UK, France, and others preparing to attack Libya.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It doesn't matter whatever reason we are going in, but by going in, we are helping human rights in that country.
Win.

I accept that, but lets not pretend thats the reason why we are going in.

[The Don]

I accept that, but lets not pretend thats the reason why we are going in.

But, by going in, we are helping with human rights in that country, which you admit, so theres no argument, is there?

[-:Undertaker:-]

But, by going in, we are helping with human rights in that country, which you admit, so theres no argument, is there?

It depends, I don't see any real improvement with Iraq and Afghanistan considering the loss of life that resulted, so thats disputable but in theory could be true I accept. But again, its not the real reason we are going in, so lets not kid ourselves and lets not have our leaders kid us that it is.



It must also be noted that Mr Bolton is telling fibs there, as Iraq invaded Kuwait due to Kuwait slant oil drilling despite warnings from Saddam.

[The Don]

It depends, I don't see any real improvement with Iraq and Afghanistan considering the loss of life that resulted, so thats disputable but in theory could be true I accept. But again, its not the real reason we are going in, so lets not kid ourselves and lets not have our leaders kid us that it is.

No, because Iraq and Afghanistan are warzones at the moment.

Why does it matter what the reason is? To be honest, neither of us know the 'Real' reason, and It shouldn't really matter, it's the result that matters. And if we, as a country, can stop one more life from being taken, then why shouldn't we?

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, because Iraq and Afghanistan are warzones at the moment.

Why does it matter what the reason is? To be honest, neither of us know the 'Real' reason, and It shouldn't really matter, it's the result that matters.

The real reason matters because this is war we are talking about, in a supposed democratic and free west we should be told the truth by our leaders. We deserve the truth as do our soldiers, especially when they are the ones being put in a dangerzone (and often end up dying in the process) for a reason their government will not disclose to them, their families or the public at large.

And if we, as a country, can stop one more life from being taken, then why shouldn't we?

Because as the lady in the video tells of her tale, more lives are taken in the process and it always results in blowback.

[The Don]

The real reason matters because this is war we are talking about, in a supposed democratic and free west we should be told the truth by our leaders. We deserve the truth as do our soldiers, especially when they are the ones being put in a dangerzone (and often end up dying in the process) for a reason their government will not disclose to them, their families or the public at large.



Because as the lady in the video tells of her tale, more lives are taken in the process and it always results in blowback.

the fact that you don't have the respect to reply to all of my post renders the question wheter you actually can respond to it. I'll ask again, how do you know if the reason given to us is fake? I certainly see it as a viable reason.

---------- Post added 21-03-2011 at 02:06 AM ----------



just though i'd post this.

[Stephen]

Just wondering but why does every thread in this forum end up being someone vs undertaker?

I'm actually starting to avoid this section because it's getting abit boring and stoof

btw not sure if the above is offtopic or not so ontopic:

sex bomb sex bomb, you're my sex bomb and baby you can turn me on

Edited by Dinasaw (Forum Moderator): Please try and stay on-topic.

[StefanWolves]

Mainly because Undertaker is above everyone and he is king and no argument put against him is the correct one lol

Just wondering but why does every thread in this forum end up being someone vs undertaker?

I'm actually starting to avoid this section because it's getting abit boring and stoof

btw not sure if the above is offtopic or not so ontopic:

sex bomb sex bomb, you're my sex bomb and baby you can turn me on

Edited by Dinasaw (Forum Moderator): Please try and stay on the topic of the thread.

[Inseriousity.]

Foreign policy is always going to be tricky as you have to take into account so many factors. It's perhaps irony that Hutchins/Hutchens (I cant remember which sorry) says that we should just stand back and then make friends with the winners. He mentions that the media simplifies and then exaggerates but to me, he is doing the same thing. If it was as simple as that I'd agree with him.

If the rebels won, for example, and they cried for help (which I'm sure I've seen reports of somewhere) from outside countries but the ass-licking didn't start until after they got into power, I wouldn't be quick to make friends with them (if I was rebel leader). Whereas if they helped me out then I'd be more willing to make deals with the countries that helped out.

I think it's naive to say it's a sudden fight for human rights. If the revolution had not started, I'm sure Cameron (and quite frankly anyone - I mean how many people were active in trying to improve human rights for Libya and other countries before the revolution started?) would have just kept turning a blind eye to it all.

However, I think that's all I agree with Dan on. I think it'd be a politically bad move NOT to go in, simply because it's good rhetoric. "We're fighting for human rights/we will not tolerate violence" looks brilliant on paper and makes them look good. I'd love to say that politicians would work for the best of the country but I know that they make strategies/decisions (perhaps subconciously) based on what they think would be best for them politically and/or bad for politicial opponents.

[StefanWolves]

Ye i agree, Cameron and especially Sarkozy have done it to make themselves look good, however that doesnt change the sole reason i agree with going into Libya because if we didnt it would simply have been attrocious if we didnt.

Foreign policy is always going to be tricky as you have to take into account so many factors. It's perhaps irony that Hutchins/Hutchens (I cant remember which sorry) says that we should just stand back and then make friends with the winners. He mentions that the media simplifies and then exaggerates but to me, he is doing the same thing. If it was as simple as that I'd agree with him.

If the rebels won, for example, and they cried for help (which I'm sure I've seen reports of somewhere) from outside countries but the ass-licking didn't start until after they got into power, I wouldn't be quick to make friends with them (if I was rebel leader). Whereas if they helped me out then I'd be more willing to make deals with the countries that helped out.

I think it's naive to say it's a sudden fight for human rights. If the revolution had not started, I'm sure Cameron (and quite frankly anyone - I mean how many people were active in trying to improve human rights for Libya and other countries before the revolution started?) would have just kept turning a blind eye to it all.

However, I think that's all I agree with Dan on. I think it'd be a politically bad move NOT to go in, simply because it's good rhetoric. "We're fighting for human rights/we will not tolerate violence" looks brilliant on paper and makes them look good. I'd love to say that politicians would work for the best of the country but I know that they make strategies/decisions (perhaps subconciously) based on what they think would be best for them politically and/or bad for politicial opponents.