Thread: Right or Wrong?

well this a different matter all that happened was about politics nothing more nothing less ... it's all studied and planed ... or did you think that a war has been over for being right or wrong ... and here the right option for those politics would be the one that bring them benefits and grant them extra merits ... it was never about what's right to do ...

well the people who has the final decision is the government, so they are the ones are that make it right or wrong. I mean we really dont have a say in this at all

i think it was wrong and i think most of england did thats why they wanted to vote for a new primeinister because tony blair knew his time was up soon so he thought he would stick his nose into someone else's buisness i dont this saddam should have been killed nor should he have done what he did but no-one no matter what they do deserves to die

I think that everyone has their own opinions and no matter what I say will change them because it's right for certain reasons and it's wrong for others.. If I go into why I feel as though it's right and wrong I get the feeling that i'll end up saying i dunno so i'm just going to leave it at umm... both. Is that alright?

Originally Posted by HolderOfTheDarkChalice

an example of this would
saddam Husein we helped him back in the 80's or 90's when he
had problems with another country ,we were in the right when we
gave osama the weapons he has now to fight his wars.

Honestly, nothing we've done in this reguard was done "in the right". Our actions in the middle east have always had very clear-cut ulterior motives. If the government indeed believed that we were in the right, they wouldn't have done many of these things covertly... our government would have told us, up front, what they were doing and why.

We came to Hussein's aid to screw over Iran. When Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, the Regan administration provided him with everything they possibly could to "keep Iraq from losing the war." In reality, their goal was the same as it always has been: to gain control over the region's oil. Iran's extremist regime (under Khomeni) was seen as a threat to the stability of the region... particularly Iran's neighbor, Saudi Arabia (the US's primary oil-source in the middle east).

The story with Osama is similar. We didn't give him a damnned thing (not intentionally, anyway). We sold weapons to the Afghan mujahadeen (who at the time, were interested only in repelling Soviet invaders... remember the Cold War?). We had no interest in helping the Afghans repel foreign invaders... we wanted to make sure the Soviet Union didn't expand into the middle east (again---oil).

So if "acting completely selfishly" is "right"... sure. We were in the right. But then again, we're only doing the same now. So by that logic, we're still right. We're just using machiavellian means to achieve our own goals in the region.