Is such a gross loss of life along with basically crippling a country in every way really justified? If not, what are we doing as individuals to hold our governments accountable? What happened to basic principles of humanity? It seems we don't really care any more about what happens that we can't see and what does not impact us.
And I genuinely feel for our soldiers and the families of those who have list their sons/daughters/fathers/brothers/husbands. They are putting their lives at the line for a cause no politicians can justify to anyone with some sense.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Over 1.5million dead in Iraq since 2003 invasion
Sexlightened
I think you summed that up quite nicely,pretty much my feelings on this topic how dictators go out of favour with the West,the Bagdad Hotel even had a suite named after Douglas Hurde,the gas used to kill the Kurds was sold to Saddam by both the UK and US,the UK portion being made at Porton Down,never heard Tony Blair mention that nugget !
I would also like to see the politians involved in the WMD farce face prison terms for cooking up that 'evidence',but sadly It's incredibly unlikely to happen,pretty much like when the murderous dictator General Pinochet visited the UK,was held under house arrest for war crimes,BUT freed after the intervention of Margaret Thatcher,may she rot in hell for that one !
I would also like to see the politians involved in the WMD farce face prison terms for cooking up that 'evidence',but sadly It's incredibly unlikely to happen,pretty much like when the murderous dictator General Pinochet visited the UK,was held under house arrest for war crimes,BUT freed after the intervention of Margaret Thatcher,may she rot in hell for that one !
Where has this figure come from of 1.5 million? The only figure I could find ran from 100,000 - 600,000 excess deaths.
Whatever the figure, it is still horrendous. Yet, there was death in that country numbering thousands each year when it was stable.
Western Governments will be vilified if they go to war or not go to war. Sometimes a regime change is needed to prevent more deaths in the future. It is a horrible logic but one that is there all the same. Something like this will happen again and again and the biggest government/country of the day will be expected to help out. It would be nice to have no military and put all the resources into the civil population, but that will never happen because of mans greed.
Dave_Notts
Whatever the figure, it is still horrendous. Yet, there was death in that country numbering thousands each year when it was stable.
Western Governments will be vilified if they go to war or not go to war. Sometimes a regime change is needed to prevent more deaths in the future. It is a horrible logic but one that is there all the same. Something like this will happen again and again and the biggest government/country of the day will be expected to help out. It would be nice to have no military and put all the resources into the civil population, but that will never happen because of mans greed.
Dave_Notts
Sexlightened
Quote by Dave__Notts
Where has this figure come from of 1.5 million? The only figure I could find ran from 100,000 - 600,000 excess deaths.
Whatever the figure, it is still horrendous. Yet, there was death in that country numbering thousands each year when it was stable.
Western Governments will be vilified if they go to war or not go to war. Sometimes a regime change is needed to prevent more deaths in the future. It is a horrible logic but one that is there all the same. Something like this will happen again and again and the biggest government/country of the day will be expected to help out. It would be nice to have no military and put all the resources into the civil population, but that will never happen because of mans greed.
Dave_Notts
Depends what you mean by 'regime change',is US intervention in South America justified,why should local populations put up with It,for example murdering elected leaders just because they don't fit with the United Stated very limited view of the a look at this documentary about US intervention in South America;
Quote by medway_garage
Where has this figure come from of 1.5 million? The only figure I could find ran from 100,000 - 600,000 excess deaths.
Whatever the figure, it is still horrendous. Yet, there was death in that country numbering thousands each year when it was stable.
Western Governments will be vilified if they go to war or not go to war. Sometimes a regime change is needed to prevent more deaths in the future. It is a horrible logic but one that is there all the same. Something like this will happen again and again and the biggest government/country of the day will be expected to help out. It would be nice to have no military and put all the resources into the civil population, but that will never happen because of mans greed.
Dave_Notts
Depends what you mean by 'regime change',is US intervention in South America justified,why should local populations put up with It,for example murering elected leaders just because they don't fit with the United Stated very limited view of the a look at this documentary about US intervention in South America;
excusez-moi David. Isn't regime change by a foreign power illegal under Loi International?
There was an illegal regime change in Iraq fronted by George dubbya ably assisted by one Tony Bliar and what has that achieved?
One awful regime replaced by another killing its opponents under the guise of western accept-ism! Witness the "bungled" assassination of Saddam Hussain and the proposed killing of Tariq Aziz by Saddam opponents installed by the west. Awful. No wonder the middle east hates the west.
Sex God
Quote by Dave__Notts
Where has this figure come from of 1.5 million? The only figure I could find ran from 100,000 - 600,000 excess deaths.
Whatever the figure, it is still horrendous. Yet, there was death in that country numbering thousands each year when it was stable.
Western Governments will be vilified if they go to war or not go to war. Sometimes a regime change is needed to prevent more deaths in the future. It is a horrible logic but one that is there all the same. Something like this will happen again and again and the biggest government/country of the day will be expected to help out. It would be nice to have no military and put all the resources into the civil population, but that will never happen because of mans greed.
Dave_Notts
Twas never sold to us as regime change though was it
I wonder if dictatorship is actually the only language many in this part of the world are willing to except?
Quote by GnV
Where has this figure come from of 1.5 million? The only figure I could find ran from 100,000 - 600,000 excess deaths.
Whatever the figure, it is still horrendous. Yet, there was death in that country numbering thousands each year when it was stable.
Western Governments will be vilified if they go to war or not go to war. Sometimes a regime change is needed to prevent more deaths in the future. It is a horrible logic but one that is there all the same. Something like this will happen again and again and the biggest government/country of the day will be expected to help out. It would be nice to have no military and put all the resources into the civil population, but that will never happen because of mans greed.
Dave_Notts
Depends what you mean by 'regime change',is US intervention in South America justified,why should local populations put up with It,for example murering elected leaders just because they don't fit with the United Stated very limited view of the a look at this documentary about US intervention in South America;
excusez-moi David. Isn't regime change by a foreign power illegal under Loi International?
There was an illegal regime change in Iraq fronted by George dubbya ably assisted by one Tony Bliar and what has that achieved?
One awful regime replaced by another killing its opponents under the guise of western accept-ism! Witness the "bungled" assassination of Saddam Hussain and the proposed killing of Tariq Aziz by Saddam opponents installed by the west. Awful. No wonder the middle east hates the west.
Luckily I am not a person who ever has to make that decision but a regime change, whether legal or not, is sometimes desireable/needed and it happens. I am neither supporting it or condeming it. It just happens.
Now if a country, whether western or not, intervenes they will be vilified. If they do not then they will also be vilified. So whats the answer? Either way people are going to die. Just glad I do not have to make the decision
Dave_Notts
Sexlightened
Quote by Dave__Notts
Luckily I am not a person who ever has to make that decision but a regime change, whether legal or not, is sometimes desireable/needed and it happens. I am neither supporting it or condeming it. It just happens.
Now if a country, whether western or not, intervenes they will be vilified. If they do not then they will also be vilified. So whats the answer? Either way people are going to die. Just glad I do not have to make the decision
Dave_Notts
OK let me play devils advocate,If Hitler wanted a regime change in this country and there was a 'insurency' against it,would Hitler be right or the Insurgents ?
If a middle eastern country wanted regime change in the US, would that make them right ?,would THAT be acceptable! After all as you say QUOTE'regime change, whether legal or not, is sometimes desireable/needed and it happens'END OF QUOTE,or is it only justified when it's the 'bad' guys, the US has interviened in 72 different countries since the end of WW2 !
Breaking The Silence:Truth and Lies In the War On Terror
if some of you could take the time to read brezinski's book "the grand chessboard" published in 1997, all would be revealed about british and american foriegn policy in the middle east since 1997.
all the lies and deceptions about terror, weapons of mass destruction, attack cyprus bases within 45 mins, 9/11 and al qaeder, taliban and osama bin laden, shoe bomber and underpants bomber, bringing regime change and democracy in the region, would collapse into the dustbin of history of lies and bullshit. research "policy for the new american century" and it will also become clear.
outside of the british and american mainstream media, the peoples of the world despise our governments for the destruction and mass killings of the people in the countries of the middle east and eurasia that contains the highest concentration of oil, gas and minerals on the planet that british and american interests must control to maintain anglo-american primacy in the world.
all this bullshit we are fed on and the latest being explosive material in ink cartridges in printers from yemen en route to america on the eve of congressional and senate elections when the incumbents are on their arses is too coincidental to be true.
the bankers in wall street and the city dont care a damn for human life and anyway, war is profitable.
all the lies and deceptions about terror, weapons of mass destruction, attack cyprus bases within 45 mins, 9/11 and al qaeder, taliban and osama bin laden, shoe bomber and underpants bomber, bringing regime change and democracy in the region, would collapse into the dustbin of history of lies and bullshit. research "policy for the new american century" and it will also become clear.
outside of the british and american mainstream media, the peoples of the world despise our governments for the destruction and mass killings of the people in the countries of the middle east and eurasia that contains the highest concentration of oil, gas and minerals on the planet that british and american interests must control to maintain anglo-american primacy in the world.
all this bullshit we are fed on and the latest being explosive material in ink cartridges in printers from yemen en route to america on the eve of congressional and senate elections when the incumbents are on their arses is too coincidental to be true.
the bankers in wall street and the city dont care a damn for human life and anyway, war is profitable.
Quote by medway_garage
Luckily I am not a person who ever has to make that decision but a regime change, whether legal or not, is sometimes desireable/needed and it happens. I am neither supporting it or condeming it. It just happens.
Now if a country, whether western or not, intervenes they will be vilified. If they do not then they will also be vilified. So whats the answer? Either way people are going to die. Just glad I do not have to make the decision
Dave_Notts
OK let me play devils advocate,If Hitler wanted a regime change in this country and there was a 'insurency' against it,would Hitler be right or the Insurgents ?
If a middle eastern country wanted regime change in the US, would that make them right ?,would THAT be acceptable! After all as you say QUOTE'regime change, whether legal or not, is sometimes desireable/needed and it happens'END OF QUOTE,or is it only justified when it's the 'bad' guys, the US has interviened in 72 different countries since the end of WW2 !
Breaking The Silence:Truth and Lies In the War On Terror
This country was not killing its own people, so it is not the same comparison.
To compare we could look at us appeasing Hitler then going to war with Hitler. Which one was right? He was killing his own people at that time. Should we have appeased or gone to war? That is the same comparison between Iraq and Germany but not the examples you have stated.
Dave_Notts
Sexlightened
Quote by Dave__Notts
Luckily I am not a person who ever has to make that decision but a regime change, whether legal or not, is sometimes desireable/needed and it happens. I am neither supporting it or condeming it. It just happens.
Now if a country, whether western or not, intervenes they will be vilified. If they do not then they will also be vilified. So whats the answer? Either way people are going to die. Just glad I do not have to make the decision
Dave_Notts
OK let me play devils advocate,If Hitler wanted a regime change in this country and there was a 'insurency' against it,would Hitler be right or the Insurgents ?
If a middle eastern country wanted regime change in the US, would that make them right ?,would THAT be acceptable! After all as you say QUOTE'regime change, whether legal or not, is sometimes desireable/needed and it happens'END OF QUOTE,or is it only justified when it's the 'bad' guys, the US has interviened in 72 different countries since the end of WW2 !
Breaking The Silence:Truth and Lies In the War On Terror
This country was not killing its own people, so it is not the same comparison.
To compare we could look at us appeasing Hitler then going to war with Hitler. Which one was right? He was killing his own people at that time. Should we have appeased or gone to war? That is the same comparison between Iraq and Germany but not the examples you have stated.
Dave_Notts
Well firstly the reason we invaded Iraq was not 'regime change', but in fact to disarm Saddam,something we needed a second resolution from the U.N to do 'legally', something we didn't even was purely about the WMD's......which, as has now been revealed, were never even there !
Right Ok, if I can just go back to what you said about 'appeasment or going to war', this is not the only way the U.S has instituted 'regime change',have you never heard of the events of, Sept 11th 1973 ?
Let me enlighten you, this was when the CIA helped to overthrow an elected leader in Chile ,who by the way, killed no one ! His palace was bombed by aircraft and the country was handed over to the US backed puppet dictator General was NO appeasment only the murder of 35,000 people,but this is just one example there are plenty more.
The US intervention
Interesting quotes from Pinochet apologists Thatcher,Hague,Clarke etc
For more information about how the US, ,murder and destroy in the name of so called 'democracy' have a look at some of these John Pilger documentaries:
Breaking The Silence;Truth And Lies In The War On Terror
The War On Democracy
Cambodia:Year Zero
Q&A with John Pilger
Thanks for the information.
However I was talking generally about intervening or not, not the rights or wrongs of this war or any other example that can brought up about the Americans, Russians, British, Japanese, etc.
Lets get back to basics and look at a hyperthetical question and not Iraq or Germany.
Country A is killing its population. Country B can intervene or appease. What is the right way?
Add to this two different hypothesis.
If appeasement was allowed to run its course and Country A killed 1,000,000 of its citizens.
If Country B intervened and deposed Country A and cost the lives of 250,000 of Country A's citizens is that worth it or was it right or wrong?
Dave_Notts
However I was talking generally about intervening or not, not the rights or wrongs of this war or any other example that can brought up about the Americans, Russians, British, Japanese, etc.
Lets get back to basics and look at a hyperthetical question and not Iraq or Germany.
Country A is killing its population. Country B can intervene or appease. What is the right way?
Add to this two different hypothesis.
If appeasement was allowed to run its course and Country A killed 1,000,000 of its citizens.
If Country B intervened and deposed Country A and cost the lives of 250,000 of Country A's citizens is that worth it or was it right or wrong?
Dave_Notts
Sexlightened
Quote by Dave__Notts
Thanks for the information.
However I was talking generally about intervening or not, not the rights or wrongs of this war or any other example that can brought up about the Americans, Russians, British, Japanese, etc.
Lets get back to basics and look at a hyperthetical question and not Iraq or Germany.
Country A is killing its population. Country B can intervene or appease. What is the right way?
Add to this two different hypothesis.
If appeasement was allowed to run its course and Country A killed 1,000,000 of its citizens.
If Country B intervened and deposed Country A and cost the lives of 250,000 of Country A's citizens is that worth it or was it right or wrong?
Dave_Notts
It depends on many factors,if country B, had a record of intervening in over 72 countries since the end of WW2, I say it has no right to judge others ! It does however depend on the situation, but NOT for finacial gain .
The UK and US have appeased plenty of dictators, and stood by and offered no help to the civilian populations,So why do we get involved in Iraq ? Why not North Korea ? why didn't the UK intervene in Indonesia for the genocide in East Timor,how about Chile, 35,000 murdered no help from the UK or US.......why ! ,Indonesia was buying British weapons and using them in the genocide.........at exatly the same time as Robin Cook was crowing about Britain's 'ethical foreign policy',more on that in a bit.]The UK has actively engaged in arming dictators in various regime's, and here's the hillarous bit, these dictators have defaulted in their payments ,who do you think picks up the bill,the British tax payer !
The UK has a history of being friendly with dictators,Saddam was once on the Christmas card list ,Idi Amin too ! At the same time as Robin Cook's 'ethical foreign policy' debate, It was revealed that the UK was selling arms and jets to General Suharto in Indonesia,to enable him to commit genocide against the people of East Timor,the media totally ignored this in the UK until Mark Thomas screened footage of a massacre smuggled out of the country and managed to trick an Indonesian General into admitting that they were using British made weapons to torture East Timorese, MT even managed to get it all on film at an arms fair in Greece.;
We have a history of using dictators for political gain, Saddam as monterous as he was,is just another in a very long line, during the Thatcher years, we were very friendly with him, he was being used by the UK and US as a proxy to attack Iran,funny then that we should use him, as he was still killing his own people at that time too, yet we were quite happy to fund him !
Quote by medway_garage
Thanks for the information.
However I was talking generally about intervening or not, not the rights or wrongs of this war or any other example that can brought up about the Americans, Russians, British, Japanese, etc.
Lets get back to basics and look at a hyperthetical question and not Iraq or Germany.
Country A is killing its population. Country B can intervene or appease. What is the right way?
Add to this two different hypothesis.
If appeasement was allowed to run its course and Country A killed 1,000,000 of its citizens.
If Country B intervened and deposed Country A and cost the lives of 250,000 of Country A's citizens is that worth it or was it right or wrong?
Dave_Notts
It depends on many factors,if country B, had a record of intervening in over 72 countries since the end of WW2, I say it has no right to judge others ! It does however depend on the situation, but NOT for finacial gain .
Right, I cropped the rest of the stuff as the question I proposed is only about Country A and Country B
So you are saying that Country B should not intervene if it has already intervened in other countries. Looking at the example I was giving. You would now prefer the death of an extra 750,000 people. Is that correct? How do you justify the action of appeasement?
Dave_Notts
Sexlightened
Quote by Dave__Notts
So you are saying that Country B should not intervene if it has already intervened in other countries. Looking at the example I was giving. You would now prefer the death of an extra 750,000 people. Is that correct? How do you justify the action of appeasement?
Dave_Notts
Well i was being a little arch,but we know America's record on this one, one rule for them, but an entirely different rule for say.......Venezula .
The UK were quite happy to appease Indonesia,they had no intention of getting involved in the genocide that was being carried out against East Timor,which may of course be something to do the arms they were selling to the dictaror Surhato.
Let's have a look at some examples from history and the present,China,Nanking Massacre invasion by the Japanese, did the UK or the US come to their aid when they were invaded,no ! the invasion of China happened even before WW2 began,so why no intervention ? Now let's look at China today
Possibly the worst human rights record in the world,so I ask you,why haven't we intervened in China, or North Korea for that matter ? Weak countries we can easily destroy with 'Shock and Awe' and large troop and North Korea however would probably desimate the US forces,a more equal fight.........no wonder the US doesn't want to take them on.
Sexlightened
Quote by Dave__Notts
Whatever the figure, it is still horrendous. Yet, there was death in that country numbering thousands each year when it was _Notts
When it was stable ? Firstly,I would like to know when you thought the country was stable,under Saddam I presume ? Presumably this would be when they were kiling thousands each year ? So why the need for US and UK intervention if it was 'stable',I'm a little confused by your statement given the question you asked me earler.
During the Reagan years the US covertly supplied Iraq with weapons to fight against Iran, the US were also aware of the use of chemical weapons against Iran, have a look at the following link and the declassified documents;
Going back to the current conflict, here's some very interesting reading, again with plenty of declassified documents;
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I: The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
U.S. Sets "Decapitation of Government" As Early Goal of Combat
Talking Points for Rumsfeld-Franks Meeting in November 2001 Outline Policy Makers’ Aims for the Conflict and Postwar Rule of Iraq
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?
U.S. and British Documents Give No Indication Alternatives Were Seriously Considered
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate
U.S. and British Documents Show Transatlantic Propaganda Cooperation
Joint Drafting & Editing of White Papers “Fixed the Facts”
Sex God
Quote by Dave__Notts
Thanks for the information.
However I was talking generally about intervening or not, not the rights or wrongs of this war or any other example that can brought up about the Americans, Russians, British, Japanese, etc.
Lets get back to basics and look at a hyperthetical question and not Iraq or Germany.
Country A is killing its population. Country B can intervene or appease. What is the right way?
Add to this two different hypothesis.
If appeasement was allowed to run its course and Country A killed 1,000,000 of its citizens.
If Country B intervened and deposed Country A and cost the lives of 250,000 of Country A's citizens is that worth it or was it right or wrong?
Dave_Notts
My only thought here is that the blame for those deaths were laid firmly at the feet of a dictator, now they are placed firmly at our/alies feet.
I really dislike, well I am unsure about the idea of intervention, who is the big judge to say we are better? Do we have a world law?
Add to that several generations growing up being taught to hate the west, all we are do is storing up trouble for the future
Sex God
Quote by flower411
Thanks for the information.
However I was talking generally about intervening or not, not the rights or wrongs of this war or any other example that can brought up about the Americans, Russians, British, Japanese, etc.
Lets get back to basics and look at a hyperthetical question and not Iraq or Germany.
Country A is killing its population. Country B can intervene or appease. What is the right way?
Add to this two different hypothesis.
If appeasement was allowed to run its course and Country A killed 1,000,000 of its citizens.
If Country B intervened and deposed Country A and cost the lives of 250,000 of Country A's citizens is that worth it or was it right or wrong?
Dave_Notts
Depends how much oil or gold or whatever is involved.
A good point flower, we do not seam to have the same morals for saving Innocent lives the world over
Sexlightened
Quote by Bluefish2009
My only thought here is that the blame for those deaths were laid firmly at the feet of a dictator, now they are placed firmly at our/alies feet.
I really dislike, well I am unsure about the idea of intervention, who is the big judge to say we are better? Do we have a world law?
Add to that several generations growing up being taught to hate the west, all we are do is storing up trouble for the future
I agree with you 100% ,some very good points ! Intervention should always be the last option on the table, better to use sanctions and political fact that the US and UK didn't even wait for the second U.N resolution is Saddam was using chemical weapons , the US were also happy to sell him weapons as long as he used them against Iran,Saddam was also torturing his own people during this period , yet 'The West' choose to ignore It,so what gives us the right to take the moral ground all of a sudden.
If we can pick and choose in which countries to intervene, does that also give us the right to choose which countries have nuclear weapons ?
Sex God
Quote by medway_garage
My only thought here is that the blame for those deaths were laid firmly at the feet of a dictator, now they are placed firmly at our/alies feet.
I really dislike, well I am unsure about the idea of intervention, who is the big judge to say we are better? Do we have a world law?
Add to that several generations growing up being taught to hate the west, all we are do is storing up trouble for the future
I agree with you 100% ,some very good points ! Intervention should always be the last option on the table, better to use sanctions and political fact that the US and UK didn't even wait for the second U.N resolution is telling.When Saddam was using chemical weapons , the US were also happy to sell him weapons as long as he used them against Iran,Saddam was also torturing his own people during this period , yet 'The West' choose to ignore It,so what gives us the right to take the moral ground all of a sudden.
If we can pick and choose in which countries to intervene, does that also give us the right to choose which countries have nuclear weapons ?
They could not afford to wait very long as they new at any moment the weapons inspectors would be informing us there was no weapons!
Quote by medway_garage
So you are saying that Country B should not intervene if it has already intervened in other countries. Looking at the example I was giving. You would now prefer the death of an extra 750,000 people. Is that correct? How do you justify the action of appeasement?
Dave_Notts
Well i was being a little arch,but we know America's record on this one, one rule for them, but an entirely different rule for say.......Venezula .
The UK were quite happy to appease Indonesia,they had no intention of getting involved in the genocide that was being carried out against East Timor,which may of course be something to do the arms they were selling to the dictaror Surhato.
Let's have a look at some examples from history and the present,China,Nanking Massacre invasion by the Japanese, did the UK or the US come to their aid when they were invaded,no ! the invasion of China happened even before WW2 began,so why no intervention ? Now let's look at China today
Possibly the worst human rights record in the world,so I ask you,why haven't we intervened in China, or North Korea for that matter ? Weak countries we can easily destroy with 'Shock and Awe' and large troop and North Korea however would probably desimate the US forces,a more equal fight.........no wonder the US doesn't want to take them on.
Thank you once again for world history.
I posed a hyperthetical question to know how you would do things differently and what your justifications would be to do those actions. You haven't answered. I know what America, Russia, Japan, Iraq, Britain, etc has done in the past. What would you do differently? To save arguing over a place and its histories I introduced Country A & B.
Dave_Notts
Quote by flower411
Thanks for the information.
However I was talking generally about intervening or not, not the rights or wrongs of this war or any other example that can brought up about the Americans, Russians, British, Japanese, etc.
Lets get back to basics and look at a hyperthetical question and not Iraq or Germany.
Country A is killing its population. Country B can intervene or appease. What is the right way?
Add to this two different hypothesis.
If appeasement was allowed to run its course and Country A killed 1,000,000 of its citizens.
If Country B intervened and deposed Country A and cost the lives of 250,000 of Country A's citizens is that worth it or was it right or wrong?
Dave_Notts
Depends how much oil or gold or whatever is involved.
Are you saying that if it was your call, you would use those two factors to decide if you intervened or not?
Dave_Notts
Sex God
Quote by Dave__Notts
Thanks for the information.
However I was talking generally about intervening or not, not the rights or wrongs of this war or any other example that can brought up about the Americans, Russians, British, Japanese, etc.
Lets get back to basics and look at a hyperthetical question and not Iraq or Germany.
Country A is killing its population. Country B can intervene or appease. What is the right way?
Add to this two different hypothesis.
If appeasement was allowed to run its course and Country A killed 1,000,000 of its citizens.
If Country B intervened and deposed Country A and cost the lives of 250,000 of Country A's citizens is that worth it or was it right or wrong?
Dave_Notts
Depends how much oil or gold or whatever is involved.
Are you saying that if it was your call, you would use those two factors to decide if you intervened or not?
Dave_Notts
I think he is saying that is possibly the motivation for why we intervened
Sexlightened
Quote by Bluefish2009
I think he is saying that is possibly the motivation for why we intervened
Bang on the money
Sorry Dave, it would be pointless for me to enter into imaginary 'country A or B' senarios, it makes no sense, as we know from reality there are many other factors to take into account, I won't give you another history lesson there's plenty of links for you to look at if you should so choose.
So getting back to Iraq Iraq was actually invaded because of WMD's,,there was no pursuit of a second resolution at the U.N, there was an obvious rush to engage in the war, so make of that what you will !
My personal view is that there were several reasons for the invasion, unfinished business from Bush ,arms contracts, the oil supply in the region and of course implimenting a different puppet dictator, one that will do Washington's bidding without question !
Dave I'll be happy to debate with you more if you like, but I'm off to London, staying at a friends house, so I'm not snubbing you, I'll be back next a good weekend all !
Quote by Dave__Notts
Thank you once again for world history.
I posed a hyperthetical question to know how you would do things differently and what your justifications would be to do those actions. You haven't answered. I know what America, Russia, Japan, Iraq, Britain, etc has done in the past. What would you do differently? To save arguing over a place and its histories I introduced Country A & B.
Dave_Notts
Don't hold your breath Davey, you're too valuable a resource in these forums
