»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Britain, America and Iraq.
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Britain, America and Iraq. |
|
Marshalzu  
since 2001-02-15
Posts 2681Lurking 
|
What does Britain get for standing "shoulder to shoulder" with America against Iraq? |
||
| © Copyright 2002 Andrew Sewell - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
brian madden Member Elite
since 2000-05-06
Posts 4374ireland |
I am not very politically minded, and probably shouldn't be making comments but I will say this I feel it has something to do with siding with a popular side, showing Britain to be a leading active world power. Also it could be a way of deflecting the public's attention away from the government. It is certainly not a selfless act, politics doesn't work like that. El riesgo vive siempre! |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Possibly because they too have enough sense to know that something has to be done about the terrorism, the possibility or should I say probability of that idiot over there killing millions of innocent people. There are so many "leave them alone and see what happens" type people in this world right now that it makes it difficult to convince people how dangerous this maniac really is... |
||
|
Skyfire
since 2000-12-27
Posts 3381Riding |
Andrew, didn't you and I have this convo already? I still say that I don't know what you guys would get. But Canada's neutral this time, so I'm not allowed to say anything on this. Or something like that.  My second home is Ryan's place... just don't tell him that, eh? |
||
|
Marshalzu
since 2001-02-15
Posts 2681Lurking |
If Britain is going to go into a war which has nothing to do with WMD's and more to do with overthrowing Saddam to get to his oil then presumably we want something from it otherwise there is no point in us getting involved and presumably it is big enough for Mr Blair to go against his party and country for. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
What will you get? your butts kicked maybe, if you stand side-by-side. Or maybe kissed by those who are unable or unwilling? I don't want a war, for any reason. I rather liked the idea of a Presidential Duel, and leave the poor peons alone. Is Tony up for a duel too? |
||
|
Kielo Senior Member
since 2002-02-11
Posts 1109 |
I think it has something to do with supporting the States, because they're a superpower. (Don't mind me. I'm cynical that way). At any rate, it can't be as bad as the Canadian army in Afghanistan wearing green. (Funny how just about anyone can spell Afghanistan now, isn't it?) Kielo I need to change my signature. :D |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
How did this become an Alley post? [This message has been edited by Sunshine (10-06-2002 09:57 AM).] |
||
|
Marshalzu
since 2001-02-15
Posts 2681Lurking |
I didn't think it would be suited for the lounge so I posted here  |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
I think it all depends on why we stand shoulder to shoulder or more to the point peoples interpretation of the reasons. If Iraq is truly perceived as a threat to world security; a scheming nest of terrorists intent on mass destruction and invasion Britain will undoubtedly gain the gratitude and respect of most nations. If however the potential threat posed by Iraq is seen as a screen or excuse to mask am ulterior motive for war Britain will be rewarded with reprisals and mistrust that will compromise it’s standing in world affairs. If the question were “should Britain join America in a pre-emptive strike against Iraq” my personal opinion would be a no. Even if it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Iraq had the capability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction my answer would still be a resounding no. To start a war based upon an opponents capability to wage war would place almost every nation on the reasonable target list, with America firmly at the top of such a list and Britain maintaining a place in the top ten. Those in favour of war offer the argument that it is not simple capability but also intent that should be taken into consideration, that any nation who has the capability and the intention to use such weapons is a threat that must be extinguished. An opposing argument could be made that all nations who produce such weapons must invariably intend to use them at some point or under some predetermined situation, otherwise the need to possess them would not exist. It could be said that only nations that had the capability and the intention to use that capability in anything other than a defensive way should be deemed a threat. Iraq could quite easily be painted in this light, unfortunately so too could America and Britain if a pre-emptive and unprovoked attack was instigated. Thanks for the chance to read and reply |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
