'Why did Blair send my teenage son to fight an illegal and dishonest war?'

[Awesome]

Alas, we're only human, and would oft choose not to face our own demons.

 

[parihaka]

Alas, we're only human, and would oft choose not to face our own demons.

Very true. Part of maturity is learning to accept the consequences of our actions

 

[sigatoka]

1. America to loose more people than they kill just to please you?


2. And this is different from any other war how exactly? Or any operational army? How many Russians have been prosecuted for actions in Kosovo? Pakistanis or Indians for actions in their various wars?

1. No, but it shoudnt go on killing sprees and invading nations when it is incapable of providing for the peoples security and basic requirments.

2. Russia, Pak. and India havent gone half way around the world and invaded a sovergn nation on the pretext of advancing democracy and freedom. There is a large difference.

 

[sigatoka]

1. A nations defence lies in defending its citizens, the rest of your statement is mere viewpoint.

1. Butchering civilians doesnt improve the security of any nation.

 

[sigatoka]

1. As indeed has happened countless times in history. Nevertheless, I'd rather live in a country that would do anything to protect my family than one which would rather sacrifice them for a moral point of principle

1. A nation that butchers innocent families in far away lands will neither achieve moral superiority nor safety.

 

[parihaka]

1. A nation that butchers innocent families in far away lands will neither achieve moral superiority nor safety.

1. No, but it shoudnt go on killing sprees and invading nations when it is incapable of providing for the peoples security and basic requirments.

2. Russia, Pak. and India havent gone half way around the world and invaded a sovergn nation on the pretext of advancing democracy and freedom. There is a large difference.

1. Butchering civilians doesnt improve the security of any nation.


1. A nation that butchers innocent families in far away lands will neither achieve moral superiority nor safety.

You should have realised by now that I'm not American and therefore completely unmoved by your hectoring about 'butchering', 'innocence' and 'morality'.

My contention is this.
All countries have the responsibility to protect their own citizens.

All countries have the right to make war on another country (read the UN charter, chapter VII).


All countries would be failing in their duty if they failed to do so when the situation called for it, namely a threat to their own citizens security and existence.

All your moral outrage over Iraq is meaningless because it won't effect the US's actions unless you can:
1: bring enough force against them to make them desist, which would be an act of war on your part.
2: Raise the concerns of enough of the worlds citizenry that public opinion and the actions of say a boycott or UN sanctions that lead from this are enough to make the Americans believe that stopping what they are doing is in their own self interest.

Self interest is what it is all about, and again, it is the natural behaviour of any nation to act in its own self interest. Because America has the ability to project its forces to any part of the globe, they do so when it is in their own self interests, as would any other nation.

 

[Mansoor A Qureshi]

The war on Iraq can never be justified, Where are WMD? Saddam is out of the picture, the country is already in ruins, no infrastructure left, Americans and western agencies trying to make Sunni and Shiaz confront each other, but reality is something else, Hundreds of innocent civillians are loosing thie lives, US and West not giving it a damn, Just look at the US stance on the address of Mr. Kofi Annan, US Bush and war princess they all think that everythinf else is bull ****, and Ummah....... Where is Ummah No one feeling the pain, believe me if the muslims are not united there is more to come, May Allah help us and give us wisdom to see the reality

Amin

 

[sigatoka]

1. You should have realised by now that I'm not American and therefore completely unmoved by your hectoring about 'butchering', 'innocence' and 'morality'.

2. My contention is this. All countries have the responsibility to protect their own citizens. All countries have the right to make war on another country (read the UN charter, chapter VII). All countries would be failing in their duty if they failed to do so when the situation called for it, namely a threat to their own citizens security and existence.

3. All your moral outrage over Iraq is meaningless because it won't effect the US's actions unless you can:
1: bring enough force against them to make them desist, which would be an act of war on your part.
2: Raise the concerns of enough of the worlds citizenry that public opinion and the actions of say a boycott or UN sanctions that lead from this are enough to make the Americans believe that stopping what they are doing is in their own self interest.

4. Self interest is what it is all about, and again, it is the natural behaviour of any nation to act in its own self interest. Because America has the ability to project its forces to any part of the globe, they do so when it is in their own self interests, as would any other nation.

1. Your nationality is irrelevant to my argument. Im not trying to "hector", im just stating what is happening.

2. Of course they do, however the right to self defence doesnt allow for furthing colonisation under the cloak of advancing freedom. Iraq wastn related to AQ threat which had brought the twin towers down, indeed what an irony that OBL is roaming free while more than 130,000 troops are mired in Iraq and not engaged in locating him. It shows the relative importance the adminstration places on aprehending OBL and desroying AQ vis-a-vis advancing its colonial possessions.

3. I realise that. lol, boycotting U.S. goods to desist them from invading nations? That has even less chance of success than AQ has in changing U.S. foreign policy. Firstly, sanctions hurt the entity levying it as much as the entity it is levied against.

4. How is it in the U.S.'s interest to be spending billions in a quagmire rather than in its schools, hospitals and poor? If indeed they sought to better the world, $200B or so could have saved the lives of millions in Africa by being spent on curing diseases such as Malaria and so forth.

 

[parihaka]

1. Your nationality is irrelevant to my argument. Im not trying to "hector", im just stating what is happening.

Okay, it's just the repetition seemed to me as though it was an attempt to goad me

2. Of course they do, however the right to self defence doesnt allow for furthing colonisation under the cloak of advancing freedom. Iraq wastn related to AQ threat which had brought the twin towers down, indeed what an irony that OBL is roaming free while more than 130,000 troops are mired in Iraq and not engaged in locating him. It shows the relative importance the adminstration places on aprehending OBL and desroying AQ vis-a-vis advancing its colonial possessions.

If you say neo-colonial and change possessions to control, we're pretty much in agreement.

3. I realise that. lol, boycotting U.S. goods to desist them from invading nations? That has even less chance of success than AQ has in changing U.S. foreign policy. Firstly, sanctions hurt the entity levying it as much as the entity it is levied against.

You (Pakistan) and your erstwhile neighbours the Indians demonstrated what can be done against a super power if the right levers are used.

4. How is it in the U.S.'s interest to be spending billions in a quagmire rather than in its schools, hospitals and poor? If indeed they sought to better the world, $200B or so could have saved the lives of millions in Africa by being spent on curing diseases such as Malaria and so forth.

Well, they do quite a lot of that anyway, both through Government and private donations the USA is the largest donor in the world. That's not propaganda, there's numerous agency sites that will tell you the same thing. As for what they spend at home, they spend far more domestically than they do prosecuting wars, and I thing all religions say that there will always be poor.

 

[sigatoka]

1. Well, they do quite a lot of that anyway, both through Government and private donations the USA is the largest donor in the world.

2. As for what they spend at home, they spend far more domestically than they do prosecuting wars,

3. and I thing all religions say that there will always be poor.

1. I would be very interested to see the figures, i just have a feeling that the Aid to Israel exceeds the humanitarian aid given to all of sub-saharan Africa.

Most of U.S. govt. aid is for foreign policy leverage and military aid. If U.S. govt. aid were truely to be humanitarian, most of it would go to Sub-saharan africa and Bangladesh were poverty is most crushing.

Private Aid is usually more apolitical, especially Bill Gates committment to fight diseases like Malaria and T.B. will go a long way. However, still not a lot is going to Sub-Saharan Africa and Bangladesh. Could you give a link or something to actually show where the private donations are going.

2. There is a lot of poor people in the U.S. who would have benefited greatly from $200b spent over three years.

3. I always assumed that we were encouraged to work against poverty.