The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Your view on the Iraq war
Page:
jus so happens i did my arguement for a level essay:
In relation to the question “do I agree with what Tony Blair is doing” Yes I support him along with President George W. Bush jnr and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar on their stance of the current “war” with Iraq. I believe that what Tony Blair is doing is both correct for the safety of the British nation and the peace of the world, and also the freedom of Iraqi people – the liberation of Iraq, of who for years have been under the governing of an awful tyrant.
“But what threat does Saddam pose to the US, UK and the world?” The appropriate question is; what is the potential threat? The UN acknowledges that Saddam possesses biological and chemical weapons. In fact - where has the 8,500 litres of anthrax that President Saddam had in 1998 vanished to? Where are the huge stockpiles of VX Gas; of which a single drop on the skin can kill. Can we simply trust the Iraqi dictator to not let these weapons of mass murder fall into the hands of terrorists and wait for another extreme terrorist attack around the world? Do we leave Saddam in power so that he might use subverted ‘Oil For Food’ money to possibly acquire a nuclear weapon – how would we deal with him and his regime then? No one knows how close Hussein is to developing a nuclear bomb, Saddam has been quoted by saying he wants to turn Iraq into a “superpower” that will dominated the Middle East and “liberate Jerusalem”.
“But why not let the UN handle Iraq?” The UN has failed to deal with this situation, like many other instances. Resolution 1441 is seen for the Iraqi regime - “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”. The council unanimously supported the resolution –including all five permanent members, which at the end, warns Iraq that "it will face serious consequences" If it fails to abide. By not backing up this resolution, members are showing how the UN is weak, and obviously diplomacy cannot be trusted through the UN, countries such as France and Russia are not backing up what they said they would, They shouldn’t of agreed on resolution 1441 in the first place. The United Nations performance in Bosnia should have been a sign to the world that the UN is incapable of handling these types of issues. A main reason that the UN did not sanction US/UK action in Iraq is because of the threat of a Veto coming from a permanent member of the Security Council. There are underlying reasons why the French and Russians would not support a fresh resolution. War for oil? Isn’t it France who has a cheap deal on oil from Hussein’s governing? France and Russia have an enormous financial investment that they stand to lose if Saddam and his government fall from power.
“Why not give the inspectors more time?” Those pleading for more time are in fact encouraging Saddam Hussein. Resolution 1441 was Iraq’s final chance to comply fully to disarm, he hasn’t, and every member on the Security Council acknowledges this. The French and others cannot believe that Saddam is going to fully comply if the UN gives him more time, Unlike what the French believe - we are not rushing into war, and it is nonsense. For 12 years Hussein has defied the UN demands in a web of deceit and concealment. Remember that Saddam kicked inspectors out of the country and only allowed them back when the American and British military build-up commenced. Does anyone doubt that Iraqi compliance is directly related to the proximity of American troops to the Iraqi border? Iraq has had 12 years to comply, the time has come to end this regime and dictator and rid Iraq of its weapons of Mass destruction. The sanctions imposed are only hurting the innocent Iraqi people. By the UN’s own admission 50,000+ Iraqis die each year as a result of the sanctions, lack of food and medicine - 2/3‘s of those are children under 5. A half million of Iraqi civilians are to die - without war.
“No war for oil.” People speak of American Imperialism, and a war in the name of oil. America the country that conquered and rebuilt Japan does not own Japan. The country that conquered and rebuilt Germany, along with the rest of Europe does not claim Germany as a colony. America liberated and rebuilt France. During the first Gulf War America did not seize Iraq and her vast oil reserves for their own. I believe that the war for oil is a wrong argument, something of which I believe is totally untrue. America’s oil reserves come mostly from the South America, statistically only 3.7% of America’s oil comes from Iraq (year 2000). If America wanted to capture Iraq’s oil supplies, why would they spend so much money on troops, when they could simply lower sanctions and purchase the oil for a much lower price? I believe that the “war for oil” anti- war campaign is nothing more than propaganda.
I stand with support for Tony Blair and the “coalition of the willing” on their stance for this Iraq situation, I believe that what he is doing is correct for the people of the United Kingdom, the world and in particular a start to peace in the middle east. I believe that Tony Blair shows to the British people, he is not a man who will “weaken” to be popular. He is risking his premiership on this; He would definitely not do it if necessary. Although any war is unfortunate, I believe Tony Blair and other leaders have made the correct decision.
In relation to the question “do I agree with what Tony Blair is doing” Yes I support him along with President George W. Bush jnr and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar on their stance of the current “war” with Iraq. I believe that what Tony Blair is doing is both correct for the safety of the British nation and the peace of the world, and also the freedom of Iraqi people – the liberation of Iraq, of who for years have been under the governing of an awful tyrant.
“But what threat does Saddam pose to the US, UK and the world?” The appropriate question is; what is the potential threat? The UN acknowledges that Saddam possesses biological and chemical weapons. In fact - where has the 8,500 litres of anthrax that President Saddam had in 1998 vanished to? Where are the huge stockpiles of VX Gas; of which a single drop on the skin can kill. Can we simply trust the Iraqi dictator to not let these weapons of mass murder fall into the hands of terrorists and wait for another extreme terrorist attack around the world? Do we leave Saddam in power so that he might use subverted ‘Oil For Food’ money to possibly acquire a nuclear weapon – how would we deal with him and his regime then? No one knows how close Hussein is to developing a nuclear bomb, Saddam has been quoted by saying he wants to turn Iraq into a “superpower” that will dominated the Middle East and “liberate Jerusalem”.
“But why not let the UN handle Iraq?” The UN has failed to deal with this situation, like many other instances. Resolution 1441 is seen for the Iraqi regime - “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations”. The council unanimously supported the resolution –including all five permanent members, which at the end, warns Iraq that "it will face serious consequences" If it fails to abide. By not backing up this resolution, members are showing how the UN is weak, and obviously diplomacy cannot be trusted through the UN, countries such as France and Russia are not backing up what they said they would, They shouldn’t of agreed on resolution 1441 in the first place. The United Nations performance in Bosnia should have been a sign to the world that the UN is incapable of handling these types of issues. A main reason that the UN did not sanction US/UK action in Iraq is because of the threat of a Veto coming from a permanent member of the Security Council. There are underlying reasons why the French and Russians would not support a fresh resolution. War for oil? Isn’t it France who has a cheap deal on oil from Hussein’s governing? France and Russia have an enormous financial investment that they stand to lose if Saddam and his government fall from power.
“Why not give the inspectors more time?” Those pleading for more time are in fact encouraging Saddam Hussein. Resolution 1441 was Iraq’s final chance to comply fully to disarm, he hasn’t, and every member on the Security Council acknowledges this. The French and others cannot believe that Saddam is going to fully comply if the UN gives him more time, Unlike what the French believe - we are not rushing into war, and it is nonsense. For 12 years Hussein has defied the UN demands in a web of deceit and concealment. Remember that Saddam kicked inspectors out of the country and only allowed them back when the American and British military build-up commenced. Does anyone doubt that Iraqi compliance is directly related to the proximity of American troops to the Iraqi border? Iraq has had 12 years to comply, the time has come to end this regime and dictator and rid Iraq of its weapons of Mass destruction. The sanctions imposed are only hurting the innocent Iraqi people. By the UN’s own admission 50,000+ Iraqis die each year as a result of the sanctions, lack of food and medicine - 2/3‘s of those are children under 5. A half million of Iraqi civilians are to die - without war.
“No war for oil.” People speak of American Imperialism, and a war in the name of oil. America the country that conquered and rebuilt Japan does not own Japan. The country that conquered and rebuilt Germany, along with the rest of Europe does not claim Germany as a colony. America liberated and rebuilt France. During the first Gulf War America did not seize Iraq and her vast oil reserves for their own. I believe that the war for oil is a wrong argument, something of which I believe is totally untrue. America’s oil reserves come mostly from the South America, statistically only 3.7% of America’s oil comes from Iraq (year 2000). If America wanted to capture Iraq’s oil supplies, why would they spend so much money on troops, when they could simply lower sanctions and purchase the oil for a much lower price? I believe that the “war for oil” anti- war campaign is nothing more than propaganda.
I stand with support for Tony Blair and the “coalition of the willing” on their stance for this Iraq situation, I believe that what he is doing is correct for the people of the United Kingdom, the world and in particular a start to peace in the middle east. I believe that Tony Blair shows to the British people, he is not a man who will “weaken” to be popular. He is risking his premiership on this; He would definitely not do it if necessary. Although any war is unfortunate, I believe Tony Blair and other leaders have made the correct decision.
ok i aint gonna write a load on it just say my bit.
i think to but it simply Sadam is a mental case who WILL do something bad if left alone.
i think they should of took him out in the Gulf war. i think war isn't the answer but in this case we don't have a choice.
most of the protesters to me are idiots, they'd be the first to moan if we left sadam alone to do something to some other country OR his own people (he doesn't seem to fussed)
they moan people will die but left with sadam they proabably would anyway.
people will die both are own and Iraqi but at least it will help the future generations.
the thing that worries me is who will take control once sadam has gone?
i think to but it simply Sadam is a mental case who WILL do something bad if left alone.
i think they should of took him out in the Gulf war. i think war isn't the answer but in this case we don't have a choice.
most of the protesters to me are idiots, they'd be the first to moan if we left sadam alone to do something to some other country OR his own people (he doesn't seem to fussed)
they moan people will die but left with sadam they proabably would anyway.
people will die both are own and Iraqi but at least it will help the future generations.
the thing that worries me is who will take control once sadam has gone?
But then where does the line end with the inspections ? Iraq is a big place mate with it being a vast desert. If Saddam wants to keep weapons well hidden, he doesn't have to try very hard.
The reason he hasn't used them yet is because it'll draw everyone else into the war. As long as he has the likes of France (typical) and Russia sympathising with him, that is a far bigger weapon as it sours the relations between us and other countries around Europe.
As the pressure builds though, I wouldn't be surprised if he snaps and uses them, wether its on our troops or the likes of Kuwait. If he feels threatened he'll no doubt try to take as many as he can with him. Thats the thing with these mad sods - they're not affraid to die and take the rest of world with them. Afterall, thats what god wants right ? Prats.
The reason he hasn't used them yet is because it'll draw everyone else into the war. As long as he has the likes of France (typical) and Russia sympathising with him, that is a far bigger weapon as it sours the relations between us and other countries around Europe.
As the pressure builds though, I wouldn't be surprised if he snaps and uses them, wether its on our troops or the likes of Kuwait. If he feels threatened he'll no doubt try to take as many as he can with him. Thats the thing with these mad sods - they're not affraid to die and take the rest of world with them. Afterall, thats what god wants right ? Prats.
I'm against this war. Not becuase of the objective, but the route takin.
There should have been UN backing before the war took place, if that meant more time for inspectors then so be it. Uk and USA say Iraq isn't meeting UN resolutions while at the same time ignoring the UN and going to war withouts its backing.
They should have waited untill the inspectors found the weapons. Saddamm so far han't used any of the supposed weapons of mass destruction, has he even got them? Only a few skud rockets or whatever- so far nowhere near enough firepower to justify going to war for.
There should have been UN backing before the war took place, if that meant more time for inspectors then so be it. Uk and USA say Iraq isn't meeting UN resolutions while at the same time ignoring the UN and going to war withouts its backing.
They should have waited untill the inspectors found the weapons. Saddamm so far han't used any of the supposed weapons of mass destruction, has he even got them? Only a few skud rockets or whatever- so far nowhere near enough firepower to justify going to war for.
Im with Savatt, although no one is Pro-War as such and we all long for peace, in this case I am with Tony Blair.
Actually I back the war on Iraq. Whatever the reason is, overall, Saddam is a complete nutcase with a screw loose. But then that part of the world in general is screwed up and still living in the dark ages.
Saddam has already proved that he doesn't mind killing people - even his own and you can't afford to let him get on with things if theres any risk that he has substantial weapons behind him. Would you have given Hitler the weapons that are available ? Of course you wouldn't and Saddam having them would end up giving the same results.
Of course there are protesters moaning about it, but then these will be the same people that start screaming and whining when he DOES do something and suddenly there would be questions like "Why didn't anyone take him down sooner !?"
Again, Hitler's progression was down to the attitude of "If we pretend he's not upto anything, then nothing bad will happen."
Saddam hates his neighbour countries and like many in that region, he hates the West. Thing is, the hate doesn't even stem from recent events between the West and the Middle East, it goes all the way back to the bloody crusades.
For all the good religion is supposed to represent, it causes more wars than any other reason.
In my view, given the chance, Saddam would build up his weapons and turn on other regions of the Middle East. From there, I wouldn't be surprised if he moved on with intentions to take on the West. Personally I don't think war is nice, knowone wants people killed, but I'd rather Saddam is taken out now while he's considered weaker than when he's had a chance to become stronger - resulting in a much bigger death count.
I think the Middle East is too screwed up to really become a good stable and peaceful region though. Religion runs everything there and that results in these stupid fights between the neighbouring countries.
Just seems that while one of the countries there is weakened, it likes to play the victim, but as soon as their position is strengthened, they'll happily attack the others.
Saddam has already proved that he doesn't mind killing people - even his own and you can't afford to let him get on with things if theres any risk that he has substantial weapons behind him. Would you have given Hitler the weapons that are available ? Of course you wouldn't and Saddam having them would end up giving the same results.
Of course there are protesters moaning about it, but then these will be the same people that start screaming and whining when he DOES do something and suddenly there would be questions like "Why didn't anyone take him down sooner !?"
Again, Hitler's progression was down to the attitude of "If we pretend he's not upto anything, then nothing bad will happen."
Saddam hates his neighbour countries and like many in that region, he hates the West. Thing is, the hate doesn't even stem from recent events between the West and the Middle East, it goes all the way back to the bloody crusades.
For all the good religion is supposed to represent, it causes more wars than any other reason.
In my view, given the chance, Saddam would build up his weapons and turn on other regions of the Middle East. From there, I wouldn't be surprised if he moved on with intentions to take on the West. Personally I don't think war is nice, knowone wants people killed, but I'd rather Saddam is taken out now while he's considered weaker than when he's had a chance to become stronger - resulting in a much bigger death count.
I think the Middle East is too screwed up to really become a good stable and peaceful region though. Religion runs everything there and that results in these stupid fights between the neighbouring countries.
Just seems that while one of the countries there is weakened, it likes to play the victim, but as soon as their position is strengthened, they'll happily attack the others.
I suddenly feel the urge to play Command and Conquer Generals
Berserko wrote:
> fughting
dammit i meant fighting
> fughting
dammit i meant fighting
Mutant_guy:) wrote:
> Your view on the Iraq war
pointless, many say they are only fughting because of the oil
> Your view on the Iraq war
pointless, many say they are only fughting because of the oil
Mutant_guy:) wrote:
> Your view on the Iraq war....
*
....is a topic which would be far more suited to the Life Forum than here, but as we're on the subject, I'm against it. 'Nuff said.
> Your view on the Iraq war....
*
....is a topic which would be far more suited to the Life Forum than here, but as we're on the subject, I'm against it. 'Nuff said.
Page: