North Korea announce imminent nuclear test, UN is having none of it.

[BiG D]

That would make a lot more sense if the ones with the nukes weren't constantly invading other countries, eh? Not exactly my definition of peace.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

True, but is there any other way you would have it?

Maybe Switzerland would be a good choice. Land-locked, no history (as far as I am aware) of any war crimes or infractions, central, multilingual. Of course, that would never happen.

At the moment we live in a state of ... whats the term ... Pax Americana - peace on America's terms. Once America loses the control of peace, then you might start to see some of this thermonuclear war you read about. You'd be interested to see how much stability Pax Americana actually provides, despite their own attempts to ruin it.

In this case, I think the peace is all relative.

 

[Taffy]

...yes, obviously only the JUST and KIND and BRAVE countries have a need for protection/nukes.

...right?

Of course not. Only the RESPONSIBLE and REASONABLE and TRUSTED countries can have nukes.

They have them because they invented them. Theres nothing we can do about it. So instead of people campaigning for NBC weapond to be dismantled, why not campaign for them to stop being built. Lets face it, no sane Government is going to destroy its stockpile whilst others still have theirs. Thats madness.

 

[Gibsonfire]

Of course not. Only the RESPONSIBLE and REASONABLE and TRUSTED countries

Ask some the families of the 30,000 iraqi civilians who have died since 2003 about whether America and the U.K. were responsible, reasonable and trusted countries?

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Ask the families of 3000 dead American civilians why we should listen to their answer.

 

[BiG D]

Revenge is a dish best served ten to one?

Numbers aside, how exactly are Iraqi civilians responsible for the dead americans? Why does the death of americans have any relevance at all?

 

[Gibsonfire]

Revenge is a dish best served ten to one?

Numbers aside, how exactly are Iraqi civilians responsible for the dead americans? Why does the death of americans have any relevance at all?

Ditto

 

[Taffy]

Ho ho ho Gibson. You can't believe everything that the BBC six o'clock news tell you. There are two sides to every story remember. Whilst some bad things are happening out in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there a lot more good things happening. PLUS a lot of the trouble that is happening in Iraq is being caused by IRAQIs, not British soldiers.

 

[Nanor]

PLUS a lot of the trouble that is happening in Iraq is being caused by IRAQIs, not British soldiers.

Not really, can you really see there being a civil war if the English and Americans hadn't invaded? My dad always said, every country the English invade, they make a civil war. Ireland, India and soforth..

 

[waterproofbob]

No Nanor the civilians in Iraq who weren't linked to the bathist regime would have continued to be harassed, ill treated, wrongly imprissoned and killed.
If you also consider that Britain once had one of the greatest respected empires of history would suggest that civil war in certain places is actually not a bad effort, i am not condoning it however.
If you also consider that we still have a healthy commonwealth of countries although we have relinqueshed control of the majority they still choose to have connections with us.

I also hardly see how you can blame the UK for civil war in Ireland.
also by definition of civil war as.
A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations. Then in india there wasn't a civil war.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Revenge is a dish best served ten to one?

Numbers aside, how exactly are Iraqi civilians responsible for the dead americans? Why does the death of americans have any relevance at all?

Not responsible, but how can you sit there with a straight face and tell me the 3000 deaths on 9/11/01 had no significance over the situation whatsoever?

Thousands of people have been murdered, the majority of your country's population is baying for revenge on those responsible. Angers and tensions are reaching boiling point. You have two decisions - make no attempt to bring those responsible to justice whatsoever, blatantly disregard your own countrymen's deaths because of fears that people might actually be killed in a war on terror. Or you could answer the calls of your people, obtain justice for the crime, investigate the possibility of WMDs and eradicate an evil regime all in one fell swoop.

Of course, civilians are going to be killed; thats what happens when your next-door neighbour throws himself at a tank with a jacket of C4.

Make no mistake, the death of 30,000 civilians is disastrous, but you're all making accusations like they were deliberately slaughtering the civilians. Come on to grips, this is the real world.

 

[BiG D]

Once again, what you're describing is revenge, not justice. There's a difference. And what does Iraq have to do with 9/11?

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

I'm not describing revenge, I'm describing America trying to bring those responsible to justice.

9/11 -> terrorist act -> terrorists -> Iraq -> run by a terrorist (sympathetic) regime. There's my link.

 

[BiG D]

Here's another fun link:
Justice???->Abu Ghraib

What's going on out there is not justice. It is a bloodthirsty attempt to "pay back" the damage done. Thousands of innocents are dying because of it.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Thats a lovely link that is, sure we have some dumbass troopers doing some dumbass things. Now, how about their prisoners - beheaded on live television.

So tell me, BiG D, how would you have gone about the deaths of 3000 of your own people? Shaken your fist angrily? Dropped humanitarian aid? Pleaded nicely with our good friends Saddam and Osama to turn over the culprits?

 

[BiG D]

Ideally, I wouldn't go and cause more bloodshed. Afghanistan, fine. I can live with that invasion. There was a legitimate link there. But Iraq had nothing to do with that, and I find it hard to believe people buy it. Iraq only became about terrorism when the US realized they messed up and didn't actually have any good reason to be there.

 

[DocBot]

but there a lot more good things happening.

...for example? And "a lot more"? care to go into detail on that one?

 

[Gibsonfire]

I'm not describing revenge, I'm describing America trying to bring those responsible to justice.

9/11 -> terrorist act -> terrorists -> Iraq -> run by a terrorist (sympathetic) regime. There's my link.

Hmmmm, really? I think it would look something like this, 9/11 -> terrorist act -> Al Qaeda -> training camps in Afganistan? Oh and if I remember correctly we went to ''war'' in Iraq because of WMD that could reach us in 45 minutes? Wonder where they went Oh and I also dont remember and training camps in Iraq either.

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Hmmmm, really? I think it would look something like this, 9/11 -> terrorist act -> Al Qaeda -> training camps in Afganistan? Oh and if I remember correctly we went to ''war'' in Iraq because of WMD that could reach us in 45 minutes? Wonder where they went Oh and I also dont remember and training camps in Iraq either.

You think it would look like that, thats nice for you. Really lovely. I see it differently, obviously you're never going to convince me otherwise and vice-versa.

Okay, there is the distinct possibility of WMDs in Iraq. There are manufacturing facilities, there are pilotless drones to carry the weapons, and Iraq are refusing to allow UN inspectors into their weapons sites. What conclusion can be drawn from this evidence - they probably have them, and they're trying to hide them. Based on this evidence, I dont see how invading Iraq was NOT justified. You would rather have sat there and waited - 'Hang on a minute, lets wait until they blow up a chemical bomb in London before we do anything preventative'. Thats just crazy talk.

Also, the invasion into Afghanistan was not based (solely) on the expected presence of training camps, but on the basis that Al Qaeda were mostly responsible for 9/11 and were being hunted down. If there is one thing you cannot deny, it's that the Afghanistani invasion AT LEAST was within reason, even if you disagree with me about Iraq.

 

[Ronin Storm]

[mod]Please try to keep the discussion about the issues, not about each other. More about what you think/know/believe and less about what you think about what other people think. Less "that's nice for you" and more "but what about". Plenty of "I think", "I believe", less "you cannot" or "you think".

See the distinction?

Not wandered anywhere dangerous as yet, just worth pitching in some debating style thoughts so we don't need to.

Thanks for your attention.[/mod]