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.
Options
The problem with being unreasonable
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Although, I was initially for a war on Iraq and the removal of yet another evil dictator, I now find myself wondering...
The trouble is that a lot of (misguided?) individuals / groups were against the war on Afghanistan - a war that I saw as just and necessary (in fact I would have considered a crime of treason not to respond). To be honest I just thought that people like the Stop the War coalition were being ridiculous
Now my intention is not to start a thread about the war against the Taliban / Al - Qaeda, which I am sure has already been done. Rather it is to point out to those individuals who are so strongly against war the dangers of being unreasonable.
Whatever they think about the war against the Taliban, the fact they demonstrated so much against it, meant that people are listening to them less over the war on Iraq.
The trouble is that a lot of (misguided?) individuals / groups were against the war on Afghanistan - a war that I saw as just and necessary (in fact I would have considered a crime of treason not to respond). To be honest I just thought that people like the Stop the War coalition were being ridiculous
Now my intention is not to start a thread about the war against the Taliban / Al - Qaeda, which I am sure has already been done. Rather it is to point out to those individuals who are so strongly against war the dangers of being unreasonable.
Whatever they think about the war against the Taliban, the fact they demonstrated so much against it, meant that people are listening to them less over the war on Iraq.
0
Comments
The war on Afghanistan should have been opposed, and was not really justified, in that it wasn't Afghanistan who attacked the US. It was a terrorist act. To go to war with the whole country was not really justifiable in my view.
It would be like America going to war with itself because Timothy McVeigh was an American.
whole-hearted agreement here.
But now its done its prolly for the best.
And if the war goes on in Iraq it would prolly improve the position of a lot of Iraqi's.....
BUT
tat does not alter the fact that america is setting precedent for going to war without proof, without international support and without good reason.
If this becomes acceptable then other nations will do it (or america will carry on doing it) and then no-one is safe.
People (generally americans) say that they don't need international support, as they can win the war on their own.
No doubt this is true, but should it really be the case that the nation with the most firepower gets to dictate to the world how it should act?
In case of confusion, i'm against the war on Iraq.
Not true. The US has yet to act. Therefore there is no precedence here at all.
Rather than doom predictions, why not wait until something actually happens before you condemn the US.
Where is Bush due to speak this week (tomorrow, I think)?
Uh, have you read much history? It's more than a little silly to claim that the US is setting any precedent...
LOL, out his arse as usual perhaps, MoK?
People in glass houses etc...
Anyway, the answer is...
The UN.
Shock, horror
I'll be waiting to see what he (bush) has to say with interest.
In what regards?
Look into the Six Day War, if you are talking about pre-emptive strikes...
And a lot of jordan's people died becuase of bad infomation (saying the arab nations were winning the war when they weren't)...
But it does seem to have started because President Nasser of Egypt refused to accept Isreal as a jewish state... and were attacking Isreali settlements.
Isreal then launched an attack against Egypt (and others followed shortly)
This would have been avoided if people didn't try and tell people what to do in countrys that don't belong to them (refering back to a different thread, you know which one MoK (cos i cannot be botherd to link))
Which attack are you saying is pre-emptive?
The egyptians/ syrians attacking the settlements, or isreal warning syria, Nasser closing the Atrait of Tiran (which i have been informed was as good as a declaration of war)?
If my facts are wrong about this forgive me, i had never really heard of it until now, so i got my info from a single source. Normally i don't like doing that, but time is scarce and i'm at work.
I'm not saying no country has launched into war without good reason before, but normally they at least pretend. And normally they don't try and get the rest of the world on their side while still having no reason.
If the US attack Iraq under the current circumstances I seriously hope that the UN would defend Iraq, as its a democratic (in a sick kind of way) country thats being attacked without reason.
I know this is not going to hapen (for SOOOoooo many reasons, but i'd like it.
You really need to read more history.
Let's see....
The invasion of Korea by Japan
The invasion of Korea by the Soviet Union
The invasion of South Korea by North Korea
The invasion of Korea by China
The invasion of China by Japan
The invasion of Manchuria by the Soviet Union
The siezure of Tibet by China
The invasion of Laos by Vietnam
The invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam
The attempted invasion of China by Vietnam
The India/Pakistan wars
So many wars on the African continent as to be beyond counting
The invasion of Britain by the Normans
The invasion of Britain by the Celts
The invasion of Britain by the Vikings
The colonization of India
The colonization of North America
The colonization of Central America
The colonization of South America
The colonization of Australia
The invasion/colonization of South Africa
The US setting a precedent? LMAO
But i still say that america attacking iraq now, without good reason, it would set a precedent.
It would not a precedent saying "countrys attack and invade without good reason" but it would be saying "countrys that have previously signed up to the UN can, when they want, ignore UN protocol and international outcry and do as they please".
Has any of that list set that precedent previously?
Obviously I need to read more history so i could not tell you myself....
So it wouldn't set a precedent. I think we're drifting from the point. The point being, that just because all the above did it, doesn't make it right.
Yes.
Completly acurate ( i assume), and completly uninformative.
Which?
Actually, at least four of them....
It was even less helpful that first time i read it. i thought you said "the last four" and i did my own little rant about saying how damn wrong you are.
I'm thankful i reread your post before posting my own.
Seriously... the only one i'm not sure on is The invasion of Korea by Japan, and i thought that japan was not a UN member at the time...
I think i've shown previously that I will admit it when i'm proved wrong. Just say which it is (all 4 if you can), i'll check them and come back and say sorry.
I still don't think its a good sign for world politics if the US attacks Iraq, but I'll say sorry to you.
Invasion of Laos by Vietnam
Invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam
Attempted Invasion of China by Vietnam
Siezure of Tibet by China
Invasion of South Korea by North Korea may qualify (did get UN response)
India/Pakistan wars
A large number of the African wars
Possibly the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviet Union (I'd need to look up the date)
There are more...
The UN didn't even exist when Japan invaded Korea...
That was my point...
and i thought the same was true for all the other ones you have mentioned, or the invading country was not part of the UN at that time....
So my comment which preceded that list...:
It would not a precedent saying "countrys attack and invade without good reason" but it would be saying "countrys that have previously signed up to the UN can, when they want, ignore UN protocol and international outcry and do as they please".
remains acurate?
edited to say
Even if its not acurate, and other countries have been doing it I thinkit is a deplorable way for supposedly civilised countries to act.
Thats strong feelings indeed seeing as i don't know what "deplorable" means, but it sounds like the kind of emotion i feel.