Alternative

[]AC[dRuM]

Seeing as the anti Blair / Bush / Coalition feelings run quite high here, I thought it would be a good idea to see what kind of process this proportion of the forum would like to offer as an 'alternative' solution rather than having just invaded Iraq. Feel free to propose anything but please try to provide us with a reasonable working model, simply 'we shouldn't have gone to war' or 'Bush is a cokphile' isn't going to cut it in this thread I'm afraid. So using a workable model for a solid Middle East Peace process what would you have done if you had all that power and political influence at your disposal?

This is a worthy debate in my opinion, I feel it's time to let the supporters of a free world have their say, their chance to let us know what they would have done, rather than having politicians do it for them.

 

[Munkey]

Waited for UN support and backup, rather than going it alone to prove a point.

 

[Tom]

Well, I think waiting 10 years is long enough tbh.

 

[JBP|]

well i believe that if you look at nations that have democracy that at some point in there history (the last 200 years or so) that they have if not all then the vast majority had a civil war.

why would iraq be any different?

therefore imo the troops should be pulled, let them have a civil war,then return and help them rebuild thier country how they want it to be rebuilt


(btw i think ive said all this before)


i think the bigger problems lie with the isreal/palestine situation

 

[maxi]

The initial plan was to find Saddams WMD, that was slowly transformed and spun into liberation of a country.

No WMDs wer found, the UN inspectors were still searching when the war began. Iraq were complying pretty much.

So...they could have let the UN finish their inspections

But then they wouldn't have gotten the war they wanted.

There needn't be a 'workable model for a solid Middle East Peace process ' If Iraq had not been invaded, this would not even be a talking point. Bush/Blair do not own the world (yet).

 

[ECA]

Make the issue about human rights and invaded Myanmar, Algeria, Myanmar, Japan, China, and all those other countries with human rights abuse far greater than saddams.

I don't think people are pissed that saddam was removed.....just that the excuse of WMD was used to grab the oil, there are far more deserving countries to be liberated from despots and tyrannical governments.

 

[]AC[dRuM]

there are far more deserving countries to be liberated from despots and tyrannical governments

I back the invasion of Iraq only on the grounds of the thousands of innocent victims who died under SH reign and the fact that he had harboured known criminals/terrorists but you could always argue that the USA did the very same thing with nazi scientists at the end of WWII. I agree there are plenty of other countries with appauling human rights atrocities but Iraq remained one of the worst the world has seen in the latter part of the 20th Century. Funnily enough (or not as the case may be) Columbia situated on the doorstep of America has one of the worst records for human rights violations in the western hemisphere.

I think that the people of Iraq do have a brighter future, if they can look past religion and start building a better future for all concerned. The main argument now is whether they 'need' to be helped or not. Some see the USA as helping, others see them as using the situation to exploit Iraqs potential wealth, I personal feel it is a bit of both.

There needn't be a 'workable model for a solid Middle East Peace process ' If Iraq had not been invaded, this would not even be a talking point.

The point about a Middle East peace process and Iraq is relevent because of the anti semitic extremist groups that Iraq supported.

 

[dysfunction]

I'm quite happy with them invading Iraq. I do think things could have been done in a better way during the occupation but you dont really know the whole truth of whats happening over there...

 

[maxi]

I think that the people of Iraq do have a brighter future, if they can look past religion and start building a better future for all concerned. The main argument now is whether they 'need' to be helped or not. Some see the USA as helping, others see them as using the situation to exploit Iraqs potential wealth, I personal feel it is a bit of both.

Yeah just that 'niggling' 'small' issue of Religion.

I think the same could be said for the USA. Bush's almost mad right wing christianity is part of the reason the US is moving backward at the moment. Pro Life, Anti-Gay etc etc.

Also, abou tthe US Helping...if they were really liberating a country...why couldnt they have told us that from the start? rather than using the WMDs as an excuse? It doesn't wash.


The last post i made i said 'bush/blair don't own the world' I didnt elaborate enough on that* what i meant was it isn't our place to decide who needs 'help' and who doesn't Arguably it is nobodies place, but in reality that's what the UN is for. (who were ignored and undermined)



*and i havent on this post, but thats because I'm tired of spending hours writing things only to have to repeat myself over and over.

 

[mr.Blacky]

In an ideal world the UN would do something about dictators, then again if we lived in an ideal world there would be no dictators.
As long as the UN is organised for the interest of nations it will not be able to do something about people's interest.
Yes the USA and the UK presented their reasons wrong, but in the end it did solve the Saddam Hoessein problem (not the Iraq-problem).
Still we waited 10 years another 10 wouldn't be a problem right??

 

[Ch3tan]

Saddam and his regime needed to go. I think Bush and Blair went around it the wrong way, but I cant offer an alternative now, and no one could at the time.

It really did need a unified action from the UN, because now it is more of a joke than it previously was.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

Nuke 'em tbh.

 

[maxi]

I do wonder why people choose to say the most obvious of things, in a vain attempt to be funny.

It's so dull.

 

[GDW]

I dont think he was trying to be funny.

 

[Catsby]

We used to hate the Romans, because they were more powerful than us (circa 100AD).
We used to hate the Swedes, because they were more powerful than us (circa 500).
We used to hate the French and Spanish, because they were more powerful than us (circa 500-1500).
We used to hate the Germans, because they were more powerful than us (circa 1900s).
We used to hate the Germans, because they were more powerful than us (circa 1940s).
We used to hate the Russians, because they were more powerful than us (circa -1985).

Now we hate the yanks.

Big deal. Brits love criticising from a position of inferiority. Cos we can't do anything else about it.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

I dont think he was trying to be funny.

He wasn't.