Rustman 0 Posted May 13, 2007 because Saddam attacked Kuwait ? because was breaking UN resolutions? because he was oppresing own people ... That wasn't why we went in, the reason was WMD's. If it was those reasons you stated then why do we not take down all the other dictatotships? That's what would be the reaction by people and other governments/UN/EU etc. Because we did not have a broken cease-fire agreement with them from a previous war. Cease fire broken means Desert Storm is still in effect. He's right...any single one of those many violations of the no-fly zones, as well as the violations of other restrictions placed on Iraq following desert storm and the assassination attempt on a foreign government leader, were each alone acts of war. We didn't need any other reason than that. Regardless thogh, those were ALL reasons why we went in...the WMD's was just the reason the media latched onto the tightest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftSkidLow 1 Posted May 13, 2007 I agree to all the reasons (how can I disagree they are factual) the whole Iraq invasion was unfortunately bad timing though, Iraq probably wasn't an imminent threat as far as terrorism is concerned, but now after the invasion the country is a spawn for terrorism. The US probably could have let it go for a for a few more years, but now there is Iran which seems much more hostile and capable than Iraq ever could have been. In reality the whole region is unstable and would love to kill me and all other Americans, all I can say is that hind sight is 20/20 and you have to deal with the situation at hand, which is what the US is trying to do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rustman 0 Posted May 13, 2007 I agree to all the reasons (how can I disagree they are factual) the whole Iraq invasion was unfortunately bad timing though, Iraq probably wasn't an imminent threat as far as terrorism is concerned, but now after the invasion the country is a spawn for terrorism. The US probably could have let it go for a for a few more years, but now there is Iran which seems much more hostile and capable than Iraq ever could have been. In reality the whole region is unstable and would love to kill me and all other Americans, all I can say is that hind sight is 20/20 and you have to deal with the situation at hand, which is what the US is trying to do. I agree. While I was all for taking Saddam out, I thought the timing was bad myself. He could have waited. Personally I think we should have taken care of our other obligations and gotten Afghanistan stabilised first. Then I don't think Iraq would have nearly been as much of a problem as it's become. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xawery 0 Posted May 13, 2007 Guys, guys... There is an entire thread dedicated to this discussion. I'm surprised none of the moderators has pointed you there yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4 IN 1 0 Posted May 14, 2007 Sarajevo is a good example on how bad in terms of military operation UN can go (a dozen of armed soldiers, a UN officer, a MG and may be a few TOW, then they call it a CP or a weapon collection point , i always wonder who brings up this idea, but dont get me wrong they still did a good job on postwar recovery there, and i respect the ppl who served in the UNPF from my heart) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xawery 0 Posted May 14, 2007 The UN are only as effective as its members want it to be. I suggest reading Romeo Dallaire's "Shaking hands with the Devil" about the Rwandan genocide, and the international community's inactions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4 IN 1 0 Posted May 14, 2007 well what could we expect them to be? GDI? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xawery 0 Posted May 14, 2007 A truly neutral and professional peacekeeping force, rather than a free training course for untrained soldiers (vide Bangladeshi battalion in Rwanda). How the hell did we end up discussing the UN? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
