The Iraq Thread 2

[Chill 0]

The are no WMD in Iraq! Saddam is a product of the USA in which when he was no longer useful he was removed.

This is just the start of Pax Americana.

[Milkman 1]

The are no WMD in Iraq! Saddam is a product of the USA in which when he was no longer useful he was removed.

This is just the start of Pax Americana.

These are the kind of unsubstantiated, irritating accusations that make me very, very angry.

Quote[/b] ]-A very likely destabilisation of the world, with WW3 possibly hangin around the corner.

Oh yeah, WW3, and who would fight in this war? And why would it happen? Would europe/asia/anyone become jealous of the US and attack us? Now thats what I would call an unsanctioned war, but lemme guess, the UN would support it.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]This is just the start of Pax Americana.

Wich already has failed since it would be to expensive.  

Just check what an economic hole the Iraq war has blown in te U.S deficit ,and that was a relativly small campaign.I don't think the U.S has the cash to play police force in the world.

Controlling all these ex-dictatorship's to allow for long term democratic reform's is even more expensive and just not achievable.

Having Afhanistan in hindsight ,it conclude that America can win a war ,but can't win the peace.Just check the state Afhanistan is in now ,and the continuation of terrorist attack's from Al-Quaida cel's recently.What good has the Afhanistan war done ,except for forcing OBL to go to another country. (like Pakistan ,or with his good ally's the Chechens)

Quote[/b] ]A very likely destabilisation of the world, with WW3 possibly hangin around the corner.

Don't know about WW3 ,but i'm sure that America ,with the complete disregard it had for other country's and the U.N in the buildup towards the Iraq war ,has made the world somewhat more dangerous.I mean the U.S was key in the forming of the U.N ,and has used it so many times to justify it's wars.Now why should other country's respect the U.N?

Arguing that the capture of Saddam made the Iraq war a worthwhile efforts is a bit uselless.The world is full of greusome dictator's ,but the U.S can't dispose them all ,neither can they ensure that something better will come after it.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]The are no WMD in Iraq!

How the hell would you know ? Hussein might know, though ...

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]What good has the Afhanistan war done ,except for forcing OBL to go to another country. (like Pakistan ,or with his good ally's the Chechens)

Sounds like it's time to rescind that Executive Order banning assassinations !

[denoir 0]

1) Bosnia wasn't a threat to us. We should habve left all those Muslims to be slaughtered. They didn't have any oil to sell us anyway.

And you did let them get slaughtered. NATO first intervened in Kosovo. Personally, I see ex-Yugoslavia as an EU failure, as it was in Europe, but USA didn't exactly do anything to help.

Quote[/b] ]

2) Has the UN ever actually done anything?

Oh, well, gee, I don't know. What about the 56 operations since 1948?

Completed:

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

Current:

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

Liberia

Oct. 2003–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

MIDDLE EAST

Middle East

May 1948–present

Golan Heights

June 1974–present

Lebanon

March 1978–present

Iraq/Kuwait

April 1991–present

Quote[/b] ]

3) Unsanctioned? THe other countries should have never signed  Resoultion 1441 if they were so against war. The wording the resolution was for them to comply or face  "serious consequences". What the hell did the anti-war countries think that meant?

The decision for that text was a compromise and as always the security council has to authorize a military action.

From legal point of view "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was no more legal than Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

Quote[/b] ]* More sanctions? - Yea lets starve the people some more, while Saddam puts the finishing touches on his new Basra palace.

* More 'stern criticism'? - Ok, lets give some more lip service. Only this time we'll sound "serious" about it.

If you didn't notice, Saddam was actually cooperating. And since no WMD have been found, there was no real material breach of 1441. That resolution dealt specifically with the disarmament of Iraqi WMD. No WMD, no material breach.

[python3 0]

Quote[/b] ]What good has the Afhanistan war done ,except for forcing OBL to go to another country. (like Pakistan ,or with his good ally's the Chechens)

Sounds like it's time to rescind that Executive Order banning assassinations !

personally, i dont think he left afghanistan. The international force their only run about hmm... oh thats right, they only run kabul to defend karzai. The rest of the country is run by warlords and tribes who are deeply loyal to Bin Laden. Why would he leave them and go anywhere else? The US could have dealt with Saddam anyday. One would think the US would be unrelenting in its search for OBL. I think all those troops in Iraq should be in Afghanistan. But thats just me..

[Major Fubar 0]

Am I the only true american here!

OH yeah. Care to elaborate on why? I have direct ancestors that came over on the mayflower. Beat that.

I hate to say, but technically the people who are "True Americans" are the native americans.

*Cracks knuckles*

Time for some political discussion, something I gave up awhile ago because I kept getting PR'ed, but I have had enough of this crap.

Quote[/b] ]My definition of a threat is someone who destablises world peace by:

1. Setting an example that pre-emptive strikes against supposed enemy nations is OK, even if you can't produce proof that these nations were ever a threat to you

I can agree a little on this statement, we went to war on the wrong agenda, we should have gone for humanitarian aid, which is an obvious choice, because Saddam was a psychopathic murderer, who enjoyed giving acid baths and slowly putting people in meat grinders before their families eyes. If you want to end a genocide, take direct action like we have, despots don't give a F*** about santions. Or is it wrong to save people from a despot? How would you like it if Australia was like Iraq, and noone cared enough to free you?

Quote[/b] ]2. Setting the example that you can selectively ignore the UN, and undermine confidence in it, if it's agenda doesn't run exactly inline with your own

The UN is incompetent, and couldn't save even the smallest coutries/races from obliteration. Because we are one, and the UN is many, and those many share the same negative view of America and its politics, it is a totally unfair and unbalanced, making it hard if not impossible for us to do anything that might make a difference.

Quote[/b] ]3. Ignoring international law, starting unsanctioned wars

Although you might think wars should have rules, and everyone should agree on who to kill and when, we don't. If you believe starting unsanctioned wars is wrong, then why doesn't the UN take action against, the 100+ wars happening this instant not involving the US, and instead tell the US "Shame on you, you oversized, well-to-do brutes!"

While it is nice to have other countries on your side, sometimes noone else gives a rats ass, and you stand practically alone against the true enemy.

Look, I agree that the UN is flawed - but it's the closest thing we have to a functional international peacekeeping body.

One country, even America, does not have the right to enforce it's own ideal of justice on the rest of the world.

Is it good for the Iraqis that America stepped in and removed Saddam? Of course. Is it good for world stability that the largest superpower in the world can make arbitrary decsions of where and when it will enforce "justice", and ignore the UN? No.

America simply does not have the right to be the world's police, except for the right of "we are the most powerful, so you must do what we say". Would you be happy if, for example, China one day surpassed America in military and financial power, and then started enforcing it's own ideals of right and wrong on other countries around the world? Or would you hope that there was a body like the UN to make them toe the line.

[python3 0]

no, but the US is adament that they have wmd's. Even if Saddam denies it, which he probably is, everyone in the US is gonna say he is lying. Well, it's been 8 months, who knows how long US troops will be there. If there are no WMD's, then there was no justification for war, in terms of US justification that he breached UN resolutions.

[bn880 5]

with or without WMD's the resloluitons were breached with an invasion. UN disarmamament process was killed by the invasion

[Baron von Beer 0]

1) Bosnia wasn't a threat to us. We should habve left all those Muslims to be slaughtered. They didn't have any oil to sell us anyway.

And you did let them get slaughtered. NATO first intervened in Kosovo. Personally, I see ex-Yugoslavia as an EU failure, as it was in Europe, but USA didn't exactly do anything to help.

Wow, thats funny. By the Summer of 1999, the US had ~32,000 personell in theater, and around 800 aircraft. (Plus strong naval forces). In comparison, combined Allied (exluding US) strength was ~550 aircraft, and IIRC, around 30,000 personell. (~19,000 of those US were deployed on the ground)

It's also not like this happened overnight. It had been covered by journalists of the killings there for some time before anyone reacted.

[sergeant rock 3]

Quote[/b] ]Am I the only true american here!

Quote[/b] ]OH yeah. Care to elaborate on why? I have direct ancestors that came over on the mayflower. Beat that.

I'm part Cherokee American Indian.  Consider yourself beaten.  

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Quote[/b] ]Am I the only true american here!

Quote[/b] ]OH yeah. Care to elaborate on why? I have direct ancestors that came over on the mayflower. Beat that.

I'm part Cherokee American Indian. Consider yourself beaten.

Ownage

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]The UN is incompetent, and couldn't save even the smallest coutries/races from obliteration. Because we are one, and the UN is many, and those many share the same negative view of America and its politics, it is a totally unfair and unbalanced, making it hard if not impossible for us to do anything that might make a difference.

1. The reason the UN is incompetent is the veto some nations have. A tool the US have used more often than anyone to serve their own agenda.

2. There were not many nations in the UN worth a piss with a negative view on the US before Bush came to power. The US actually used to have the support of most western countries, and many others around the world.

Quote[/b] ]Although you might think wars should have rules, and everyone should agree on who to kill and when, we don't.

Yes you do actually, because you are part of the UN and have signed several treatires and documents. Among them the Geneva convention.

But as usual, there are rules on how we should treat US citizens and soldiers, but you are free to treat anyone else what ever way you please. Ever think this might actually be the reason for some people around the world not liking the US?

[farmcoot 0]

with or without WMD's the resloluitons were breached with an invasion.  UN disarmamament process was killed by the invasion

12 years.

[quicksand 0]

with or without WMD's the resloluitons were breached with an invasion.  UN disarmamament process was killed by the invasion

12 years.

Yeah and the fact that they haven`t found any WMD in 8 months is proof that they did a great job and that Saddam was very cooperative..And please don`t give me the "Saddam moved his WMD across borders because this means that he made a succesfull ultra secret operation unseen by the eyes of US intelligence in which he moved all his WMD in another country..So he managed all that but was unable to hide himself  

Saddam didn`t have any WMD it was all TBA propaganda bs to wage wars under false pretexes..

[theavonlady 2]

with or without WMD's the resloluitons were breached with an invasion.  UN disarmamament process was killed by the invasion

12 years.

Yeah and the fact that they haven`t found any WMD in 8 months is proof that they did a great job and that Saddam was very cooperative..

Then why were they searching for 12 years?

Quote[/b] ]And please don`t give me the "Saddam moved his WMD across borders because this means that he made a succesfull ultra secret operation unseen by the eyes of US intelligence in which he moved all his WMD in another country..So he managed all that but was unable to hide himself

I don't know but I don't believe cooperation is the word that describes Iraq's dealings with the UN teams.

[quicksand 0]

I am very well aware of the history of Saddam and UN inspectors..Saddam tried at first to hide his weapons from they eyes of UN inspectors and at one point he kicked them from Iraq-true..But please accept that when they returned Saddam had a diffrent attitude because he didn`t want a war on his soil no one can denie this...

And when he was attacked if he indeed had 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 1,000,000 pounds of sarin gas, mustard gas, and VX nerve gas, along with 30,000 munitions to deliver these agents as US claimed you think that a man in his situation woudn`t have used them?

[theavonlady 2]

I am very well aware of the history of Saddam and UN inspectors..Saddam tried at first to hide his weapons from they eyes of UN inspectors and at one point he kicked them from Iraq-true..But please accept that when they returned Saddam had a diffrent attitude because he didn`t want a war on his soil no one can denie this...

It was the UN who passed the resolutions earlier this year that the US based their unilateral moves on to declare a war.

Quote[/b] ]And when he was attacked if he indeed had 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 1,000,000 pounds of sarin gas, mustard gas, and VX nerve gas, along with 30,000 munitions to deliver these agents as US claimed you think that a man in his situation woudn`t have used them?

Whatever the quantities were, the UN had them listed and had no verification what had happened to all these materials.

[toadlife 3]

Quote[/b] ]Am I the only true american here!

Quote[/b] ]OH yeah. Care to elaborate on why? I have direct ancestors that came over on the mayflower. Beat that.

I'm part Cherokee American Indian. Consider yourself beaten.

Bahh my Grandpa is from Nebraska and has a tad bit of Cherokee in him. Nexxxxxt! :P

J/K

[denoir 0]

1) Bosnia wasn't a threat to us. We should habve left all those Muslims to be slaughtered. They didn't have any oil to sell us anyway.

And you did let them get slaughtered. NATO first intervened in Kosovo. Personally, I see ex-Yugoslavia as an EU failure, as it was in Europe, but USA didn't exactly do anything to help.

Wow, thats funny. By the Summer of 1999, the US had ~32,000 personell in theater, and around 800 aircraft. (Plus strong naval forces). In comparison, combined Allied (exluding US) strength was ~550 aircraft, and IIRC, around 30,000 personell. (~19,000 of those US were deployed on the ground)

Yeah, I think it's very funny that you don't know the difference between Kosovo and Bosnia

[Badgerboy 0]

1) Bosnia wasn't a threat to us. We should habve left all those Muslims to be slaughtered. They didn't have any oil to sell us anyway.

And you did let them get slaughtered. NATO first intervened in Kosovo. Personally, I see ex-Yugoslavia as an EU failure, as it was in Europe, but USA didn't exactly do anything to help.

Wow, thats funny. By the Summer of 1999, the US had ~32,000 personell in theater, and around 800 aircraft. (Plus strong naval forces). In comparison, combined Allied (exluding US) strength was ~550 aircraft, and IIRC, around 30,000 personell. (~19,000 of those US were deployed on the ground)

Yeah, I think it's very funny that you don't know the difference between Kosovo and Bosnia

Well its obvious isn't it!

[EiZei 0]

If I would be in a particularly annoying mood I would post one of those dumbass "OWNED" pics right now.

[theavonlady 2]

If I would be in a particularly annoying mood I would post one of those dumbass "OWNED" pics right now.

[Acecombat 0]

LOL @ avon and Badgerboy