Terror tourists

[Jonaldo]

Originally posted by doh_boy
Everyone assumed, well I did and I'm pretty sure xane as well, that you inferred that you would feel safer from terrorist threats with a bigger army. we replied that the way terrorists carry out their actions prevents direction action from the army. Thus the only thing to have them do it a vaugely police-like role.

ie. even 600 billion marines in a stockade somewhere won't prevent random suicide bombings and terrorist attacks.

It's not the size of the army and to prevent these attacks they would need to be patrolling the streets

doh_boy has hit the nail on the head, saying what I tried to say in a lot less words than I used.

 

[Jonaldo]

Originally posted by Deadmanwalking
Well i hope you have a better outlook on life then the shit you post here

Good luck to you.

Oh and by the way, the british never touched baghdad ... just for your information.

Edit: Almost forgot

oh god I say I don't want an argument or anything and you deliberately antagonise me? why?

The British never touched Baghdad? This would be why people I know never got there then as I said.

But I certainly don't understand your reasonings behind anything you say, most of it just isn't logical and you base everything on the premise that we currently are IN a war with someone of military significance. For the record I'd like to point out that we're not.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by Jonaldo
I'll just blink a few times, shake my head and leave the room. (knowing I'm right)

GG WP etc etc

 

[xane]

Originally posted by doh_boy
My point was that the claim that Iraq was developing many weapons itself has proved to be false. Thus far of course, I may be proved wrong in the future (unsurprisingly)

Literally weeks before the start of the conflict, the UN inspectors had set about destroying missiles that contravened the 1991 resolutions in terms of range and warhead capacity.

These missiles had been designed and manufactured _after_ the 1991 restrictions, therefore showing Iraq had every intention of developing banned weaponry, regardless of intent, and they certinaly were not showing any signs of relenting.

You can speculate all you want, and fluff up the cushion of hindsight to make your position all the more comfortable, but the fact was that Saddam was a lying scheming bastard bent on destroying anyone who got in his way, he hadn't changed and there was simply no reason to allow him to continue.

An appropriate cartoon from the obligatory right-wing website.

 

[doh_boy]

Aye but thats the point isn't it? Yes he killed innocents and he was continuing to do so. He had been doing so since he got into power. The war was 'sold' on the fact that he posed a threat to us. He didn't, he posed a threat the surrounding countries. Not enough of a threat to get them worried mind. Many countries have just as bad a reputation, what about cambodia? You've got to admit the khmer Rouge were worse and the americans didn't do anything. Saying that saddam is a bad man is almost a cliche and begs the question why didn't you finish the job the first time around. I wasn't against the first gulf war. At best the reasons for going to war were to correct past mistakes, which would have been easier to swallow.

/edit

Also I was under the impression that the weapons found were 'battlefield weapons' and not very long range. And most of what was found was ammo not guns or such.

 

[Jonaldo]

Originally posted by xane

This was another thing about the war. Whilst what Saddam Hussein had done to his people with the torture and exploitation this cannot be used as an excuse for war as it's an internal matter. Behaviour like this has existed forever in the middle-eastern countries, and although horrific, were not valid reasons for an invasion (which is really quite sad).

Irans leaders still treat pretty much all citizens who do not follow the leaders in whatever they say. Even when voting a new government, the leaders (can't remember their name) must give their permission for them to take control which is fucking ridiculous. However we can't start a war with Iran and make them a Westernised society until we accuse them of harbouring weapons of mass destruction.

Whilst we cannot condone the actions of various foreign dictators, we cannot blow them up for them either.

 

[xane]

Iraq had already invaded two countries, and had threatened others with military action involving banned weapons, as well as terrorism and hostage taking, these were the reasons why the 1990/1 resolutions were drawn up as they were, see UNSC Resolution 687 for details.

Iraq agreed to those resolutions, and consequently broke them, there was simply no reason to trust that the threats they had originally issued where never going to be applied, the events of 9/11 made it all the more clear that nations needed to assert their commitment to outlawing terrorism, it was in that climate that both Afghanistan and Iraq got attacked.

Many left wing pundits supported the ascension of East Timor, even though that was an "internal matter", and just because China views Taiwan as a "wayward state" doesn't mean you have to stand idly by when it gets nuked. Same could even apply to North Korea's stance on the South.

The actions of Iraq are a fair distance from those of Iran, who are merely being accused of harbouring a secret nuclear weapons program despite signing the Non-proliferation Treaty, as have other states before them, including Pakistan, India and South Africa (Isreal never signed the treaty, but that doesn't let them off the hook).