stuwii Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Anything goes on the big topic at the moment. Should we be at war, will this ever end, when if ever will we go to war with iran. My view is we are facing a very dangerous enemy that are as extreme as nazi germany but could be more dangerous. If iran nukes israel the israeli last stand would wipe out the entire middle east and this is a very dangerous possibility, when the iranian regime follow a religion that does not fear death
Daft Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 I think everyone outside Zone 2 should be nuked. Joking! Or am I?! Mwahahahahaaaaaaa >_> <_<
Wesley Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 when the iranian regime follow a religion that does not fear death *smacks head on desk*
Daft Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 when the iranian regime follow a religion that does not fear death
Dyson Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 I thought this was going to be about our fight against your notoriously bad posts.
danny Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 when the iranian regime follow a religion that does not fear death For starters they do not follow a religion that does not fear death. Certain groups of the religion who interpret the koran in a certain way do not fear death. Im not sure if the Iranian regime follows these interpritations or not. You cant paint a broad stroke over the entire religion of Islam just because of what a small % of nutters believe in. This goes for any religion. As for should we be at war yes deffinatly. In my opinion the western world was attacked, (if they had wanted to attack america only why not go for some more america themed targets empire state building springs to mind). Im not sure Iran is daft enough to actually use nuclear weapons. I think the outcome would be something like there is in India and Pakistan, with each side making threats and possably more conventional wars rather than anyone actually opening buckets of instant sunshine. I do think however North Korea might (its a big might) be actually daft to use nukes but again it seems unlikely.
Daft Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Is the war actually legal? I can't remember what happened with all that.
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 or FIFA... I was expecting this to be a hidden track on Muse's new album. But then, I noticed that the first line of Stuwiiiiiii's post didn't include CAPITAL LETTERS FOR EVERY SINGLE WORD. So, that ruled out Muse. To be fair to Stuwii, he's just a bit young and clue-less. He'll look back on these posts in a year's time and think...man...what a tart I was.
S.C.G Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Is the war actually legal? I can't remember what happened with all that.
Ashley Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 In my opinion the western world was attacked, (if they had wanted to attack america only why not go for some more america themed targets empire state building springs to mind). Ignoring the 'world' aspect of the title 'World Trade Center' what have you got? A trade center, the epicentre of America's economy. Yes, by extension it has an affect upon other countries but as well as destroying buildings and killing thousands it put a huge (allbeit) temporary dent in the economy due to the damage. If I am correct part of the hate towards America is its ubercapitalist ways (apologies if I'm getting muddled) and for a while America in part (more so NYC I believe) was in part of the crisis, hence why New Yorkers were encouraged to spend their money down town after it happened. Hitting the Empire State Building would not have had such an effect I believe. Apologises that its a bit of a moot point and it may be filled with incorrectnesses but I am only human :p
danny Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Is the war actually legal? I can't remember what happened with all that. Depends Iraq is questionable. I personally think it was right. But the govenment should have been more open with the true reasons. Oil was a factor but not as big as has been made out in the media. At the end of the day th guy was a dictator who killed and tortured his own people. He only kept his position becuase he made a ceasfire, he then broke it for the next 12 years. This reason on its own in my mind means the war was perfectly just. The only reason its judged as illegal is that it was vetoed at the UN. And the fact it was vetoed made a joke of the UN security council. The fact they were willing to allow the ceasfire to be broken willy nilly. Afghan there is no question it was perfectly legal. A terror strike was launched from Afghanistan, the then in power Taliban refused to do anything about it. The world then invaded there was a UN mandate and everything.
danny Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Ignoring the 'world' aspect of the title 'World Trade Center' what have you got? A trade center, the epicentre of America's economy. Yes, by extension it has an affect upon other countries but as well as destroying buildings and killing thousands it put a huge (allbeit) temporary dent in the economy due to the damage. If I am correct part of the hate towards America is its ubercapitalist ways (apologies if I'm getting muddled) and for a while America in part (more so NYC I believe) was in part of the crisis, hence why New Yorkers were encouraged to spend their money down town after it happened. Hitting the Empire State Building would not have had such an effect I believe. Apologises that its a bit of a moot point and it may be filled with incorrectnesses but I am only human :p Of course it hit americas economy hard. But so would a large attack like this in any part of NYC. It was a large center for not just americas economy but the wests economy. There were a lot of people from many different nations killed. Around 60-80 brits if i remember correctly.
Ashley Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Yeah but what I was trying to say was they weren't after the west, but America. And lets face it, what else would affect American economy as much as the WTC? And lets not forget they went for the Pentagon.
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Depends Iraq is questionable. I personally think it was right. But the govenment should have been more open with the true reasons. I feel that if they were a lot more open, maybe the public would have resented the Government less for going into Iraq? The oil reasons, like you said, were being pushed by the media, but if the Government had maybe emphasised more that they were aiming to bring down Saddam and talked about the benefits that they country and the world would have without him, they might have gained more support from the public.
Daft Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 Depends Iraq is questionable. I personally think it was right. But the govenment should have been more open with the true reasons. Oil was a factor but not as big as has been made out in the media. At the end of the day th guy was a dictator who killed and tortured his own people. He only kept his position becuase he made a ceasfire, he then broke it for the next 12 years. This reason on its own in my mind means the war was perfectly just. The only reason its judged as illegal is that it was vetoed at the UN. And the fact it was vetoed made a joke of the UN security council. The fact they were willing to allow the ceasfire to be broken willy nilly. I don't get it. So what if the guy was a dictator? Why this and not attempt to stop mass slavery in the UAE or the civil war in Burma or the genocide in Darfur? North Korea looks to be having weapons of mass destruction, are we going to invade?
danny Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 I just dont think its true they were only after the US obviasly the US was the main target as they symbolise everything they hate. But british foreign policy is not something they have liked either. There was intel after the USS cole attack that it had originally been planned for HMS edinburgh but they aborted as they deemed the british ship had to higher security entering the port and they woudnt be able to pull the attack off. And this was a few years prior to 9/11 I don't get it. So what if the guy was a dictator? Why this and not attempt to stop mass slavery in the UAE or the civil war in Burma or the genocide in Darfur? North Korea looks to be having weapons of mass destruction, are we going to invade? There all good points but the fact is saddam only kept his place due to a treaty he signed. He then didnt stick to it. An example needed to be made or why would anyone else stick to any treatys they had ever made? People say George W Bush wanted to finnish his daddys war, but in truth thats a stupid comment George Bush Snr did not invade Kuwait.
Haver Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 The reason the Iraq War was/is illegal is because the invasion was based on old resolutions from the first Gulf War, judged to be sufficient grounds by Downing Street (see 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687). They weren't - the infringements never occurred, there were no WMDS. The evidence to the contrary has never been published because it doesn't exist. The two inquiries into the Iraq War (Butler, Hutton) produced the reams of data (emails mainly) that clearly demonstrate how Blair, Darling, Scarlett, Goldsmith and so on polished the worst kind of sketchy information into grounds for war. LOL WHAT DOUCHEBAGS
danny Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 The reason the Iraq War was/is illegal is because the invasion was based on old resolutions from the first Gulf War, judged to be sufficient grounds by Downing Street (see 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_687). They weren't - the infringements never occurred, there were no WMDS. The evidence to the contrary has never been published because it doesn't exist. The two inquiries into the Iraq War (Butler, Hutton) produced the reams of data (emails mainly) that clearly demonstrate how Blair, Darling, Scarlett, Goldsmith and so on polished the worst kind of sketchy information into grounds for war. LOL WHAT DOUCHEBAGS But he did poses skuds and he did stop weapons inspectors from doing there job. Yeah he had got rid of the weapons but he wasnt willing to prove it (for what ever reason) was the world just supposed to take his word for it?
Haver Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 also, here is a funny picture We have this thing called rule of law. It means we don't act on inclinations. The inspectors (UNSCOM etc) themselves told the US/UK governments that Saddam wasn't stockpiling new weapons.
Daft Posted July 28, 2009 Posted July 28, 2009 There all good points but the fact is saddam only kept his place due to a treaty he signed. He then didnt stick to it. An example needed to be made or why would anyone else stick to any treatys they had ever made? People say George W Bush wanted to finnish his daddys war, but in truth thats a stupid comment George Bush Snr did not invade Kuwait. Fair enough but it's a bit strange that an illegal war was the means by which to make an example of someone for breaking the rules. No? Seems pretty hypocritical.
Recommended Posts