I believe the U.S should care about what euro's think

[blitz]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But wasnt this the Bush Crusade against Islam and intent on slaughtering and punishing all muslims?

Wow must be confusing for you being such a lunatic blitz...

Anti-Christ is smart, ya know, uses all tricks


Regards Blitz



America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous

[Cherlie]

Gruns..........

Nk has nukes and they are poinitng at U.S and has shown that he will use them.  He is also starving his own people as Saddam is.

Iraq doesn't have nukes yet......

Which one would you attack first?

If you would understand, I'm a brit, very proud and very old fashion, so I really couldn't give a toot about what France and Gemany say, old time rivals that I have no regard for.

CB

[crabofix]

Originally posted by barfo
Look what this idiot (called Bush) has done to the U.S. Who the hell voted for this nut? Whoever you are out there, you deserve what he's going to do to your quality of life.

This president is absolutely the worst I've seen in my 46 years. It's still unbelieveable that he got elected but then Gore, and Nader weren't much of a challenge (vote-wise).

This war crap is all about Bush and not Saddam. Get a clue damnit!!

Barfo

[blitz]

Originally posted by rc51
Why should US government listen to Europe? They listen not even to the pope or their own churches

LOL we dont listen to the pope cause all the freekin priest are butt humpin out little boys.
maybe the catholic church needs to worry more about it own back yard before it starts handing out advice.

Communist Bastard !  



Regards Blitz

[Batz]

OZkansas:

There is a middle class in Iran that is growing more vocal. They are less Anti-American then the religious and aging political class. But make no mistake they have interest in the Shi'ites in Southern Iraq and if in rebuilding Iraq we dont do a good job wee could marginalize the pro western elements in Iraq and in Iran.

The Shi'ites are a majority in Iraq and they may swing hard to fundamentalism and want retrobution against the Sunnis.

Then there is the situation with the Kurds. IMHO these folks pose the greatest danger to a democratic Iraq. Their population is spread out through various Nations and have been sold out by the west numerous times. Turkey being our Nato ally and in constant conflict with the Kurds may mean we are in for a rough time.

[Vermillion]

Dowding, since you seem to feel so strongly about the situation of Israel being in violation of the UN resolutions (its your stock response #4 when you run out of real arguements), feel free to persuade the French and German governments to go in and do something about it.  

And yes I neglect the British government from that list, because they have more sense.

But my money is on the Israeli's, they have a much better trained and equipped military, not to mention extensive combat experience.  I figure they would push a Franco-German Hegemony into the sea very quickly.

[OZkansas]

Originally posted by Batz
OZkansas:

There is a middle class in Iran that is growing more vocal. They are less Anti-American then the religious and aging political class. But make no mistake they have interest in the Shi'ites in Southern Iraq and if in rebuilding Iraq we dont do a good job wee could marginalize the pro western elements in Iraq and in Iran.

The Shi'ites are a majority in Iraq and they may swing hard to fundamentalism and want retrobution against the Sunnis.

Then there is the situation with the Kurds. IMHO these folks pose the greatest danger to a democratic Iraq. Their population is spread out through various Nations and have been sold out by the west numerous times. Turkey being our Nato ally and in constant conflict with the Kurds may mean we are in for a rough time.

I am fearful of the Turks taking advantage of the situation and moving on the Kurds in the north.  Am sure the military has taken into account the potential trouble the Turks may cause in the north.

Appreciate your thoughtful post.

[Hangtime]

kurdistan in the north.. with a nato patrolled DMZ, a sh'iite state in the south, the sunni's in between, borders also patrolled by NATO. (i think the UN gets it's death certificate monday). i would hope they will all be allowed no warfighting material more significant than a jeep. these three new states will be the start of the 'balkanization' of the middle east...

if iran starts any toejam, it'll get whacked. then we'll carve it up too.

and saudi arabia will cease to exist before the end of this decade.

wouldn't that be nice.

[Suave]

Those who pose the question "why doesn't the US do anything about North Korea" have obviously never been to South Korea .

[Dowding]

Are you prepared to see US soldiers in Iraq for decades to come?

What you propose is another Korea, with a strong US presence for many years. Afterall, you've said the UN is irrelevant so you cna hardly ask them to commit soldiers for the dirty work of actually keeping people from murdering each other.

There will be US casualties in any peace-keeping operation. Is the US public prepared for that?

[Batz]

Whatever Dowding

We still have troops in Germany and Japan since WW2, we still have umm in Cuba, Korea, Kosvo, Kuwait, Saudi, Baharain, Qatar.

Our troops are volunteers, they join blindly with no understanding of the risks. Troops die from training etc.....

Are we prepared? What do you think..........

The UN will impose itself into Iraq after the Saddams gone and the US wont stand in their way, but it will be the US and the Brits that run the show. Just like after the 1st gulf war.

But that doesnt mean the UN becomes "relevant" again. They will just be hangers on. The US wont "ask" them to be there.

[Dowding]

It seems to me people are already wanting their troops home, and now the government enters a situation that requires more deployment.

The US wont "ask" them to be there.

That's where you're wrong. The US has already asked for the UN to draw up post-war plans.

[Batz]

Those people dont want their "troops home", they care nothing for them. They are just bunch of leftist who are in general opposition to war in general.

The US already has plans for post war Iraq regardless of what the UN does.

The US agenda for post-war Iraq includes a new government, food and health care to its population along with democratic reforms, but no firm timetable for the massive endeavour, a top White House official acknowledged today.

At the same time, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice denied it would rival in scope the post-World War II demilitarisation of Japan under the supervision of US General Douglas MacArthur.

"I don't think that the Douglas MacArthur model is really the appropriate analogy," she said.

These plans are completely independent of anything the UN comes up with.

Now your boy Blair has to go about it differently given his current position. Ofcourse he will claim the UN is needed to rebuild a post war Iraq

TONY BLAIR: Iraq's natural resources remain the property of the people of Iraq and that wealth should be used for the Iraqi people. It is theirs and will remain so, administered by the UN in the way we set out.

MATT PEACOCK: Another UN resolution to set-up the post-war regime might also provide political cover for Tony Blair against his party critics, people like Clare Short, as Gordon Brown acknowledged.

But we dont need to UN thier fore anything.

The US has always been in these thing for the long haul. And will be with out the UN. and sure wont go begging the for the UN helps. The UN, after the fighting is over will imopose itselfs back into the situation and the US will be all to happy to allow them. Thats not the same as "needing" or "asking" them for anything.

Dont kid yourself the US needs the UN for nothing.