Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Iraq War

Posted Jun 30, '14 at 6:52pm

09philj

09philj

1,237 posts

If innocent civilians are getting straight up murdered by the 1000's, and the government can't or isn't doing anything about it, then I think it's okay to step in. Especially if my homeland is under threat.

But there were no WMDs.

 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 8:32am

thepyro222

thepyro222

1,986 posts

But there were no WMDs

I don't see how that's pertinent to the conversation, but I'll roll with it. Just because there aren't any large explosives or nuclear weapons doesn't necessarily mean that they're not a threat. They can still kill American tourists, shoot down travelling planes, they can hijack planes or boats, there's still ways for them to cause a lot of ruckus without needed nuclear bombs.
Homeland security is a lesser worry, though. What I'm more worried about is the civilians that they're slaughtering. There are innocent women and children that are dying because the government is too week / too incompetent to fight back and defend its people. That's why I think the United Nations need to pull together and plan something out.

 

Posted Jul 1, '14 at 7:00pm

09philj

09philj

1,237 posts

That's why I think the United Nations need to pull together and plan something out.

I think you need a different organisation for that. The security council never make decisions because of the veto.

 

Posted Jul 2, '14 at 10:40am

thepyro222

thepyro222

1,986 posts

I think you need a different organisation for that

well, whatever that organization is needs to get their *** in gear, and if there isn't one, then make one.

 

Posted Jul 7, '14 at 1:30am

Kennethhartanto

Kennethhartanto

248 posts

If innocent civilians are getting straight up murdered by the 1000's, and the government can't or isn't doing anything about it, then I think it's okay to step in. Especially if my homeland is under threat

except they can't. an axiom of international law clearly state that any items or person in a country is that and only that country's jurisdiction. period. you can't just intervene with some internal affairs of a country, you would mock it's very existence. non-intervention rule is a very important international law that would help other "weak", "puny", or "small" country from getting bossed around by a huge country like US or such. in my opinion, if you break that, that would be a form of neo-colonialism, and i am against that from happening.

 

Posted Jul 7, '14 at 8:58am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,169 posts

Knight

Who actually strictly follows the non-intervention rules?

 

Posted Jul 11, '14 at 1:43am

Salvidian

Salvidian

3,950 posts

Why would you support a war started by someone saying "Hey! They have bad things!" and then later saying "Oh, wait... They don't have bad things... But while we're here, let's destroy everything!"

Why would you support a war started by a country that decided to get involved in conflicts it had no piece of, only to attack those who were once seen as friends of that country?

Why would you support a war that costed millions of innocent lives only because no one really knew what they were doing when they went in?

 
Reply to Iraq War

You must be logged in to post a reply!