ethics of war...told you be deep for friday

[HotNess 2]

right..so a totally un-friday thing about war..omg even i cant be arsed writeing this lol

ok,despite all this, i think we are more right than wrong in how we go about things,but maybe just being honest about it,would bring more support..if they said were invading iraq coz we f***ed it up first time,id say ok,go for it..lol

 

right,we all know and its been confirmed and admitted even more,especially past week by tony blair,that there never was WMD,s in iraq..bush n blair went to war over a lie..ok we all know that,we all have opinions if it was right or wrong,to me..i think it was right...but fact is they lied,and saddam told the truth,he always said no wmd,s..yet he,s dead now..(ok not really because of war we went to,it was iraq we decided his death penalty on differnt charges etc)..but fact is if we hadnt gone in over a lie,he may not be dead..,brits and americans tortured people over the war and 9/11..yet we lied that we did,its again now been admitted we tortured,yet we signed up to the UN convention agreeing its wrong,we went on tv in the war and said how bad n sick it was that iraq tortured our people,but fact is again..iraq didnt deny this,they were happy to show n tell they torture,yet we do it ourselves but try and hide it and preach to the world how good we are,how right we are,how humain we are...arnt we the sneaky ones.? we lie to get what we want,why are we better.?...after all,great britain once ruled the world so to say,and we did it by force,we were sneaky about it...nuclear power for middle eastern countries that we see as bad bad bad,they say its to give power to homes,not for nuke bombs,we say noooooo...yet we can have nuclear power,fact is we would crumble without it,britain would be back in stone age...they want to bring there country into "modern" times,yet we so no....so why are we the good guys LOL xx...Discuss...essays on my desk by end of day thank you lol

 

xx V xx

[nwdingo 0]

wow..ok,im gonna need bucket load of coffee first ..but yes i do get what your saying,and yes we see ourselves as the model of humanity,and we say these countrys are wrong,unless there our allies,then they can have silly laws,they can treat women as second class..but as there allies its ok,and yes,power nations got to where we are by doing the same...uk colonized or colognised.(depending on which country n version you use lol),yet when we did,we sat back drank tea and made the "local" do our work...slavery ??...america vs indians etc...french vs french places lol,and you could go as far to say australia,britsh prison island has more freedom to do what they want pmsl...anyway,theres also cultures out there that we dont bother with,who go against all we see right..but we leave alone,and in alot of cases religion is an excuse...anyway..thats going a bit off track as why we lie to ourselves and as you say baddies so far tell truth in wht they gonna do or have ..as i said...need coffee before this..omg why on a friday nessa lol

 

ALOT OF COFFEEEE

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

My first quick comment (pre-Coffee)

 

Yes, we went to War based on Bullsh*t...the 45min WMD crap...all gibberish!

 

I agreed with the War based on those points...I would not have agreed, if Blair had told the Truth....So, that being now proven, that he lied...one has to ask the question "Why did we go into Iraq?"

 

Regime Change?...affinity to the Poor Iraqi People? (hardly..when we happily starved approx 500,000 people with our Sanctions) so best not go on the Humanitarian route eh?...We dont worry too much about ousting other despots...unless they have rescources we want to take for ourselves....and one despot Dictator will soon be replaced by the next...so Regime Change is temporary in a Place Like Iraq.

 

No...Like it or not...we went there for Oil.....and To have a base close to Iran (so, when we invade them next..we can use their 'Nuclear Weapons programme' as an excuse to whoop their asses...or is that another US/UK spun lie?...who knows.

 

One thing is for sure Never Believe anything your Government tell you, until it has been officially denied!

[jayo 0]

Waaaaaay too much coffee!

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Waaaaaay too much coffee!

 

hahaha...I'm fine now m8..and the World is a lovely place

[UnknownPilot 33]

Iraq's Chemical Weapon Program

Well before Operation Desert Storm or the U.N. inspections that followed it, Iraq had already begun to build chemical weapons. After launching a research effort in the 1970s, Iraq was able to use chemical weapons in its war against Iran and to kill large numbers of its own Kurdish population in the 1980s. During the first Gulf War, there were fears that Iraq would launch chemical-tipped missiles at its neighbors, particularly Israel, but Iraq refrained for fear of U.S. retaliation. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, coalition troops again feared they might be hit with chemical weapons, though this did not come to pass.

 

 

By 1991, the United Nations had established its Special Commission (UNSCOM) and charged it with the task of destroying, removing, or rendering harmless "all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

 

By the time UNSCOM left Iraq in December 1998, it had eliminated a large portion of Iraq's chemical weapon potential. UNSCOM had overseen the destruction or incapacitation of more than 88,000 filled or unfilled chemical munitions, over 600 tons of weaponized or bulk chemical agents, some 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals, some 980 pieces of key production equipment, and some 300 pieces of analytical equipment. Notwithstanding these extraordinary achievements, there remained important uncertainties regarding Iraq's holdings of chemical weapons, their precursors, and munitions.

 

http://www.iraqwatch.org/profiles/chemical.html

 

They had them. They either hid or loaned or otherwise stashed them, but they had them. Either way, the UN had been sanctioning for years to no effect. Someone had to have the balls to go in and give teeth to the desires behind the sanctions. And it's funny too how nobody said s**t when Bubba launched cruise missiles against them, that was a-ok because it was a demoncrat.

 

Iraq had WMDs, but that was the wrong reason to "sell" it, either way, going in was the right call and something that someone had to do.

 

 

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

I've just read again 2 days ago about this history you certainly remember to have happened in October 1990, during Desert Shield. A Kuwaiti nurse was crying before the American Congress and cameras from the whole world, while talking of the Iraqi invaders who threw babies out of incubators and let them die on the ground to steal the machines. It happened later that the nurse was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, and that the association "Citizens for a Free Kuwait" had paid USD 10.000.000 to a public relations agency for this campaign to boost the Western morale in a crusade againt pure evil. No serious investigation had been led before the testimony, and would someone have wanted one to be led, as such a fairy tale totally satisfied the warmongers?Wars that don't lie on lies lie on disguised truths.

 

Concerning the scandals about torture in Iraq at the hands of the UN soldiers, I've been heard much, of course, about the US soldiers whose acts have been bravely denied by their own-arse-covering hierarchy. But I don't remember of such things reported from the British contingent. Has it really happened? Can you propose a link?

[HotNess 2]

. But I don't remember of such things reported from the British contingent. Has it really happened? Can you propose a link?

 

its more of a cover up regarding the torture and i belive its more to do with afgan and 9/11...its only started comming out over here,but over here theres been some evidance produced that mi5 / mi6 and were involved in covering it up for the cia..the cia are furious that its been on the news over here in uk...i will find out full detail etc,but needless to say its prob one of them as so happens alot over here where our great secret service leave top secret documents on a train or in mcdonalds...can count on my hand how many times its happend in past year ..but needless to say its confirmed that torture took place and uk/usa coverd it up...now dont get me wrong,im not for or against torture..i dont belive it works,but again what gets me is how we portray the evil side of things regarding other country,s and cultures etc...yet we then do it ourselves in the name of freedom..(and i said that like braveheart lol)..as for did they didnt they have them regarding wmd,s in iraq..point being for years tony blair said yes..now he says no they didnt..my point being stand up sandman hussain.tony blair,bush..ask whos lied !!...btw..you in france..ohhhh im going paris soon yayyy x

 

xx v xx

[+whiteknight06604 931]

Actualy no one lied,the war was about proving WMDs excisted.Sadam expelled weapons inspectors and was telling the world he did have them.The UN decided the if he did not allow inspectors in by a certain date there would be consiquences.that date came and went but at the last moment the UN buckled under pressure from countries that had economic interests in Iraq the US led a coalition of about 30 nations into Iraq to enforce the search for weapons and in the prossess also freed about 25 million people from opression and murder.thousands were being killed by the week and the UN sanctions that had been in effect had not hurt the regiem but was reponsible for 1000's of children and adults dieing from malnutrition and medical neglect a week.there were about 20 reason givin in the charter that needed resolution and the search for WMD was just one of them there was the "oil for food" scandle where the UN and polititions were recieving kickbacks from Iraq in return for looking the other way on oil deals,the scandle was the worst case of coruption in the history of the world money wise.some WMD were used in Iraq against US troops but they were old stocks and the users had no idea they were not normal artillery shells.but technicaly the were there.Also the delay caused by UN coruption allowed Iraq time to move WMD(if they did exist) to Syria.A large number of flights by large aircraft from Iraq to Syria in the lead up to the war has lead some to think that WMD were moved there.Every intelligence organization in the modern world and just about every politition both domestic and foreign thought they excisted so it was a mistake not a lie.if everyone tells you something and and they believe it and you act in order to verify it it's not a lie it's a mistake.Next time you see some hippy whining about the deaths of the US service men in Iraq do what I do,I turn their own "weapons" agaist them.While I personaly put the lives and safty of US service men above all else most anti-war types see all life as the same so I say to them are the millitary lives worth more than anyone elses?They usualy answer in their moraly superier tone NO so then I use cold numbers and say that tens of thousands were dieing a month under Saddam via torture,outright murder and neglect so for the loss of 5000-6000 soildiers hundreds of thousands of others were saved.That is the true legacy that US and other servicemen died to secure a future for millions of people who otherwise would be condemned to death torture and repression.there are also important stratigic reasons for supporting the invasion.one is that it turned into a meatgrinder for the terrorists.yes you can argue that their numbers swelled drasticaly over time the effectiveness deminished drasticaly.Same as WW2 the germans and Japanese had many times more soilders under arms on the days they surrendered than they did on the day they started the war but those troops were ill trained ill equiped and for the most part ineffective.In Iraq the terrorists recruted all over and they went to Irq to fight Americans(and others) and in the prosses died by the thousands.those terrorist were in turn replaced by less well trained ones and so they over time lost most able experienced leaders and fighters.A historical example is what happened to the german and Japanese pilots during WW2 most training was shorteded to allow raw pilots to replace the experienced ones who were killed and in effect speeded their demise.The terrorist that were busy in Iraq getting killed would not have been sitting in a starbucks planing their futres had we not invaded Iraq they would have been plotting and training to attack the west.Another extreamly important side effect of the war is now there is no airforce between Iran and Israel.should the israelis feel the need to destroy Iranian nuclear targets they will be in a much better position now that they do not have to fly over Saddams SAM sites and fighters.Also If we need to strike Iran ourselves we have thousands of troops and airforce assets just minutes away and the attacks can have one more direction to come from.that could mean the difference in an attack between failure or sucsess.Some US soildiers did do things in Iraq but our Idea of torture is having load music playing or having somone sit in a cold room overnight.they had dogs scare them and some idiots put panties on their heads or made fun of some terrorists weenies.While I condemn the actions you can not compair that to the beheadings the burning bodies in the streets and the wholesale murder rape and mutilation done on a daily bassis in the middle east by these "freedom fighters"Also somthing you dont see in those countries is what we do,when we find out of an illegal act by our troops we investigate to a fault we prosicute and if there is guilt we punish.no one is perfect and good guys do bad things but we as a nation and our millitary do not look the otherway and let people get away with it.Sometimes we are to over zelous in our investigations and we hurt our service personel on witch hunts.Navy seals are being acused of punching(Punching!) a mass murderer.Unbelievable!

Edited February 12, 2010 by whiteknight06604

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

The whole argument surrounds UN resolutions..Bush and Blair would not get the OK from the UN..and knew they wouldnt...but they did it anyway!..THATS the crux of the matter!!..the UN was set up to stop megalomaniacs from invading a sovereign country..whats the point if they do it anyway??

 

Well, my old man was an MI-6 operative for 25 yrs, until his retirement in 1975...and we (Joe Public) no nothing of what goes on...he never even told me anything to do with his Job.

 

But, I am of the opinion that, the West often sits on it's high horse...telling the rest of the world how they should or shouldn't run their country.

Yes..when that country is a real threat to world peace, we need to occasionally be 'proactive'..but Iraq?... Hardly a World Player.

 

I am sure there were reason's for invading...but the stupid reasons given by those two ex-idiots in charge, were at best, wildly innacurate..and at worst (which I strongly suspect)..out and out lies...and the Human Suffering of the Iraqi people is a piss poor excuse for toppling Saddam.... but, they cannot be honest about the reasons for invading (and it was an invasion)..so they use 'Suffering and Regime Change' to make it sound acceptable to the Voters.

 

Of course, as per usual..it's the Innocent who suffer.... We have much more justification now for invading Iran, than (imho) we ever had for invading Iraq....so, with conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq still not stabilised..whats next?..are we going to invade Iran next?...madness...No-One can convince me this is not about Oil, at it's heart..the idea that Iran would use nuclear weapons offensively just isn't going to wash.

The Arab nations huff and puff continuously...but they aint totally stupid

 

It's all very Dirty, underhand...and it stinks to me...but like most people..I don't have any answers..only more questions

Edited February 12, 2010 by UK_Widowmaker

[+whiteknight06604 931]

The main problem is that the UN allows this to happen.the UN is a discredited bloated corupt self serving burocracy.anyone who puts faith in that organization needs a reality check.except for some minor peacekeeping or humanitarin missions the bulk of the UN actions and more importantly INACTIONS have been tragic failures.

[nwdingo 0]

i think most are missing the point of hotnesses topic...i and correct me if im wrong,shes not saying the war was bad,infact in most post she says she supports it,i belive she is trying to see why use the "bad guys" tactics against them,yet on the same hand UK/USA are doing same yet we accept it...if we bring it down to who has lied over the war..then all 3..bush blair and saddam..if we bring it down to who tortures prisoners..its iraq,britain,usa..but we would still only focus on iraq and saddam,and we would get away with it or have an excuse for it...and again,if im wrong hotness please say,but i belive shes trying the one rule for one point...and it is right,as the uk/usa,we have gotten away with alot that we wouldnt let other countries get away with

 

and tony blair has become a very rich man off the back of it all...bit like a dictator.lol...btw,did anybody in uk see his wifes ruleing as a judge the other day,letting of a violent criminal from prison due to fact he was religious and belived in god..lol

Edited February 12, 2010 by nwdingo

[+whiteknight06604 931]

i think most are missing the point of hotnesses topic...i and correct me if im wrong,shes not saying the war was bad,infact in most post she says she supports it,i belive she is trying to see why use the "bad guys" tactics against them,yet on the same hand UK/USA are doing same yet we accept it...if we bring it down to who has lied over the war..then all 3..bush blair and saddam..if we bring it down to who tortures prisoners..its iraq,britain,usa..but we would still only focus on iraq and saddam,and we would get away with it or have an excuse for it...and again,if im wrong hotness please say,but i belive shes trying the one rule for one point...and it is right,as the uk/usa,we have gotten away with alot that we wouldnt let other countries get away with

 

the problem is Bush and Blair DID NOT LIE.because if they did it was a world wide conspiracy that involved the polititions and Intelligence organizations of the USA,Isreal,France,Germany,Russia,Japan,NATO,ITALY,Austrailia,South Korea,Poland etc,etc,etc.A mistake could/was made but a lie involves knowlege and forethought of the truth and that was simply not the case.To many people read internet conspiracy therois.The truth while sad and simple is that everyone thought they had the weapons and at the last minute the UN backed by goverments that were either getting outright kickbacks or were in finacial deals with Iraq backed out of the deal to go in and enforce the 17+ UN resolutions imposed on Iraq.

[nwdingo 0]

the problem is Bush and Blair DID NOT LIE.

 

then on that basis when blair gave his evidance and appeard on bbc tv and said he lied...he must have been lieing then..and that was less than 4 weeks ago lol.. i know as much as people want to say no he didnt lie..when the man himself say he did,i cant argue with it lol

Edited February 12, 2010 by nwdingo

[+Dave 2,318]

War.............war never changes......

[+whiteknight06604 931]

he's probobly writing a book or something or thinks if he falls on his sword he;ll be remembered fondly now.either that or the world wide illuminati concpericy got to him too lol.people just want to read so much into this.My bigest suspition is he just wants to put as much distance between him and Bush as he can and hope that history will judge him better.the whole WMD is really a red herring anyway there was about 20 reasons given and because Colin Powell went on TV with his little chart saying Saddam had them and the media took it and ran the whole world thinks thats the whole story.

[HotNess 2]

blair belives iraq is his legacy..and thats why we over here in uk now belive he went to war,he sent someone a letter stating it will be a quick end and will be his crowning glory as leader of the labour party,yet it was his own party that turned on him..fact is,your own party,government dont like there leader lieing to them..and yeh he,s made alot of money fom it,they say 4 million plus for last year alone regarding doing paid speeches lol..but as i have said all along,i would support the war all along,i just dont see how they can be the rightous ones when deep down they are acting like saddam acted..and it as as someone said previous..one rule for them,one rule for another all for same action, i think if it was going to be a walk over like they thought it would be it nobody would care about war,but as more and more..over here anyway,parents and family wanted to know why there soldier sons were dying and what for it caused a big stir...but for 4 million a year..id go to war with all of you lol

 

xx v xx

Edited February 12, 2010 by HotNess

[Slartibartfast 153]

Blair should have been sent out on the Frontline strapped to the first Tank... As all leaders who want to go to war should be... but hey thats just me

Edited February 12, 2010 by Slartibartfast

[+whiteknight06604 931]

I agree to a certain extent but ex presidents here and I assume most world leaders make huge amounts of money in speaking engaments...weather or not they went to war.Bill clinton has made millions heck that washout Carter makes ton of money.And while I do not think any leader should lie there is no moral equivelent. Bush and Blair and Saddam are polar opposits from a moral standpoint.if Blair lied it ended up helping millions while Saddams lies led to death and destructiuon.All Saddam had to do was allow weapons inspectors to do their jobs and everything could have been avoided.France and germany were tell the UN one thing and Saddam another,they told him not to worry they would block the war because niether country wanted the US/world to findout that their corperations were reciving million selling illegal equipment to the Iraqis and thet they were getting billions in kickbacks to keep sillent.If Blair really wanted to rake in the cash he could have just played Saddams game and took the bribes and contracts.

Edited February 12, 2010 by whiteknight06604

[UnknownPilot 33]

I wanted to find a video with lyrics, but this was all I could find. Still, the audio is what matters.

 

[+whiteknight06604 931]

I wanted to find a video with lyrics, but this was all I could find. Still, the audio is what matters.

 

 

it's a mosh pit of truth.God the UN is the bottom of the barrel.Just about every steriotype you can hurl at lawyers and corporations will stick equally to that festering boil of an organization.

[+ST0RM 145]

According to several ex-Pat Iraqis, they did have WMDs and were flown out on civil aircraft to neighboring countries and further on.

 

Depends on who's PoV you choose to believe.

 

-S

[+whiteknight06604 931]

According to several ex-Pat Iraqis, they did have WMDs and were flown out on civil aircraft to neighboring countries and further on.

 

Depends on who's PoV you choose to believe.

 

-S

 

most likely to Syria,another POS country.

[HotNess 2]

from a moral standpoint.

 

i dont disagree with that..there is a huge difference,but a lair is a liar,a country that torturtes is wrong..but a country that tortures and lies about it,signes up to an agreement saying they dont do it and condeming the other for doing it is just 2 faced,yet the point being..as uk,we get away with it because we are seen as the good guys in this,we are seen as doing right by saving iraq,and because this we get away with anything we want,if as blair said and admitted,the iraq war was illegal...he can still make his millions,if france says the war is illegal and uk was wrong,we ignore there opinion ..all because nobody is going to touch us,ok iraq going into kuwait was illegal and they acted upon i tand we responded with our action..so point im saying is yes,it all turned out for good..but 2 actions of iraq illegal into kuwait,uk illegal into iraq..but we get away with it because we can

 

xx v xx

Edited February 12, 2010 by HotNess

[+whiteknight06604 931]

I don't know whats in the media over there maybe your troops have been torturing but as far as anyone knows here other than some wackjob websites noone seriously thinks that the US millitary did any sort of systematic torture.there were some idiots who teased and harrassed some prissoners at Abu Garhab but that was far from torture.+oh wait a US soldier pretended he was gonna shoot a terrorist if he didn't say where an ambush was but thats nothing.the definition of totrure is vague in the extream and the deffinition keeps changing depending on who is doing the defining if the "radical" definition of today was used in WW2 the every allie general and leader would have been a war criminal.UK went in to Iraq with the US and we didn't go in illegaly so how could the UK?