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
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
Would appear that they are simply awaiting this to be brought to fruition:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=524&u=/ap/20020911/ap_wo_en_po/sept_11_fundamentalists_1&printer=1
Out of consideration for sensativities I'll reserve comment on your guests for now...interesting though, their own countries don't want them either...except for the headsman!
The real reason for this war is so that America can gain complete control of the oil rich Middle East! That should be obvious to everyone!
Also another war against Iraq will cause enormous suffering for millions of ordinary Iraqi people and kill, maim and injure tens of thousands of them, as well as completey destroying the country and cost tens of billion of pounds! Nothing can justify that!
Everyone should be mad at the governent for wasting billions and billions of pounds on another war when hopsitals and schools are starved of cash! :mad:
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
By many, you actually mean Scott Ritter. Don't you?
Any chance of you posting a link to the International Institute of Strategic Studies? You know the recent report that this "independant" team published this week, which claimed the exact opposite...
Thought not.
I don't want to get involved in the whole debate or anything, because I don't really have enough knowledge (nor does anyone else by the looks of it!!), but the above statement is a little bit too tongue in cheek and simplistic isn't it. It's also not true.
What, that Europe has been the focal point of two world wars?
No, sorry. That the reason Europe has been the focal point of two world wars was because there is a prevailing attitude of looking for a diplomatic solution first. That is not why there have been two world wars based in Europe.
Sound familiar?
If it hadn't been for the attitude of trying to find a diplomatic solution, it is unlikely that the war in Europe or the war in the Pacific to become WWII would have ever got to the point of being a worldwide conflict. So, yes, it is in fact true. Not saying that conflicts wouldn't have happened, but if they had happened earlier (say after Nanking in Asia and after the march into Austria in Europe) it is highly unlikely that the conflict would have resulted in a World War. It isn't the only factor, but it is a major one.
The war did not happen because of trying to find a diplomatic solution. It had many causes, and would have happened no matter what attempts were made to stop it. I don't know what scale it would have reached, but neither do you or anyone else, because that isn't what happened.
The fact is, the war did not happen because a diplomatic solution was sought. To suggest that is ridiculous. If a diplomatic solution wasn't sought, it would have started earlier, and who knows what the consequences would have been.
But the point is, seeking a diplomatic solution was not a cause of the war. It affected the course of events, but did not cause anything.
The fact that a diplomatic solution was sought did not cause the war. And if we were part of a world didn't seek a diplomatic solution first, then we would not have been living in a free and diplomatic country, and the world would not have been such civilised place (according to our standards of being civilised).
If at the time the UK and whoever else had decided on pre-emptive action based on suspicion (because there was no way of knowing what would happen) then we would have been living in a far more dangerous world than we were, and who knows what would have happened?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but at the time, there was no other sensible course of action than diplomatic. If we had attacked Germany first, we would have been just as bad.
Seeking diplomatic solutions for too long may have caused (probably did cause) the war to be a World War instead of a regional war. And a little analysis of the potential at the points that I chose clearly shows that if Europe (and America in the case of the Pacific) had chosen intervention over diplomacy (and they had more than adequate reasons), the resulting conflicts could not have possibly become a World War. The power was almost entirely in favor of the forces that later became the Allies. Instead, lead by the British in both areas, appeasement was tried far too long, resulting in the opportunity for Germany, Italy and Japan to build war machines that could compete with those of Britain, France, and the US.
We may not be able to tell exactly what would have happened, but we can sure tell what could not have happened if wars had begun earlier. A World War would not, could not have happened, not in the sense of a global war that WWII was.
Interesting that you can predict the future outcome in that way. I can guess too, doesn't mean either of us is right.
Again we're straying from the point. Diplomacy did not cause it.
And my other point was that if such countries were the type to intervene without good reason, or on suspicion (which is all it would have been at the time) of acts to follow, then we would have been living in a far more violent world, where there would likely have been more wars and invasions on a 'pre-emptive' basis. This would not have made for a safe and stable situation either.
I suggest a comparison of the Boxer Rebellion to the Pacific Campaign of WWII. Your statement is completely at odds with reality.