|
World Opinion
|
|
|
boneman
Newbie
|
28. April 2004 @ 06:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
Maybe we should have just left hitler alone in europe and let him do whatever he wanted. I see it this way, bush basically stopped a premature hitler from getting to powerful. The guy killed his own people for no reason and no other country will stand up for the iraqi people. The iraqi people in the US and in iraq had celebrations and parties when we got rid of saddam. Maybe we should have left iraq alone and let him do whatever he wanted, but as soon as he did something to another country, everyone will be looking for help. They wont get it from germany or france, that is for sure.
I dont like the way bush runs things, but im glad they went over there and stopped something that would have gotten worse. Oh and sophocles, even though they didnt find WOMD or chem weapons, they found illegal missles and other weapons that werent permitted by the UN. So what else are they hiding? If a man can hide in a small cave for a long time, i dont think it would be hard for them to hide other illegal weapons. AND AUSTRAILIA RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
ken0042
Senior Member
|
28. April 2004 @ 07:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
Chris- TV may have been invented by the British. But if we had left it up to them we'd only have 3 channels still. (lol)
|
Moderator
|
28. April 2004 @ 08:49 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I see it this way, bush basically stopped a premature hitler from getting to powerful.
I must repectfully disagree. The paralells between Hitler and Hussein are few. Hitler's plans included the whole of Europe and beyond whereas Hussein's plans have centered around Iraq's neigbors coupled with the fact that Hussein's military posed nowhere near the threat that the Wermacht did in it's day.
If stopping terrorist was the one of the driving forces behind our invasion of Iraq, then we could have arbitrarily picked almost any country in that region. The WMD issue was cooked up and the fact that Hussein was slaughtering his own people isn't unique to Iraq at all. There're dictatorships on every continent killing their own people.
Trying to install a democracy in a region that's been basically a fuedal/dictatorship society since Biblical times is like pissing into the wind. There are too many power-hungry factions who want it all to themselves that know how to kill or intimidate to get it, along with a huge population who've no idea what a democracy is and what it could do for them because they've never had anything remotely close to it. It breaks my heart that good, honest soldiers of all nations are over there getting killed for something that, I feel, is never going to work.
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33 |
|
Bitcount
Account closed as per user's own request
|
28. April 2004 @ 12:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Excellent point Neph. According to the new Bush "doctrine" of invading all potnetial enemies, or states with WMDs or suporters of terrorism. If the US did that, they would first invade Saudi Arabia, then
Pakistan, then Uzbekistan (all US allies), all of whom have records as bad, if not worse than Iraq'q
But let me reinterate another point: There is no, nor has there ever been, a connection between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, they never cooperated on anything. Both are Assholes and killers, and both are by-products of American foreign policies, but that does not make them like each other.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
|
|
Bitcount
Account closed as per user's own request
|
28. April 2004 @ 12:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
Excellent point Neph. According to the new Bush "doctrine" of invading all potnetial enemies, or states with WMDs or suporters of terrorism. If the US did that, they would first invade Saudi Arabia, then
Pakistan, then Uzbekistan (all US allies), all of whom have records as bad, if not worse than Iraq's
But let me reinterate another point: There is no, nor has there ever been, a connection between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, they never cooperated on anything. Both are Assholes and killers, and both are by-products of American foreign policies, but that does not make them like each other.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. April 2004 @ 12:07
|
|
Bitcount
Account closed as per user's own request
|
28. April 2004 @ 12:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
Excellent point Neph. According to the new Bush "doctrine" of invading all potnetial enemies, or states with WMDs or suporters of terrorism. If the US did that, they would first invade Saudi Arabia, then
Pakistan, then Uzbekistan (all US allies), all of whom have records as bad, if not worse than Iraq'q
But let me reinterate another point: There is no, nor has there ever been, a connection between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, they never cooperated on anything. Both are Assholes and killers, and both are by-products of American foreign policies, but that does not make them like each other.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
|
|
Bitcount
Account closed as per user's own request
|
28. April 2004 @ 12:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sorry about that, i had a little trouble editing my first post, then somehow i wound up with a few more... so if you're a mod, feel free to delete a couple of them :P
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. April 2004 @ 12:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
I see quite a lot of posts that say - If we did nothing in Iraq and he attacked someone else.....etc. The point is it is not up to America to dictate what countries they intervene in and what countries they do not. Thats what the UN is there for, no matter what you might think about it. The UN, in its current state, or a newer state in the future should be what decides what happens around the world, not the US.
Also, I see a lot of posts saying that US shouldnt let Iraq slaughter its own people. If thats the case, why does the US let the Isreal Government destroy Pallistines way of life and kill their people, take their land. At the end of the day, it does not come down to America stepping into Iraq to help the Iraqi people (just look at the pull out at Desert Storm), it comes down to a very unstable country controlling a vast quantity of oil. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fulling themselves......
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. April 2004 @ 12:36
|
|
Prisoner
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
28. April 2004 @ 13:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Start a political thread and in few days your at three pages.
Come to Canada, we'll have all terorists, and make the americans think that we are the 51st state. It all good here.
I am not a number
I am a Free Man
 |
|
DarkmanX
Member
|
28. April 2004 @ 15:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
Oriphus, the U.N. is a worthless entity. If they had any credibilty, Hussein would not have violated upteen resolutions, for fear of retaliation. THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING!!! A bunch of figure head puppets who individually have no power, they have to report to their individual countries for permisssion to act. Where are they in the North Korean issue? Where are they with Pakistan or Syria or any other problemed region? North Korea is in blanant violation of nuclear armament! I do believe that the U.N. needs to shoulder more responsibility, starting with the members picking up more of the financial burden to operate. The U.S. is dispreportionately shouldering the expense to fund the U.N.
I wouldn't compare Hussein to Hitler or the war in Iraq with Vietnam, however, if gone unchecked and Hussein or terrorists were to control the entire middle east, how long would it be before they looked westward?
Silent Assasin This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. April 2004 @ 15:35
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. April 2004 @ 17:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
As i said, no matter what you might think about it. It is democratic and is not just based on the opinions of one nation - its the only way to do it to be fair - needs a lot of improvements of course...
|
|
Bitcount
Account closed as per user's own request
|
28. April 2004 @ 17:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
The UN is only as good as its member states, it is NOT an independant entity operating outside of any interference by other countries. Almost all of the UN's Iraqi resolutions were put forward by the US, and btw, the US basicaly controls the UN anyway because it pays a good deal of it's bills and has a veto. Now the US has used its veto by far more than any other nation, even more than Russia (as USSR) or G.Britain combined, mostly to avoid being condemed by the rest of the world or to help out Israel. The UN is not democratic because of this veto, but its better than not having any type of legitimate world body.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
|
|
DarkmanX
Member
|
28. April 2004 @ 18:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
If the U.S. controlled the U.N., where are the U.N. peacekeepers in Iraq? It is a good concept in theory, but the U.N. is just like America in her early colonial days. The congress had no "real" powers to assert over the individual states. They didn't even have the power to collect taxes.
It was a body that had no enforcement powers and thus had to really on the individual states to maintain their militias to defend the country.
Just like the U.N.; no bite to back up the bark,if they even decide to do that.
Silent Assasin
|
|
Buik
Member
|
28. April 2004 @ 18:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
How about the USA getting out of the UN. The UN is mostly anti-USA anyway. Let the UN move to France. Let the French deal with "Diplomatic" immunity when it comes to the arrogance of all those ambassadors and their indifference to local laws. I would hate to be a New York City traffic Cop/meter maid.
If the USA is so bad, why do we have so damn many people wanting to immigrate here. If thier home countries are so wonderful, why do they want to leave?
That the US controls the UN is ludicrous. The US is looked to, to fund too much of the UN budget. Yes, the US has VETO power. Probably because the proposals would have had America pony up more cash for all those deadbeat countries.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. April 2004 @ 02:27 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
the US basicaly controls the UN anyway because it pays a good deal of it's bills and has a veto
It most certainly doesnt control the UN. The UN obviously has its faults, but there needs to be something in place to regulate countries foreign policies around the world. Action like the IRaqi war just past, should only happen in sanction by all, which it clearly wasnt
|
|
DarkmanX
Member
|
29. April 2004 @ 04:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
"..should only happen in sanction by all," but clearly, it would not be sanctioned because the individual countries (France, Russia and others) had side deals for oil and did not want to lose their agreed upon deals with Iraq.
If this body truly is to function for the good of all, the members have to stop thinking about the good of their individual countries!
Silent Assasin
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. April 2004 @ 11:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thats exactly what has to happen. What really has to happen is an integrated UN which makes policy decisions on behalf of the others. Then we go back to a very similar debate as the one with the EU at the moment. Do we all hand effective control over to Geneva or do we not become an intergrated state?
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
29. April 2004 @ 12:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
The US does have enormous influence on the UN because so many member countries are beholding to the US for aid whether it is in the form of cash gifts, trade, or military aid. That being said the US needs the UN as much as it needs the US. If we?d taken just a little more time in our negotiations we might not be in the mess we are now. The world?s growing smaller and our enemies are many and growing and despite the United States? great power we need allies because we can?t take on everyone alone. Remember General Custer and Little Big Horn, or perhaps the Athenians and The Peloponnesian war.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
DarkmanX
Member
|
30. April 2004 @ 12:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
"beholding to the US for aid whether it is in the form of cash gifts, trade, or military aid. That being said the US needs the UN as much as it needs the US. If we?d taken just a little more time in our negotiations we might not be in the mess we are now."
If these countries are sooo beholding, where are they at now? Where were they when they voted against helping us? Military aid??? I beg to differ. How much longer should we've waiting? As previosly posted, we almost waiting too long in the previous World Wars. Should we wait until they became like North Korea and then act? Again, where is the U.N. with North Korea?
Again, no one has addressed the chemicals recovered that could've killed thousands a few days ago.
Silent Assasin
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
30. April 2004 @ 12:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
Other UN members were making the good decisions that our government failed to make. We should never have gone into Iraq and everyone new it but Bush who was too busy working on his own private agenda. Being beholding doesn't mean stupid. The so called possible chemical weapon agents that were found may well be a "Red_Herring," there are legitimate uses for those "possible chemical weapons agents" as well. Imagine finding pesticides at an agricultural complex. So far these chemicals haven't been properly tested so I'm going to wait until they are before I make a final judgement regarding them, but it wouldn't be the first time that agricultural chemicals were found.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. April 2004 @ 12:47
|
|
DarkmanX
Member
|
30. April 2004 @ 13:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sounds like your mind is already made up about the chemicals...You can't have it both ways; The U.S. either has control of the U.N. or it doesn't!
The U.N. realized that going into Iraq was wrong so they stood up against the bullying U.S. and not go?! More like side deals were made for their votes not to go if anything.
Silent Assasin
|
|
Bitcount
Account closed as per user's own request
|
30. April 2004 @ 14:37 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The U.N. realized that going into Iraq was wrong so they stood up against the bullying U.S. and not go?! More like side deals were made for their votes not to go if anything.
Side deals were made to get members to vote FOR the resolution, and to get states to send troops to iraq. Obviously if there had been actual and provable reasons to go to Iraq, then the US would not have had to try and bribe Turkey with 30 billion in no-interest loans, and even then Turkey did not participate.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
30. April 2004 @ 15:28 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The U.S. either has control of the U.N. or it doesn't!
The US does not control the UN
|
|
DarkmanX
Member
|
30. April 2004 @ 18:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
"bribe Turkey with 30 billion in no-interest loans, and even then Turkey did not participate."
Yet Turkey still got their funding from us! Who got screwed there? Seemed like they used us to get funding. They could've allowed us to pass through their terroritory to get our tanks to the front lines-yet they graciously allowed us to fly over their borders, what an ally! What harm was it to not actively participate, but allow us to pass through? Oriphus, I was rebutting Sophocles that the U.S. doesn't control the U.N.
Silent Assasin
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Buik
Member
|
30. April 2004 @ 19:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
1. Who were the recipients of the oil futures under the UN Oil for Food Program? France, Germany and Russia??? (Or influential citizens of those countries)
2. Seems like I heard that the terrorists who planned to attack Aman Jordan were associated with Al Queda and received training in Iraq, per their taped & televised confession(s)
3. Until Bush gave the green flag, everyone said that Iraq had WMD's. That includes Bill Clinton and the UNSC.
4. Didn't the Vietnam war start when the French were there? Trying to keep their "colony"? In hindsight, maybe the US should have supported Ho Chi Min before he was driven into the arms of the USSR. Now we get our payback from the French once again.
5. Have not all nations entered into aliances,they would otherwise have shunned, if it were not for the circumstances they are faced with? Be realistic when you start talking about the US support for Saddam Husein & others.
Have a good night. I'm going to bed.
|
