Quote:
|
Originally Posted by downquark1
The article was terrible 1st of all
Where is the proof we are safer. Now we have Iraqi terrriorists who now without a government will have no fear to attack us.Sadam was a terrible man but the problems with the war were:The government lied to the people about WOMD - how can we be a free democratic country if the government fills us with no just propaganda but straight lies??
|
I don't believe the UK government knowingly lied about WMD. Given that the Saddam Hussein dictatorship were so stubborn in regard to allowing a full UN weapons inspection what esle can we assume. If he had no WMD why did he not allow complete and unfettered access to all military sites and his umpteen palaces.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by downquark1
We accept we have no jurisdiction in iraq without UN support - what was the basis for war? Self defense from something we have no evidence off. We can't just attack a country because they may be a treat to us. This is enforcing your will and values and thus becoming a dictator/conquer yourself.
|
There were sufficient past UN resolutions that gave backing to allied intervention, in any case the UN is stuffed with timeserving politicians, though not all, who live a glamorous lifestyle at the expense of their own home country's taxes. Even the UN human right committtee is headed by Gadafi who has no interest in Human rights and apologises for mugabe's terror regime in Zimbabwe.
Rather puzzled about
"Since we still have a monarchy tecnically in power we wouldn't grade as a US style democracy. If the queen decided to dissolved the government and take over the country will america attack us?"
We do have a constitutional monarchy and Parliament is supreme, not sure queenie would want to takeover the country as she can't control the antics of her children.
