Morals

[chalkies_shorts]

Completely unjustifiable, the US hid behind 9/11 as a vehicle, totally agree with you there.

Pisses me off that Bush's cock was so far down Blairs throat, he was incapable of saying no.

Both Iraq wars were "convenient" for the US to go all Buffalo Bill on people, for economic or other reasons.

I take a different view of the relationship between Blair and Bush. In this instance, i believe blair actually had Bush on a leash. In my mind Bush would have gone in a lot quicker if it wasn't for Blair who tried to push Bush down the Un route. When it was obvious the UN were toothless then Blair couldn't hold him back any more.

[herthab]

I don't think the UN were toothless, more a case of what Bush wanted to do was fucking illegal.

[Spy]

I think Bush and the U.S administration wanted to go to war so much there was nothing Saddam or the U.N could do to stop them. He could have given the weapons inspectors all the access in the world and Iraq would still have been invaded.

[Phil_S]

The main lie that springs to mind is the claim Iraq had WMDs.

I really don't think Saddam/Iraq did want a "tear up" with either the USA or the UK. Not in terms of launching a strike against us. Even if they had wanted to do that I don't think they had the means.

The U.S administration wanted to attack Iraq and a lot of the U.S people, having been whipped into a state of paranoia were keen on this idea. In peoples minds the invasion of Iraq was linked to 9/11. Some sort of extended 9/11 revenge as the next stage in the "war on terror". This was absolute bollocks and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 at all.
Not sure why you keep going on about NATO. NATO wasn't central to my argument. Are you talking about the illegal/legal war issue there?
Here's a question for you: do you think the invasion of Iraq and the continuing war there was justifiable or a defensive war?

First & foremost Iraq DID have WMD's. Sadaam used them on his own people, How do you think chemical Ali got his name . Sadaam was playing a game with the UN, & had probably got rid of the WMD's by the time the war started. I love it that all those against the war keep calling it an illegal war under the assumption that if you use the label enough times it becomes true.
Based on the evidence at the time available to us the war was justifiable. Probably not justified on the evidence available to Blair & Bush. I agree it certainly has nouight to do witrh 9/11.
The first Gulf War was certainly justified, & the problem was that Bush Senior stopped it too soon.

Afganistan is a totally different scenario & has everything to do with 9/11.  There is no doubt what so ever that many of the terrorists are funded & trainied from bases that were in afganistan. The idea that if we leave afganistan they will stop is deluded. They started it all when we had no presence their what so ever.
Again the problem is/was that Nato stopped before they should have done, when we had the Taliban on the run.
For me the guys taking the hits on the ground are absolute heroes & deserve more from the government. My son was / is thinking of joining the forces, & I am of the opinion that he would be best off in the Navy as I (selfishly) want him out of harms way. It's not that any thing really avoids risk, One of the options he had was underwater mine clearance which I thought was a good one, my comment to him being that it would be safer than him driving around the roads of wiltshire in his car !

[BANGKOK RED]

What iv'e always wondered about people who slammed the Iraq war is this:

If it turned out that Saddam DID have WMD's, and they used them because the allies did nothing, would they be so quick to slam the government then?

[Spy]

Afganistan is a totally different scenario & has everything to do with 9/11... The idea that if we leave afganistan they will stop is deluded.

Yes that is why it is an unwinnable war. If you agree things will go back to pretty much the same as it was in Afghanistan if the allies leave then what is the alternative? Stay there forever???

It's not as if the war in Afghanistan has gotten rid of Al Quaeda (who apparently are mostly in Pakistan now anyway) and the Taliban. You can't change an ideology by invading a country. You can't really change the way people think with tanks and bombs.

Tbh the war in Afghanistan is more justifiable than Iraq and has probably cut terrorist activities a bit. On the other hand it has also probably stirred up some hatred against the West and helped inspire some new terrorists too. The key issue for me is that it isn't winnable.

[Spy]

If it turned out that Saddam DID have WMD's, and they used them because the allies did nothing, would they be so quick to slam the government then?

So you're saying if we hadn't gone to war and Saddam had launched WMDs then would I see things differently? Well of course because that would be a totally different situation. But I don't believe that would have happened because I don't believe he had WMDs and even if he did I don't think he would have used them given the intense international scrutiny he was under.

If Saddam had WMDs then why wouldn't he have used them against the allies?

[herthab]

What iv'e always wondered about people who slammed the Iraq war is this:

If it turned out that Saddam DID have WMD's, and they used them because the allies did nothing, would they be so quick to slam the government then?

Pointless question. The US knew they didn't, The UN knew they didn't and our government knew they didn't.

As I've said before, if US foreign policy wasn't so completely fucked up over the last 50 years 9/11 wouldn't have happened anyway (And Iraq wouldn't have been in the hands of Sadaam in the first fucking place!)

Dress it up however you want, but The US hve caused, or had a significant hand in, most of the problems in The Middle East.

[Peter Venkman]

Pointless question. The US knew they didn't, The UN knew they didn't and our government knew they didn't.

As I've said before, if US foreign policy wasn't so completely fucked up over the last 50 years 9/11 wouldn't have happened anyway (And Iraq wouldn't have been in the hands of Sadaam in the first fucking place!)

Dress it up however you want, but The US hve caused, or had a significant hand in, most of the problems in The Middle East.

Well...since the last crusade in the 13th century anyway!

[herthab]

Well...since the last crusade in the 13th century anyway!

Good point though John, the West have been sticking their noses in that region for hundreds of years. No wonder they don't like us much!

[Spy]

Can't believe Bush actually used the word "crusade" in one of his speeches!

[china red]

Bush really was a useless prick.  The IQ of most Americans must be really low, they voted the fucker in twice.

[Arriba]

bush has the brains of a primary school child.how that cunt was in charge of the biggest super power in the world beggars belief.

[Spy]

Bush really was a useless prick.  The IQ of most Americans must be really low, they voted the fucker in twice.

They are pretty thick yeah. With a lot of them their knowledge of the rest of the world is so low and after 9/11 they were in this paranoid uber-patriotic hysteria.

You had people in the middle of nowhere in Texas or wherever scared that they personally were going to get attacked by arabs. 

[Phil_S]

I have this theory about islam & christianity.

Christianity went through a phase where war was justified against the infidel. This manifested itself initially in the crusades & carried on as the spanish inqusition, the genocide of the aztecs etc. Even upto & including the infighting between catholics & protestants

Islam is a younger religion & is now in the same phase, with extremists promoting jihad & carrying out atocoties in the name of religion. they too have their infighting between Sunni & Shia

Both go against the actual teachings of the religions themselves, but if religion didn't exist would another excuse exist