iraqi's "terrorists" for defending their home.
In bothe scenarios you are defnding yourself. What is defensive about nuking Iranians en masse?
Bollocks. Its about knowing who your enemies are and killing them.
If Iraq, at the very least, becomes a killing field for Islamists, I would view the war as a overwhelming success.
So it's ok for me to wander around and kill people I have fallen out with?
welching on the deal, dear me :no:
You didn't say Iran or specifics, you said anytime.
Of course theres other options, jail and wounding and so forth but killing in both scenerios is also morally and legally right.
Oh and if you actually think insurgents are innocent Iraqi's defending their home then you are the dim one my friend.
Pre-emptive striking is defensive, you can cefend yourself form a worse attack and such.
Iran isn't part of "anytime"?
Morally according to who, legal according to who? Talk to Tony Martin or some yank homeowner and see the difference. There are few places where you can legally kill someone, even our bloodthirsty governments have stopped doing it for crimes domestically.
Oh and the law is just an opinion written down. So if i write my opinion down it's just as valid.
Who started the war? oh....
So any other side must be on the defensive. Wow! Logic can be fun.
What bollocks. You cannot defend against something that hasn't happened. It's amazing how people like yourself can turn reality pretzel shaped rather than face up to their own moral cowardice.
And you can't use your "law doesn't exist, countries don't exist etc" argument here, its in the real world this scenerio.
Well its debatable.
Cn the cost of a few thosuand lives be worth the cost of billions?
Say you have a rogue nation that will one day cause WW3, if you take them out now when you know you can beat them and before the chance they have to cause WW3 then couldn't that be a good thing and a premtive strike would be defensive?
Explain please mate. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Oh dear. That IS the position of the real world. In the real world their are no countries, there and no laws. Only in your head and that of other believers (country/state/nation is a religious belief, btw) do those things exist.
If you have some proof, provide it, best of luck.
You mean is a human life worth a pile of paper?
Except you can't. Because they aren't real. You can have a gang of violent people injuring others, but all violent gangs are exactly the same, no matter the label.
This relies on your ability to see the future. Which of course you can't. If you have the ability to remove such a thing, then you yourself are the most likely person to start WW3.
I don't know, maybe. Thousands against billions?
Rgeimes are a bit more then a violent gang fella.
How would you start WW3 by preventiing it?
You asked me to give you an example of where killing is right.
I did.
I don't. And everyone else only does because
a) They have been brainwashed since birth and think they are real
b) There are men with guns who will violently attack you unless you comply.
Law and countries are lunatic creations of a sadistic irrational and evil cult. Anyone who supports keeping a fiction over human life is a nut. To put it into perspective, how about we start capping peple who say there is no Santa Claus?
They are violent gangs with good PR.
I'm still waiting.