Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on September 03, 2003, 04:12:54 PM
-
U.S. seeks greater U.N. role in Iraq (http://www.msnbc.com/news/951994.asp?0cv=CA01)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 — In a turning point in President Bush’s willingness to share responsibility for Iraq’s future, U.S. officials on Wednesday began seeking support for a U.N. resolution that would encourage countries to contribute troops and money to the effort to rebuild the war-torn country.
-
So UN soldiers will be killed and not US...GG
You clean your own mess.
-
By not enforcing their own resolution, the UN is responsible for the mess as much as anyone else.
-
Originally posted by Puudeli
So UN soldiers will be killed and not US...GG
You clean your own mess.
Jeez. What is it about the AH BBS that attracts the top 1% in ignorant, clueless, pussified Finns? Do I have to live in Finland to interact with a real Finn?
By the way, how old were you when the Chernobyl disaster took place?
Mike/wulfie
-
I thought he had been trying to get the UN to assist all along? I thought it was always the UN that did not want to help?!
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
I thought he had been trying to get the UN to assist all along? I thought it was always the UN that did not want to help?!
He has been, but now he's taking a resolution before the UN. It is unlikely to pass without major changes.
-
Originally posted by Gadfly
I thought he had been trying to get the UN to assist all along? I thought it was always the UN that did not want to help?!
That was my memory of events too. Bush tried real hard to get the UN to enforce it's own resolutions, 12 years worth. They wouldn't, so we did. I fully don't expect France, Germany or any of the "nay sayer" countries to lift a single finger to help the iraqi people. I can't think of one thing in history that makes anybody think they would.
-
you insisted on going in yourselves...you should stick with that until the end...you didnt need the un to kick bellybutton you dont need it to washh up the blood basicly
-
Originally posted by vorticon
you insisted on going in yourselves...you should stick with that until the end...you didnt need the un to kick bellybutton you dont need it to washh up the blood basicly
You're right, we don't
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You're right, we don't
Uh, you better tell that to the Bush administration, cause they certainly think they do.
-
That's right. Get the UN in now because the Coalition governments are having trouble taking the heat.
"The UN is irrelevant."
"The UN is useless."
"The UN is vital to the success of the project!!! Where is the UN?!!!."
Pathetic.
A leaked memo from Jack Straw recently advised Blair that unless more British troops were sent to the region, the strategic goals of the 'project' would be in danger of failing.
Pathetic.
And where are these troops going to come from? The new 'effects based' strategy taken up by the British armed forces (read less troops) means that the troops we do have ride around in Toyota Land-Cruisers instead of armoured Land Rovers which are being sold off by the dozen at knock down prices by the MoD. And there is surprise that they die to small arms fire when ambushed.
Pathetic. Pathetic. Pathetic.
-
Well said Dowding.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Uh, you better tell that to the Bush administration, cause they certainly think they do.
Uh, you better check up on the definitions of "want" and "need".
-
Just because Bush asked for help doesn't mean the U.S. absolutely needs it. With all this political correctness now, these little European crap countries think they are on par with the U.S. Lets get real for a moment. The U.S. could easily destroy the entire world, seriously. President Bush simply asked for a little bit of help policing Iraq.
Iraq was our friend in the early 80s. If all these U.N. countries keep voting against us, maybe one day they will see M1s rolling down the streets of their capital city.
So far, the U.S. has lost less troops in the war/aftermath than a single day of traffic deaths on U.S. highways.
-
"Captain, I am detecting a high concentration of trolls in this thread, recommend caution"
Daniel
-
Some of you guys have incredibly short memories on the situation. For one I would be disgusted if New Zealand troops end up going to Iraq.
...-Gixer
-
*Ensign, I have seen a troll warning issued by CyranoAH...I agree and I would also recomend that you step away from the keyboard before you get suckered in*
-
lol
Davidpt40 has deployed the deadly 'Yank-bait'; widely held to be superior to all other baits by those who know nothing about lures.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Just because Bush asked for help doesn't mean the U.S. absolutely needs it. With all this political correctness now, these little European crap countries think they are on par with the U.S. Lets get real for a moment. The U.S. could easily destroy the entire world, seriously. President Bush simply asked for a little bit of help policing Iraq.
Iraq was our friend in the early 80s. If all these U.N. countries keep voting against us, maybe one day they will see M1s rolling down the streets of their capital city.
.... und morgen die ganze Welt
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
The U.S. could easily destroy the entire world, seriously.
Yes, seriously. Not in jest, mind you, but seriously. And it very likely will if it continues on it's present course.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Iraq was our friend in the early 80s. If all these U.N. countries keep voting against us, maybe one day they will see M1s rolling down the streets of their capital city.
Oooh, I got that for your Arch of other Peoples Triumphs.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Some of you guys have incredibly short memories on the situation. For one I would be disgusted if New Zealand troops end up going to Iraq.
...-Gixer
The Australian govt. has aparently refused US requests for an Infantry battalion to be deployed in Iraq.
Hardly surprising considering Howard has miraculously escaped the same political beating that Tony Blair is taking, considering that most Australians believe Howard lied about the extent of the threat of WMD.
But Howard was lucky that Australian front line combat units followed strict operational directives, did their jobs with the highest professionalism, and most importantly suffered zero casualties and were immediately withdrawn to Australia.
So I can't see Howard commit political suicide by sending Australian soldiers back.
Tronsky
-
I thought this was the kind of thing the UN was good at. If they don't want to help Iraq just to spite the US, then **** 'em. We'll do our best without 'em.
SOB
-
All the King's horses and all the King's men can't put Iraq back together again.
The Iraqi's have to do that for themselves. Note the recent car bombing of the Shiite cleric.
They're not ready to put Iraq back together again yet. Won't make any difference who's troops or how many are there until IRAQIS decide they've had enough.
We (the US) are going to have to stay and do what we can to preserve basic order and services until (if?) the Iraqis decide they want the rule of law and order. If they prefer the 'religious gang warfare' situation, won't be much we or anyone can do until they've had enough of shedding their own blood.
As for attacks against US troops, you've got to expect that. You've got the old regime's holdout/hardliners that still want to fight and you've got the Isalmic jihadis coming in from other countries to take a potshot at the Great Satan's troops.
Better to have them taking on our military in Iraq than taking on our civilians in the US.
But hey, the UN might be THE SOLUTION! Look how well UN intervention in the Israeli/Arab/Palestinian situation quickly resolved the problem and led to a long-lasting peace. :)
(Not a knock on the UN, actually. Just points out that until folks would rather live than die, there's nothing much anyone can do to help them.)
-
I would just like to say I think this is fantastic. Sorry Bush, I guess you misjudged BIG time when you decided you didn't need a UN mandate or international, multilateral will behind you.
Oops!
:D
-
Meh... I say US should bring the freedom and democracy to Iraq, thats what they were so fanatically after for and whilst it slandered UN and some countries.
I knew it was just mighty talking from US, to persuade it's citizens for the war on Iraq.
Sure it's good thing Iraqis have been ridded of the dictator, but some americans should look at themselves for all the slandering of other countries and their mighty words, which didn't prove to be up to the value of the magnitity.
....OR maybe it is to be seen whether they're up to their words.
This ain't really it though
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Just because Bush asked for help doesn't mean the U.S. absolutely needs it. With all this political correctness now, these little European crap countries think they are on par with the U.S. Lets get real for a moment. The U.S. could easily destroy the entire world, seriously. President Bush simply asked for a little bit of help policing Iraq.
Iraq was our friend in the early 80s. If all these U.N. countries keep voting against us, maybe one day they will see M1s rolling down the streets of their capital city.
So far, the U.S. has lost less troops in the war/aftermath than a single day of traffic deaths on U.S. highways.
Geez Is it just me or does this arseclown sound like an idiot:D
-
Originally posted by rc51
Geez Is it just me or does this arseclown sound like an idiot:D
I would say, more desparate for a rationalisation, no matter how poor.
-
Geez Is it just me or does this arseclown sound like an idiot
I would say, more desparate for a rationalisation, no matter how poor.
Woohoo! I've caught two Largemouth Morons!
-
Americans seem to have bad short-term memory.
-
Yeah, we keep forgetting what the UN's purpose in the world is.
-
Wheres Bin Ladin?
Wheres Saddam?
Wheres the WMD?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Meh... I say US should bring the freedom and democracy to Iraq, thats what they were so fanatically after for and whilst it slandered UN and some countries.
I knew it was just mighty talking from US, to persuade it's citizens for the war on Iraq.
Sure it's good thing Iraqis have been ridded of the dictator, but some americans should look at themselves for all the slandering of other countries and their mighty words, which didn't prove to be up to the value of the magnitity.
....OR maybe it is to be seen whether they're up to their words.
This ain't really it though
The US did something about Iraq as opposed to all the useless talk and rhetoric of the UN.
Talk about mighty words...what do you think the UN did for 12 years? They used only words, then when time came for backing them up, they balked like the spineless rodents they are.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Wheres Bin Ladin?
Wheres Saddam?
Wheres the WMD?
Maybe the UN could locate them if they passed another resolution and continued to sit on their collective arses.
-
So the US has given up, is that what your saying?
-
The opposite....The US is in action mode, while the UN is in resolution mode as usual.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
So the US has given up, is that what your saying?
You just don't get it.
We'd love to catch those guys, but the main objective is to remove the threat.
Osama and Saddam are back page news now. Their threat has been lessened. When was the last time you even heard from Osama? People purport to have heard from him, but that's about it. Same with Saddam. They are in survival mode.
It's not so easy to plan hijackings when you can't even wipe your prettythang without marines stealing your toilet paper and blowing up your out house.
-
Are you saying that the US reduced the threat of osama and his gang all by yourselves?
-
Are you saying that the US reduced the possibility of terroristic acts?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Are you saying that the US reduced the threat of osama and his gang all by yourselves?
No
Originally posted by Duedel
Are you saying that the US reduced the possibility of terroristic acts?
in the US
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Wheres Bin Ladin?
Wheres Saddam?
Wheres the WMD?
Hiding
Hiding
Hiding
-
Krusher... id say:
Hiding/dead
Hiding/dead
don't exist
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Maybe the UN could locate them if they passed another resolution and continued to sit on their collective arses.
Perhaps there wouldn't been a need to do that if US wouldn't have stick it's hand into the bee nest :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by vorticon
you insisted on going in yourselves...you should stick with that until the end...you didnt need the un to kick bellybutton you dont need it to washh up the blood basicly
We could just say hell with the Iraqy people then and leave em. We got Sadam out of there wich was the number 1 goal. They can make there own goverment now but I bet we would be back in 10-20 years doing the same thing. Might be cheaper then trying to rebuild the country for them.
-
The UN was about as effective at keeping Saddam under check as the League of Nations was at keeping Germany under check after WW1. Both times a country had lost a war and been given conditions that it needed to follow. Both times the organizations sat around and talked and passed a bunch of worthless resolutions that no one enforced. This time around someone said "enough's enough" and did something about it. Maybe if someone had gone in and preemptively kicked Hitler's bellybutton there would have been far less suffering and bloodshed 60 years ago.
-
Originally posted by mia389
We could just say hell with the Iraqy people then and leave em. We got Sadam out of there wich was the number 1 goal. They can make there own goverment now but I bet we would be back in 10-20 years doing the same thing. Might be cheaper then trying to rebuild the country for them.
I thought WMD was..
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I thought WMD was..
It was. But goals need to be changed just like dirty Underwear, as the situation warrants :D
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
"Captain, I am detecting a high concentration of trolls in this thread, recommend caution"
Daniel
Really Spock? I see stupid people.
Kirk out
-
Originally posted by Raubvogel
The UN was about as effective at keeping Saddam under check as the League of Nations was at keeping Germany under check after WW1.
In the particular case of Germany and WWII, it was the overly harsh restrictions, and sanctions placed on Germany that made them reach for any shred of reprieve, even if it was from a dictorial megalomaniac with dreams of owning the world.
This time around someone said "enough's enough" and did something about it. Maybe if someone had gone in and preemptively kicked Hitler's bellybutton there would have been far less suffering and bloodshed 60 years ago. [/B]
And if the vanquished had not been crushed, and made to suffer so long, Hitler would probably not been taken seriously by the German population. Unfortunately he was taken seriously, and millions died for it. Some are beginning to learn that human nature does not allow for humiliation. It is akin to *not* allowing an individual to pay for his/her crime and given a chance to start over, and punishing them continuously unto the grave.
I'm not arguing for either side, really. Saddam was an ass. He's gone. France, Germany, Russia, and anyone else who didn't assist should just stfu. They didn't take the risk. At the same time, I'm still waiting for the WMD cache to appear. Where is this alleged stockpile? I supported Bush in the beginning, now I'm not so sure I made a trully informed decision.
I generally don't get involved in political discussions as they are pointless. Nowhere will you find such deep seated bias, whimsical flip flopping, vindictive mud slinging, and so much I-told-you-so as you will in poli sci debates. I'll take a discourse in literature and the nature of man over poli sci anyday.
-
Yes, the UN is still irrelevant, it has become an absolutely useless organization.
Everyone will have to forgive me when their country suffers deaths from terrorism if I fail to feel sorry for you. Bury your head in the sand now, there are those intent on evil who will be sneaking up on your exposed bellybutton to land a lethal kick.
What happened in Bali? What did either the citizens of Bali or Australia do to deserve the bombing of innocents? Nothing Can this happen in your country? YES
Should you expect it? YES
Is your country doing anything proactive and substantial to stop terrorist acts from happening in the future? Probably not
Time to face facts, even you smug armchair warriors, there are people out there who hate, who envy your lifestyle, people who consider you a fair target for a number of reasons, including your choice of worship.
Will terrorism only be focused on the United States in the future? Nope
Do we need help in Iraq? Not really, we could just choose to say "the hell with it" and stomp down with an iron fist. We could bomb that country into oblivion, we could put our troops into "search and destroy" mode and clean house. We are choosing instead to try and help them form a government/security force that will allow them self-rule. One that will allow all Iragis to live in a peaceful country where they don't have to live in fear of a brutal killler of a dictator, where they can pursue a life of freedom and prosperity, where their children can be educated, receive adequate medical care and have sufficient food and water.
Those goals won't be achieved by the US bombing them, or the soldiers kicking thier tulips in combat, but by the more developed nations all coming together to bring Iraq out of the past and moving towards a future. The first step was the removal of the brutal regime of killers and thugs.
The responce from you Europeans is pathetic. The responce from countries like France, Germany and Russia is worse. They are consumed by greed, placing it above the common good or the welfare now of the innocents of Iraq. Why didn't they want to remove Saddam? Because they were making big bucks selling them everything they could, including arms, in violation of UN resolutions. Now they don't want to help the Iraqis secure a future if they can't first guarantee they will be able to return to the teat of Iraqi contracts.
Only by the combined efforts of developed nations working together to root out terrorist organizations and eliminate them will this world every be able to escape the omnipresent threat and fear these organizations present.
Has the USA made mistakes in Iraq? Yes, no doubt. But please show me any country that hasn't made a mistake or two. Then show me a country that has done more to help other countries in the distant or more recent past than the USA.
I believe alot of my countrymen are starting to feel as I do, that it's time to say the hell with the rest of you, don't look to us for help next time you find yourself in deep shxt.
This whole freaking stupid thread reminds me of a former WB squaddie from a South American country who used to bxtch about how we (the USA) didn't make sure the hundreds and hundreds of millions (probably billions) we gave his country weren't being spent well. It didn't seem to occur to him that 1) We were at least trying to help them, at a tremendous cost to our tax base, 2) The mis-spending of the money was HIS countrys fault, they were the ones wasting it. Instead of being embarrassed about his countrys pathetic situation, he could only fault the USA.
Sadly too common anymore.
Let those who are working to bring about change judge, the rest of you might consider keeping your comments to yourself.
Dago
-
Originally posted by Toad
But hey, the UN might be THE SOLUTION! Look how well UN intervention in the Israeli/Arab/Palestinian situation quickly resolved the problem and led to a long-lasting peace. :)
Would be easier for UN to do its job if US wouldn't shout "Veto" every time they hear word "Israel" while sitting in the security council.
-
Toad here some reading for you: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html
I'm pretty sure you knew all this earlier but didn't think they would have any effect on UN's efficiency in middle east eh?
If you want to critizise how the middle-east situation is/was handled you should contact your own government.
Now piss off.
-
2 down, 15 to go and its all ours. :D
-
Originally posted by DmdMac
France, Germany, Russia, and anyone else who didn't assist should just stfu
They should STFU when Bush is asking them to Bail is bellybutton out?? LOL!!
-
Thrawn,
See my post on the first page. maybe you can guess what I think of your posts.
dago
-
So, Staga.. you're saying there'd be peace love and happiness in Israel, Palestine, the Golan Heights, Lebanon and the Sinai if ONLY the US hadn't vetoed those resolutions?
Are you saying that?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
They should STFU when Bush is asking them to Bail is bellybutton out?? LOL!!
The venom in your statement already displays your bias. But I'll still ask, for giggles, was that stated by Bush as such, or is that how you perceive it?
A fool's view is skewed usually to slant ridicule away from themself. And by virtue of our First Amendment rights, they are allowed to pass it up with impunity, and they do so with abandon, because it is the only direction they can send it. To pass it down is to risk conflict with peers, and to send it laterally is pointless since the argument usually dwindles to a draw.
-
Originally posted by Toad
So, Staga.. you're saying there'd be peace love and happiness in Israel, Palestine, the Golan Heights, Lebanon and the Sinai if ONLY the US hadn't vetoed those resolutions?
Are you saying that?
I really don't know. Do you ?
Your government has made it pretty hard to UN to work in middle east. No problems; we're used to that.
But please; don't b1tch about UN and how it works after all those vetoes in security council. It looks pretty stupid.
IMHO of course, YMMV.
-
Originally posted by Dago
What happened in Bali? What did either the citizens of Bali or Australia do to deserve the bombing of innocents? Nothing Can this happen in your country? YES
Should you expect it? YES
Dago [/B]
It has happened in my country many, many times, over many, many years; and your country fostered, supplied, armed and bank rolled it.
Originally posted by Dago
Is your country doing anything proactive and substantial to stop terrorist acts from happening in the future? Probably not
Dago [/B]
Yes, or at least, we were, until your country stuck it's nose in and now instead of shooting to kill we have the Good Friday agreement.
Originally posted by Dago
Will terrorism only be focused on the United States in the future? Nope
Dago [/B]
It never has been.
Originally posted by Dago
The responce from you Europeans is pathetic. The responce from countries like France, Germany and Russia is worse.
Dago [/B]
Sounds like your geography is wanting. Europeans are your ONLY ON THE GROUND ALLIES. Basra, remember?
-
MY government impededs the UN process?
LOL!
The UN has almost NEVER taken any actual "action" anywhere, anytime. The few times it has actually acted, it's been following the leadership of the US.
It's a fine debating society.... but nothing gets done. Well, except for passing resolutions that are never acted upon, of course.
-
The UN is no longer what it used to be, and no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally intended. It reminds me of a self help group gone bad.
-
and US surely doesn't help at making UN better.. veto veto veto.
(someone should veto my post)
-
It has happened in my country many, many times, over many, many years; and your country fostered, supplied, armed and bank rolled it
Maybe if you aren't to embarrassed to admit it, you might tell us just what your country is?
es, or at least, we were, until your country stuck it's nose in and now instead of shooting to kill we have the Good Friday agreement.
Are you in England? Again, not bothering to mention what country you are from makes it hard to debate issues.
It never has been
I asked about future events, not past events, and I never said anything about what has happened in the past.
Sounds like your geography is wanting. Europeans are your ONLY ON THE GROUND ALLIES. Basra, remember?
There are some Austrailians that might disagree with you on this point, I guess your knowledge of current events is even more wanting than my grasp of geography.
-
Dago,
you know full well I'm English, we used to be squad mates.
Your point about looking forward, and not to the past is perfectly valid. However, Noraid still flourishes in North America; a terrorist supporting organisation. I still see White house staff talk about "de-stabilising" regimes.
It seems to me that the very first step in a War on Terrorism would be the public (and real!) refusual to sponsor it. That of course would demand a definition of exactly what terrorism is; a point that been studiously avoided by all concerned.
Your point about Australia has caught me off guard; I'll have to check my facts (and if nessacery apologise the the Aussies, I hate that); but what I was actually trying to illustrate was America's out of date position with regard to Europe: That it consists of France and Germany alone; and that they are contemptable; and that therefore Euro's are also contemptable. That's as crass as assuming all Americans are Texans (or New Yorkers); and it doesn't wash.
In any event; you missed the big shiny lure: Britain's way of handling the Irish terrorist problem.
For almost two hundred years Britain tried a "War on terrorism" approach to the IRA and it's predecessors: Hunting down in the lairs; killing them; "dissapearing" them; denying them and their followers due process and most importantly of all doing bugger all to address their complaints and the issues that forced them into "the struggle".
In the Eighties Britain came under increasing American pressure to lighten up; smell the coffee and actually deal with the causes as well as the effects of the "troubles"; to actually recognise the IRA as an opponant that needs negotiation; not as a scourge to be crushed under an (increasingly smaller) Imperial heel.
And you know what? It seems to have largely worked.
You'd think there was a lesson to be learnt there, wouldn't you?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Dago,
you know full well I'm English, we used to be squad mates.
Don't know why but I always thought you were Belgian or from the Netherlands. You never speak on vox, so I can't hear your accent thus I must rely on snatches of info. JW talks a bit on vox so he was easy to pinpoint.
It seems to me that the very first step in a War on Terrorism would be the public (and real!) refusual to sponsor it. That of course would demand a definition of exactly what terrorism is; a point that been studiously avoided by all concerned.
Perhaps it can be defined simply as directed attacks on non-combatant and civilian people for the expressed purpose of influencing opinion or decision.
Please feel free to pick this apart, as many have tried desperately to define terrorism and are always tripped up by the "freedom fighter" argument.
Your point about Australia has caught me off guard; I'll have to check my facts (and if nessacery apologise the the Aussies, I hate that); but what I was actually trying to illustrate was America's out of date position with regard to Europe: That it consists of France and Germany alone; and that they are contemptable; and that therefore Euro's are also contemptable. That's as crass as assuming all Americans are Texans (or New Yorkers); and it doesn't wash.
I know so few Europeans(is the shortened form Euro acceptable to them?) but *I* at least know there are far more countries then those two. It seems, though, that the two are vocal enough to drown out all others.
For almost two hundred years Britain tried a "War on terrorism" approach to the IRA and it's predecessors: Hunting down in the lairs; killing them; "dissapearing" them; denying them and their followers due process and most importantly of all doing bugger all to address their complaints and the issues that forced them into "the struggle".
In the Eighties Britain came under increasing American pressure to lighten up; smell the coffee and actually deal with the causes as well as the effects of the "troubles"; to actually recognise the IRA as an opponant that needs negotiation; not as a scourge to be crushed under an (increasingly smaller) Imperial heel.
And you know what? It seems to have largely worked.
You'd think there was a lesson to be learnt there, wouldn't you?
I assume your referencing the Isrealites and Palestinians of which much of the ME is getting involved in.
I agree, without reservation, to not supplying Isreal. They have shown themselves capable of designing and manufacturing their own weapons and tools.
However, there is the problem that if left to their own devices, the whole of the middle east is likely to come down on Isreal and wage a war, not for victory, but for annihilation. Egypt and Syria attempted it.
When Isreal had quelled reprisals on Hamas leaders to work toward the peace plan, another terrorist blew up another bus, loaded with more civilians, to include children, and tore all the work back up. If Palestine had truly been interested in preserving the peace plan, they would have moved faster and worked harder to prevent such an occurance.
Does any of this have a correlation with Britain's enduring of the IRA?
Please cite with detail.
-
I would like to know the real polls as to how popular the war in Iraq is with Americans at the moment. Is the popularity increasing or decreasing? As the news we have here, is that it's decreasing quickly along with Bush's approval rating.
As in the UK it was hugely unpoplular before it even started and now It's alot worse with the Kelly enquiry bringing up all sorts lies and miss information to the British public.
I'll be suprised if the 45mins, isn't the end of Blair as it already has to some of the heads of his government. Which is a shame as untill Iraq he was a great PM for UK.
If Blair did go, I'm sure the first thing for a new PM would be to start reducing British troop numbers in Iraq.
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
-
you know full well I'm English, we used to be squad mates
I wasn't sure you were the Seeker from the squad, since I havent had any comms with you for a long time and didn't know if you still played the game (as you probably know, I don't). Even if I had recognized you as a former squaddie, I have to be honest and say I would not have remembered where you were from. Sorry, but my memory of some details isn't the greatest sometimes.
Noraid still flourishes in North America; a terrorist supporting organisation.
While I admit I know very little about Noraid and it's functions, I do know it is not a US government organization, nor would I expect it is sponsored by the US government. Noraid might be supporting the IRA, I don't know. I do know that England has for an awfully long part of it's history tried to dominate other countries, imposing colonial rule and subjugating the population. (remember the term "British Empire?) Maybe if they had left Ireland to the Irish, Noraid wouldn't exist? Regardless, that is another discussion for another day.
England has been one of our staunchest allies in the fight against terrorism, just as we faught in WWII along side the British, and supplied information and intelligence during your Falklands conflict.
That being said, my posts regarding "Europeans" I feel is still valid. I do not pretend to imply that all "Europeans" are anti-American, anti-Bush, or anti-Iraq war. But it seems alot of them who frequent this board are.
I have lost all respect for the current French government, and I feel simililarly towards the German and Russian governments. Facts and evidence have already come to light proving these countries were selling banned items to Iraq in violation of UN resolutions. They made profit and would have preferred to continue these profits at whatever cost necessary. They did not care about the thousands of innocents that Hussien slaughtered.
As I said before, I feel the US made mistakes regarding Iraq. I did not agree that we needed to attack Iraq when we did, and I don't think they considered all the ramifications that would result.
But, what has happened happened, we must now consider what is the best way to move forward, to give the Iraqi people the best chance at a decent future and self-rule. The countries I mentioned are now refusing to be part of this process unless they can make sure they stand to make money in the process.
It is now not about "bailing out" the US, it is about the future of Iraq.
A part of a speech Colin Powell made during a presentation to the World Economic Forum in Switzerland during January, 2003 has been quoted on this board before, and I feel it is worth repeating and considering:
"We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace.
When terrorists purposely attacked us, when they slaughtered over 3000 innocent people in one heinous action, they changed the rules, they changed everything. We might make mistakes, but we will in proactive defense of our nation deal with threats and organizations that would do us harm. We will not apologize for this, but we will remember those, like England who stand by us in our efforts to seek out and destroy terrorist organizations and their members.
Again, dont think we need help to destroy Iraq or kill terrorists, we look to others now to see who will stand by us, help us make Iraq a country with a new future. Rebuilding a nation so devastated by an brutal and oppressive regime, then war, is a monumental task. Countries are now being given the chance to demonstrate if they are a caring society willing to help others, or one consumed by greed. A few are not looking good at this point.
I suggest a few of the negative posters spend less time trying to poke a stick at our country, and consider what type of country they live in.
dago
-
Originally posted by Toad
The UN has almost NEVER taken any actual "action" anywhere, anytime. The few times it has actually acted, it's been following the leadership of the US.
Toad, I noticed your putting "action" in quotes. You realise that without properly defining what you mean by "action", you leave defination pretty open. I hope that's not so someone can't actually call you on a point. ;)
Without defining it futher, I don't think your statement has much meaning.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I would like to know the real polls as to how popular the war in Iraq is with Americans at the moment. Is the popularity increasing or decreasing? As the news we have here, is that it's decreasing quickly along with Bush's approval rating.
Yep.
You can find polling infomation regarding how Americans view the war here.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
And Bush's approval rating.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
And re-election info.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
Looks like Bush has taken a beating in the last couple of weeks.
As in the UK it was hugely unpoplular before it even started
It was unpopular in the US as well.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The UN has almost NEVER taken any actual "action" anywhere, anytime. The few times it has actually acted, it's been following the leadership of the US.
East Timor
Tronsky
-
Dago wrote:
I have lost all respect for the current French government, and I feel simililarly towards the German and Russian governments. Facts and evidence have already come to light proving these countries were selling banned items to Iraq in violation of UN resolutions. They made profit and would have preferred to continue these profits at whatever cost necessary. They did not care about the thousands of innocents that Hussien slaughtered.
As I said before, I feel the US made mistakes regarding Iraq. I did not agree that we needed to attack Iraq when we did, and I don't think they considered all the ramifications that would result.
So have you gained a lot of respect for the Polish government and people, the Danes etc?
We're losing people in Iraq, too. And we did in Afghanistan as well.
This stupid "the French, Russians and Germans are Euros ergo all Euros suck" that is so common in the US shows only ignorance of both the geographical and political makeup of Europe. It's a diverse place.
Even though my country has actively supported the US about all the way, I still find it ironic that Bush now wants assistance with policing Iraq. He screwed the UN hard and didn't pursue all diplomatic options (probably due to a timeline for war, would be bad if the weather acted up) and now he's asking for their assistance? One must realize that France, Russia, Germany and a lot of other UN member states feel that the US gave them one up their arse - for good reason. That was what happened - the US showed that they could do it on their own, when they wanted to, regardless of objections even from rich allied nations. So there's some irony there.
The Project For A New American Century is scary reading for any non American. I'd rather fight to the death than be under American administration. And I *like* Americans and the US in general. I will *not* accept, however, being ruled from across the pond. The situation in Iraq is different though, with there being a transition from dictatorship to democracy. The 'coalition of the willing' have an exceedingly hard job, and the sooner the UN steps in officially, the sooner the operation there will gain international 'legality' so to speak, making it much easier to move on. Right now nationalists and Ba'ath loyalists have an easy time claiming the US presence is an occupation and that the US isn't intent on democracy in the future, but rather control.
I hope the UN will step in. I just bet the US is gotta make some serious apologies/fence mending before that happens which is sad but given previous behaviour perfectly predictable.
Someone mentioned that the US could invade the whole world and win. Perhaps the US could win the war. They'd not be able to win the peace though. The Romans became militarily overstretched and their imperialism grew widespread discontent. They lasted for long but it is the nature of empires to have a beginning, a middle and an end. This Project for a new American Century clearly spells out the policy of the neo-conservatives - and as it does, it also spells out the ultimate result for such a venture, should it be implemented.
-
the US is the UN
if not please explain what the UN is without the US? what EXACTLY the UN is capable of doing on a global scale with the US military and $$$ behind it?
hmm?
now pls STFU
-
now pls STFU
Yeah d00d! Check out my l33t debating skills and intellectual prowess!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the US is the UN
if not please explain what the UN is without the US? what EXACTLY the UN is capable of doing on a global scale with the US military and $$$ behind it?
hmm?
now pls STFU
Eagler, if this was literally true, why would Bush bother to ask the UN for assistance? He is, after all, president of the Un through being president of the US, since the US is the UN.
:D
Your initial quote is reminiscient of the 'Hitler is germany and germany is Hitler' speech thingy.
And as far as Godwins law (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GodwinsLaw[/url) goes, I'll claim 'meme upon meme defense. :)
-
Originally posted by StSanta
So have you gained a lot of respect for the Polish government and people, the Danes etc?
He screwed the UN hard and didn't pursue all diplomatic options (probably due to a timeline for war, would be bad if the weather acted up) and now he's asking for their assistance? [/B]
I have respect for the ALL coalition forces, they have shown courage and foresight that many other countries just dont seem to have.
As far as Bush screwing the UN I am afraid that many people see it the other way. The UN (led by France) screwed the USA. They didnt show any concern for the people of Iraq but showed lots of concern for the revenue stream they were going to lose. Now they will only be involved in Iraq if they are given political and economic perks with the side benifit of crapping on America.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I would like to know the real polls as to how popular the war in Iraq is with Americans at the moment. Is the popularity increasing or decreasing? As the news we have here, is that it's decreasing quickly along with Bush's approval rating.
the latest poll shows 71 percent support the actions in Iraq
-
Krusher, that may be the American view (I think there is a substantial minority that disagrees with it though). Bush already has the American public convinced however. To get UN support he has to mend fences with those holding different views.
And those views are basically that the US unilaterally went in because they could, disregarding the opinons of many countries, without a clear UN mandate (one can argue about whether resolution 1441 permitted armed agression, but what is clear is that it is substantially different in language compared to the resolution given before the Gulf War I).
Am just trying to tell you how it's percieved over here. As always there's three sides to a story - yours, mine and the truth. Failure to understand this very basic rule of human interaction leads to problems.
This is the view that Bush will have to come to terms with and handle. Now Bush to me seems to be a 'sticking to his guns' sort of guy. Dig in and defend, right or wrong, but especially if he thinks he may be right. So it's gonna be a tough sell.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
East Timor
Tronsky
Following widespread international pro-test at the paramilitary rampage, and gov-ernmental pressure—particularly from the United States, Australia and Portugal, theUN Security Council authorized a multina-tional force (INTERFET) under the uni-fied command structure of a member state,Australia, to restore peace and security. TheUN also launched a large-scale humanitar-ian operation including food supplies andother basic services.On October 19, 1999, the IndonesianPeople’s
From Here (http://http://www.undp.east-timor.org/links%20for%20nhdr/annex%20-%20brief%20history%20of%20east%20Timor.pdf)
US President Bill Clinton, insisting that ''fundamental (US) values'' were at stake in East Timor, Thursdayordered 200 US troops to take part in the UN peacekeeping force to restore order to the devastated territory.
From Here (http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/sept99/23_15_110.html)
And Thrawn, "action" as opposed to debate. The sort of thing where UN troops interpose themselves directly between parties that are shooting at each other, where the UN troops shoot back at those breaking the peace. Combat, in other words.
You know, like what the Dutch Battalion did in Srebrenica.
Now before you get on your high horses to defend DutchBat, read this, which is the point:
The report also blamed the United Nations of giving an "unclear" mandate to the Dutch peacekeepers, thus indirectly bringing on the tragedy....
But it added that any action by the soldiers to defend Srebrenica would have been "contrary to UN instructions."
From Here (http://www.inq7.net/wnw/2002/apr/11/wnw_4-1.htm)
That's why the UN is a debating society. They've sent troops lots of places. Almost always without the authority to actually DO anything.
As Tronski points out, East Timor was one of the very few exceptions to that standard operating procedure. And even there, it's clear the US played a motivating role and even supplied the Communications troops.
-
And even there, it's clear the US played a motivating role and even supplied the Communications troops.
Which is a world away from the 'The US is the UN' argument. The East Timor counter-argument still stands.
-
Yeah, Dowding... there's ONE example.
Congrats.
-
I didn't realise you had specified a 'winning' number. Should I buy another ticket?
-
Here's what I said that Tronski quoted:
Toad:
The UN has almost NEVER taken any actual "action" anywhere, anytime. The few times it has actually acted, it's been following the leadership of the US.
He came up with ONE example, East Timor, and even that involved strong US backing in the SC and some US troops. (I'd have thought a reasonably modern military like the Australians could handle their own comms, but apparently we had some capability they couldn't or wouldn't provide.)
Looks like what I said still stands, unless the US is doing the acting, the UN is a debating society.
-
In terms of peace keeping committment, is the US contribution dis-proportionate? I'm interested in exactly what you perceive the level of involvement should be to remove this horrific burden.
The UN is a talking shop... but some might say that talking is generally preferable to throwing HE around. Or at least it used to be.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The UN is a talking shop... but some might say that talking is generally preferable to throwing HE around. Or at least it used to be.
So we agree, then. It's a debate society.
Preferable to throwing HE around? I guess that depends on where you're standing.
I wonder what you're position would be had you been a Muslim male in Srebrenica in 1995. Would you still be asking the UN to debate a bit longer? Or would you have asked for some HE to be thrown around?
-
Originally posted by wulfie
How about you get his description of 'action', then respond as if you were given a different description.
Mike/wulfie
I was unclear if he ment any sort of military action, such as peacekeeping, apparently he did.
Using that critieria here are the "few" times the UN Security Council has "acted".
Current UN Peacekeeping Operations
Region/Country Duration
AFRICA
Western Sahara April 1991–present
Sierra Leone Oct. 1999–present
Democratic Republic
of the Congo Nov. 1999–present
Ethiopia and Eritrea July 2000–present
Côte d'Ivoire May 2003–present
MIDDLE EAST
Middle East May 1948–present
Golan Heights June 1974–present
Lebanon March 1978–present
Iraq/Kuwait April 1991–present
ASIA
India/Pakistan Jan. 1949–present
East Timor May 2002–present
EUROPE
Cyprus March 1964–present
Georgia Aug. 1993–present
Kosovo June 1999–present
Completed UN Peacekeeping Operations
Region/Country Duration
AFRICA
Congo July 1960–June 1964
Angola Dec. 1988–May 1991
Namibia April 1989–March 1990
Angola May 1991–Feb. 1995
Somalia April 1992–March 1993
Mozambique Dec. 1992–Dec. 1994
Somalia March 1993–March 1995
Rwanda/Uganda June 1993–Sept. 1994
Liberia Sept. 1993–Sept. 1997
Rwanda Oct. 1993–March 1996
Chad/Libya May–June 1994
Angola Feb. 1995–June 1997
Angola June 1997–Feb. 1999
Sierra Leone July 1998–Oct. 1999
Central African Republic April 1998–Feb. 2000
MIDEAST
Middle East—1st UN
Emergency Force Nov. 1956–June 1967
Lebanon June–Dec. 1958
Yemen July 1963–Sept. 1964
Middle East—2nd UN
Emergency Force Oct. 1973–July 1979
Iran/Iraq Aug. 1988–Feb. 1991
AMERICAS
Dominican Republic May 1965–Oct. 1966
Central America
Observer Group Nov. 1989–Jan. 1992
El Salvador July 1991–April 1995
Haiti Sept. 1993–June 1996
Haiti July 1996–July 1997
Guatemala Jan.–May 1997
Haiti Aug.–Nov. 1997
Haiti Dec. 1997–March 2000
ASIA
West New Guinea Oct. 1962–April 1963
India/Pakistan Sept. 1965–March 1966
Afghanistan/Pakistan May 1988–March 1990
Cambodia Oct. 1991–March 1992
Cambodia March 1992–Sept. 1993
Tajikistan Dec. 1994–May 2000
East Timor Oct. 1999–May 2002
EUROPE
Former Yugoslavia Feb. 1992–March 1995
Croatia March 1995–Jan. 1996
Former Yugoslavia
Rep. of Macedonia March 1995–Feb. 1999
Bosnia & Herzegovina Dec. 1995–Dec. 2002
Croatia Jan. 1996–Jan. 1998
Croatia Jan. 1998–Oct. 1998
Toad, you said, "The few times it has actually acted, it's been following the leadership of the US."
Do you have any evidence to back up that statement?
Edit:
"Since 1948 there have been 56 UN peacekeeping operations. Forty-three of these operations have been created by the United Nations Security Council since 1988. Thus far, close to 130 nations have contributed personnel at various times; 89 are currently providing peacekeepers. As of March 31, 2003, the top contributors of military and civilian personnel to current missions were: Pakistan (4,236), Nigeria (3,318), India (2,742), Bangladesh (2,644), Ghana (2,176). In 2003, there were 14 peacekeeping operations underway."
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0862135.html
-
Originally posted by DmdMac
I'll take a discourse in literature and the nature of man over poli sci anyday.
How'd I miss this gem?
I hate to rain on the ignorance parade, but discussing political current events is not political science.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
How'd I miss this gem?
I hate to rain on the ignorance parade, but discussing political current events is not political science.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Ah, ok. Well, the private life pace has picked up so I would stay for some noggin thumping enlightenment, but I don't have time. If I find the time and the motivation to learn more about poli sci I will, but it's low priority because I'd rather not become so frightfully insipid.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Facts and evidence have already come to light proving these countries were selling banned items to Iraq in violation of UN resolutions.
Good , now show me the evidences.
-
Originally posted by Toad
And Thrawn, "action" as opposed to debate. The sort of thing where UN troops interpose themselves directly between parties that are shooting at each other, where the UN troops shoot back at those breaking the peace. Combat, in other words.
Now, how many in your laundry list included extended combat operations?
The DutchBat is the example;
"the United Nations of giving an "unclear" mandate to the Dutch peacekeepers, thus indirectly bringing on the tragedy....
But it added that any action by the soldiers to defend Srebrenica would have been "contrary to UN instructions."
When the going gets tough, they send for the sonsabeeches.
Yeah, there've been LOTS of "Peacekeeping" operations. How many UN sans-US "stop the killing using any/all means necessary" operations have their been?
-
I think I might understand what you are trying to communicate though. If you mean, "There are very few times the UN SC has directed the UN member states to used all necessary force to enforce a UN SC resolution, and the US has led them', I would agree wholeheartedly.
There are only two that I can think of. The Korean War, and the Gulf War.
If this is the case, my question to you would be, what resolutions would you have like to see the SC ask the UN member states to use all necessary force to enforce?
-
Originally posted by DmdMac
If I find the time and the motivation to learn more about poli sci I will, but it's low priority because I'd rather not become so frightfully insipid.
It's not so much a matter of finding the time to learn about political science; I'm sure you'd find it as dull as many other disciplines that don't interest you and probably every bit as dull as I'd find computer science or literature. It's more a matter of realizing that you know little about it and thereby saving yourself from appearing ignorant by pretending you do.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Hmmm, Thrawn.. that's a toughie... let me think an hour or so..
NO! Wait! I know! How about SC 1441? :D
Don't like that one? I'm not suprised.
How about if they'd have enforced/put teeth into the various Bosnian resolutions prior to the 1995 NATO airstrikes that were a clear violation of the NATO charter? Had they done so, NATO probably could have maintained its integrity and legality and the killing could/would have been stopped by the UN...... as it should have been.
The problem is that the UN simply won't intervene in a shooting war, civil or otherwise. They will attempt to keep the peace if they can get some sort of ceasefire, but they withdraw if the fighting breaks out again.
Like I said... when the going gets tough, the problem is ugly and civilians are being slaughtered, the UN won't intervene.
Instead, they look to the sonsabeeches that everyone loves to hate; the ones that WILL intervene and WILL use force to stop a slaughter.
There's a time to talk and there's also a time to act. The UN is good for only one of those.
Sorry, that's just the way it is.
-
I think the irony in our current debate is I think that you and I would completely agree on the current problems within the the UN system. However I think we might disagree on how to correct it. I guess we will see. I don't have time to get into it now, but I look forward to posting them late tomorrow night.
-
It can't be corrected. It's an inherent flaw that was intentionally designed into the system (with probably the best of intentions).
The UN has failed to evolve. Just look at the permanent members of the SC that hold veto power. The post-WW2 environment no longer exists and the countries that were powerful then are, for the most part, not powerful now. The threats facing the world have changed significantly. The primary threat around the globe now is more like a "holy war" (OK.. "jihad" if you like) than the previous dictatorial power grabs.
I think it's probably time to tear up the paperwork and start over.
But the fact remains: the current UN is a toothless tiger. It's a debating society that talks while people get slaughtered. And when the blood finally gets deep enough to sicken just about everyone... they send for the sonsabeeches and curse them after the dirty work is done.
I think there's a Zen saying that about sums it up:
"Who will do the hard things? Those who can."
:D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Here's what I said that Tronski quoted:
He came up with ONE example, East Timor, and even that involved strong US backing in the SC and some US troops. (I'd have thought a reasonably modern military like the Australians could handle their own comms, but apparently we had some capability they couldn't or wouldn't provide.)
Looks like what I said still stands, unless the US is doing the acting, the UN is a debating society.
Actually it's the first that popped into my head. But then I thought 1 was more than the absolute none.
A quick look around UN mandated peace enforcement missions around the pacific region, this number climbs rapidly.
In anyones language it would be hard to accept the "moral" leadership here was american.
Also there was a reason INTERFET was a primarily an ANZAC mission commanded by Major. Gen Peter Cosgrove. Eventually this force was reinforced by Korean, British and Thai infantry units.
US soldiers were requested but this request was turned down. The American contribution was in the form of transport, certain logistics, and some communications support.
Tronsky
-
Is Bush finally admitting he was wrong?
-
Originally posted by Torque
Is Bush finally admitting he was wrong?
How can he when he wasn't
-
Originally posted by Toad
The UN has almost NEVER taken any actual "action" anywhere, anytime. The few times it has actually acted, it's been following the leadership of the US.
Tronski, I didn't use an absolute.
Note the "almost".
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hmmm, Thrawn.. that's a toughie... let me think an hour or so..
NO! Wait! I know! How about SC 1441? :D
A rather deliciously ironic example, considering the current US-run Iraqi regime refused to let in UN weapon inspectors to look for WMDs. Are you sure you still want UN member states use all necessary force to enforce Resolution 1441? ;)
-
Yeah, they should do a quick UN/SC debate and then act decisively.
Should be about another 53 years before anything happens......
-
santa,
we had 12 years of "diplomatic action" 12 years or CLEAR CUT UN resolutions. 12 years man. It was made real clear who was on the side of Sadaam, that would be France, Germany, Russia and the UN, among others.
What a freaking joke. How long were we in Japan after WW2? How long did it take to rebuild Germany? LOL it's only been a few months and people are ready to drop the ball, that's scarey.
This is exactly what I feared when Bush gave his "war on terror" speach 2 years ago. He said it would be a long fight. When he said that I knew we as a nation couldn't do that. Not with your tom dasholes and hillar clintons. Just think about all the crap they do while we are in a 2 front war. Saddens me that they can't put politics aside for a GD war. ANY and EVERY time the dems have even thought they saw an opening to chip away at Bush they have taken it. Borders on treason if you ask me.
sadness
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
It's not so much a matter of finding the time to learn about political science; It's more a matter of realizing that you know little about it and thereby saving yourself from appearing ignorant by pretending you do.
Very well, I was wrong, but how much more or less pathetic is scouring the forums to find the errors of strangers then lashing out with razor wire or sitting back and giggling with nerdy delight at the mistakes of the general population(this being the other half of the behavior)?
I'll refer back to a portion of your original response:
How'd I miss this gem?
Apparently you lurk much here. Steinbeck described your kind perfectly in The Grapes of Wrath, pegged down to the distant surveillance and congregational nature. And while he was refering to bible thumping christians on the lookout for sin, it's equally appropriate for those who would be self-appointed watchdogs of faults in others.
You should seek a managerial position at your place of employment, if you haven't done so already. You will excel.
-
Originally posted by DmdMac
Very well, I was wrong, but how much more or less pathetic is scouring the forums to find the errors of strangers then lashing out with razor wire or sitting back and giggling with nerdy delight at the mistakes of the general population(this being the other half of the behavior)?
[/B]
Do you actually read these forums?
Apparently you lurk much here. Steinbeck described your kind perfectly in The Grapes of Wrath, pegged down to the distant surveillance and congregational nature. And while he was refering to bible thumping christians on the lookout for sin, it's equally appropriate for those who would be self-appointed watchdogs of faults in others.
[/B]
Apparently I lurk here much? Ooookay. Again, do you actually read these forums?
I wonder if Steinbeck has a quote referring to the types of individuals who criticize and comment on things about which they know nothing and, when called it on it, become defensive to the point of hilarity.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
The true test of US commitment to the Iraqi people will come when the UN, rightly or wrongly, refuses to provide help for an American adventure and the US is faced with a scenario where its military resources are over extended.
You can't keep the Marines and soldiers currently in Iraq there forever. They will have to be rotated home eventually (I say within 12 to 18 months max.).
On rotation, they will have to be replaced. Does the US military have enough combat units to replace units 1 for 1? If not, is calling up the National Guard an option? Probably not.
And imagine the political cost of reinstating the draft. Might never happen, but if it did I suspect that a lot of people would suddenly change their tune when faced with the reality that they may have to serve (involuntarily) for a long time in a foreign land.
-
I personally hope the UN doesn't get involved.
Basically for the reasons in MJ's post. The US public needs a good wake up call about all this "war stuff". It's not like it is in the Hollywood movies, all over in 2 hours.
I'd say we're in it until the Iraqis can stand on their own. We went in, we're responsible. That simple.
And, as I've said before, there's more Americans than just myself that are waiting for the WMD to show up. I'm more patient than a lot of the 90 day wonders that post here for sure.
But I still expect to see the justification for sending the sons and daughters of this nation to war.
If it isn't there, the responsible guy has to be held accountable. I'm not going to be swayed by the line "it depends on what the definition of WMD is" or other BS like that.
I'm not really worried about a "lie". I don't think there was a "lie". It's possible a decision was made based on bad intel or something like that.
No matter. One guys is responsible for sending this nation to war. And, at some point, he's got to be held accountable for that action, right or wrong.
-
Have you been following the Hutton enquiry, Toad? Has it been covered at all, in the States?
-
Actually, not much at add Toad.
It seems we both agree that the UN needs to be fixed, pretty much and no brainer.
However, I don't that gives a member state the right to violate the Charter. I'm also frustrate that the US is one of the countries that stymies attemps to make the changes, especially when it comes to changing the make up of the Security Council.
Understandable though, I suppose, that veto has got to be pretty damn attractive.
Edit: "And, as I've said before, there's more Americans than just myself that are waiting for the WMD to show up. I'm more patient than a lot of the 90 day wonders that post here for sure. "
Have you put a time limit on how long you will wait, before you decide when they won't show? If so, how long?
-
we had 12 years of "diplomatic action" 12 years or CLEAR CUT UN resolutions. 12 years man.
How many WMD´s did he use during these 12 years? No WMD´s have been found yet right?
Kill Saddam allredy and get the heck out of dodge...
-
I don't see a reason for Saddam to spend his money on WMD, which he cannot use without the western world coming after him...
so only use for WMD would been against the coalition troops, who would have most likely come after him because of the WMD.
He simply wasn't the type.. he preferred to stay in power rather than commit a practical suicide.
I doubt he cared much for the WMD after the first visit by the coalition.
-
Swedish newspaper reported last week that 7 out of 10 Americans thinks that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack....
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Swedish newspaper reported last week that 7 out of 10 Americans thinks that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack....
:rolleyes:
You can fool most of the people some of the time. White House spin doctors worked overtime on this one and, apparently, finally got the results they wanted to see.
Geobbels would be proud.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Have you put a time limit on how long you will wait, before you decide when they won't show? If so, how long?
Yes. I'll start writing legislators next Spring, around the one year point. I won't be voting for Bush in the Fall if nothing shows up and I'll be working against him as well.
-
Maniac asked:
How many WMD´s did he use during these 12 years? No WMD´s have been found yet right?
From the Physicians for Human Rights pages (you can find this info anywhere though)
BOSTON, MA (April 29, 1993) - For the first time ever, scientists have been able to prove the use of chemical weapons through the analysis of environmental residues taken years after such an attack occurred. In a development that could have far-reaching consequences for the enforcement of the chemical weapons treaty, soil samples taken from bomb craters near a Kurdish village in northern Iraq by a team of forensic scientists have been found to contain trace evidence of nerve gas.
The samples were collected on June 10, 1992 by a forensic team assembled by the Boston-based Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and the New York-based Middle East Watch (MEW), a division of Human Rights Watch (HRW). The samples were forwarded to the Chemical & Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) of Great Britain's Ministry of Defence at Porton Down which analyzed them.
Eyewitnesses have said that Iraqi warplanes dropped three clusters each of four bombs on the village of Birjinni on August 25, 1988. Observers recall seeing a plume of black, then yellowish smoke, followed by a not-unpleasant odor similar to fertilizer, and also a smell like rotten garlic. Shortly afterwards, villagers began to have trouble breathing, their eyes watered, their skin blistered, and many vomited--some of whom died. All of these symptoms are consistent with a poison gas attack.
"These scientific results prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Iraqi government has consistently lied to the world on denying that these attacks occurred," said PHR and HRW. "They also send a clear signal that chemical weapons attacks cannot be launched in the belief that the natural elements will quickly cover up the evidence."
According to scientists at Porton Down, the discovery marks "the first time that we have found evidence in soil samples of traces of the degradation products of nerve agent." In addition to degradation products of nerve agents, the samples also yielded significant amounts of the degradation products of mustard gas.
Alastair Hay, a consultant to PHR and Senior Lecturer in Chemical Pathology at the University of Leeds, said, "This discovery not only confirms eyewitness accounts and medical examinations of Kurdish people that nerve gas as well as mustard gas were used against them, but it also has enormous implications for the effectiveness of the chemical weapons treaty." While inspection teams from the United Nations Special Commission have found both mustard and nerve agents stored in Iraq, as well as munitions containing them, the samples from Birjinni show they were actually used, Hay said.
-
1993
Thats almost 11 years ago...
-
When did the Iraqis first claim they didn't have VMDs?