Author Topic: The U.S. may seek help from the U.N. (Read 908 times)

Sandman · « **on:** July 19, 2003, 10:22:14 AM »

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20030719/ts_nm/iraq_dc_320

This is too rich...

Lance · « **Reply #1 on:** July 19, 2003, 10:27:54 AM »

I can't help but laugh a little.

-dead- · « **Reply #2 on:** July 19, 2003, 10:52:45 AM »

The Steve Bell cartoon from 4th April is looking more and more prescient - you'll note Tony is up to his neck in it, and Hussein is still skulking about.

Dowding · « **Reply #3 on:** July 20, 2003, 06:02:03 AM »

No comment from the peanut gallery?

Staga · « **Reply #4 on:** July 20, 2003, 06:41:37 AM »

I thought GWB said "Bring them on"? So what's the problem now ?

Animal · « **Reply #5 on:** July 20, 2003, 02:08:51 PM »

$4 billion a month

Rude · « **Reply #6 on:** July 20, 2003, 06:37:51 PM »

UN help was never the issue from Bush....didn't he ask for help but it was offered conditionally which Bush declined?

batdog · « **Reply #7 on:** July 20, 2003, 06:52:01 PM »

If I remember correctly a certain 3 nations where scrambling to help in the "reconstruction" of Irag. Its amazing how all this has quited now ehhh?

I just want to remind those who are gloating that we're only 3 months into this. Bush said it was going to be a long conflict, repeatedly if I remember correctly.

Now I just get to wait to see who the first **** tard will be to gloat over our guys getting wacked daily overthere.

Dowding · « **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2003, 03:06:17 AM »

Unable to argue on the subject at hand, you seek to demonize the opposition with a red herring about gloating over dead soldiers, Batdog?

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2003, 04:19:54 AM »

That's scraping the bottom of the barrel:o

zonta123 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2003, 04:59:48 AM »

I wonder which leader would be so stupid as to send troops to Iraq just to help bush? Obviously, that would be a very risky decision since everyday coalition troops fall victim to guerillas and a very similar fate awaits the newcomers. I know for a fact that the worst kind of combat is guerilla warfare. Whoever has the local populations support, wins. In this case, population does not support the invaders so unless this changes, all the might and technology of the invaders will prove futile. The mighty Red Army used similar brutal tactics and despite losing tens of thousands of troops, had to withdraw after 7 years. Same story again today in Afghanistan; the puppet karzai can not step out of his compound (let alone Kabil). Same will happen in Iraq IF bush continues his bully tactics against the population which he promised to liberate.

Amnesty International declared that gross human right violations are commited by US troops in Iraq. They also pointed out that part of the reason why bush attacked Iraq was to end human right violations. Go figure.

If UN had led this effort of so called "disarming Iraq of WMDs", all would have been very different. Thats what blair tried to explain to bush yet didnt work. bush and the neo-conservatives has an agenda which is not clearly expressed yet. I think eventually it will unfold and we shall all see what this war was really all about.

Dowding · « **Reply #11 on:** July 21, 2003, 05:02:41 AM »

There is no way that you can compare the Soviet tactics in Afghanistan to those of the coalition in Iraq. In doing so, you lose all credibility.

Raubvogel · « **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2003, 05:12:51 AM »

The U.S. is the UN.

zonta123 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 21, 2003, 05:13:22 AM »

I'm not seeking credibility so losing it (in your eyes) does not mean much to me (no offense intended). I am just stating my opinion based on the information I have. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was followed by a Soviet Army backed-puppet government which the people rejected. And a resistance, which was fueled by brutal soviet oppresion, started which resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead and Red Army withdrew.

You may refuse to see a parallel, yet I do. Rhetorics does not matter, only the outcomes and consequences matter. In either case, there was an unfair invasion of a soverign nation by a stronger power. In either case, there are civilians who are tortured and murdered by the invaders. In either case there is a resistance and a will and means to kick out the invaders.

Correct me if I m wrong, I am assuming that you see a moral justification in inavsion of Iraq, and again Im assuming you do not see such a justification for what the Soviets did? IF thats what you think, It is my opinion that both cases were acts of imperialistic aggression. You may value the rhetoric that comes with it, yet for me it is irrelevant.

A bad action does not become a good action when one of "yours" does it.

regards

EDIT: Dowding, I didn't mean to sway the topic. If you further wish to discuss the matter outside the thread subject, you can send private message, or open a new thread on that subject and I'll answer to you there.

Dowding · « **Reply #14 on:** July 21, 2003, 05:27:50 AM »

You are essentially saying the Coalition 'occupation' of Iraq is as Brutal as the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. I haven't seen that and would be interested in the origin of your sources and their veracity.