|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted November 16, 2003 07:07 PM |
bonus applied. |
|
1) In 1991 Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait but was forced out by a coalition led by th US. In the process 293 Americans died in Desert Storm.
2) As part of the peace agreement that Saddam signed to end the first Gulf War, he agreed to give up all of his WMD's and allow UN weapons inspectors to verify his compliance.
3) Saddam Hussein then proceeded to violate 18 UN mandates to disarm and, in 1998, refused to allow the weapons inspectors further access inside Iraq. Finally more than 4 years later, at the urging of the US, UN Resolution 1441 was passed demanding that Saddam produce his WMD's immediatly or face "serious consequences"
4) After Saddam defied 1441, the UN refused to confront Saddam militarily. The reasons were primarily politcal and economic. As we now know, France, Russia, and Germany were making millions of dollars doing business, some of it illegal, with Saddam. The US and Britain complained bitterly, but to no avail.
5) After 9/11 the US embarked on a worldwide defensive strategy to hunt down terrorists and their enablers wherever a situation posed a percieved danger. Saddam was certainly a terrorist enabler, giving sanctuary to killers like Abu Nidel and Abu Abbas and training Hammas executioners. With his self-admitted stocks of anthrax and other impossible-to-detect chemical and biological weapons, the evil dictator was in a position to supply various terrorist groups with doomsday substances. You'll remember that just a few enveloped dipped in anthrax nearly shut down the US government in the days after 9/11.
What did the troops in 1991 die for? If peace treaties are worth nothing, then the world would soon descend into chaos.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 16, 2003 07:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1) In 1991 Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait but was forced out by a coalition led by th US. In the process 293 Americans died in Desert Storm.
That had nothing whatsoever to do with Sadam's use of WMD's, nor his attitude to those under his rule. Indeed this same wonderful treaty allowed the then surrounded R.Guard to march back into Iraq and slaughter the Southern Iraquis. Nor does quoting deaths have anything to do with the WMD issue, just a cheap attempt to sensationalise the issue otherwise you'd have bothered to mention the other nations who lost troops in 1991, believe it or not they do exist...
Quote:
) Saddam Hussein then proceeded to violate 18 UN mandates to disarm and, in 1998, refused to allow the weapons inspectors further access inside Iraq. Finally more than 4 years later, at the urging of the US, UN Resolution 1441 was passed demanding that Saddam produce his WMD's immediatly or face "serious consequences"
You are I'm sure aware of how many other countries totally ignore the UN resolutions I assume? And I add it's still up for some discussion as to what the French/Germans/Russians felt "serious consequences" meant, it was to ambiguous in dimplomacy speech to mean either military action or more UN action.
Quote:
After Saddam defied 1441, the UN refused to confront Saddam militarily. The reasons were primarily politcal and economic. As we now know, France, Russia, and Germany were making millions of dollars doing business, some of it illegal, with Saddam. The US and Britain complained bitterly, but to no avail.
Oh dear, as I mentioned, I find the accusations from the allies against the French Germans and Russians about trading a little rich. Let he without sin? Now I grant you most of those the allies trade with don't have UN resolutions against them, but that's often because the allied nations block such resolutions all to frequently by veto.
Quote:
Saddam was certainly a terrorist enabler, giving sanctuary to killers like Abu Nidel and Abu Abbas and training Hammas executioners. With his self-admitted stocks of anthrax and other impossible-to-detect chemical and biological weapons, the evil dictator was in a position to supply various terrorist groups with doomsday substances. You'll remember that just a few enveloped dipped in anthrax nearly shut down the US government in the days after 9/11.
Substances that have not been found, nothing has been found. We were assured they would be found, now they are "impossible to find". How utterly convinient that they suddenly become so hard to find when we were so sure before.
BTW Some of those same terrorists and their funders are sitting in the UK right now, they keep mentioning them in our press every so often and we keep them here for fear of offending people.
Quote:
What did the troops in 1991 die for? If peace treaties are worth nothing, then the world would soon descend into chaos.
Well lets see, protecting Kuwait? Stopping Sadam from getting the precious Oil there? Preventing a similar occurrence happening to the Saudis and their oil? It sure as hell wasn't then about WMD's OR terrorism before the war, nor was it especially about his war crimes past. As for the treaty, well that's true, but my point is the blame (such as it is) lies with the countries, NOT the UN. The UN can only act when it has agreement, as it could only act in 1991 with agreement. The UN is essentially part of a democratic theory, blaming the UN simply doesn't work, each nation has their reasons, each makes their choice, the UN simply acts on those choices as much as it can.
So whilst it's nice and easy to pick the UN, the real target is actually the countries, and to me none of them are any less or more moral than the Allied nations.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
fd10801
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 21, 2003 11:01 PM |
|
|
Attack Iraq?
Given the fact that World War II left two superpowers on the whole planet, and given the fact that the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. made the United States the only superpower on earth, we can do pretty much do whatever we want. the question is, "Should we?" This is not Hiroshima in 1945, or the Halls of Montezuma in 1846. This is here and now. And here and now, we are a country that has never entered a country to plunder its wealth, or enslave its people, leftist rhetoric to the contrary.
So, I am drawn to the conclusion that we, as a nation, are as capable of judging our geopolitical needs as well as anybody, the United Nations' and the European Union's opinions notwithstanding. So, to put it in the vernacular, we can do whatever the f*ck we want to whoever the f*ck we want, whenever the f*ck we want. If you come to f*ck with us, you're not going back standing up.
____________
*Are you a human?*
No. I'm a frozen meatcicle
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 03:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Given the fact that World War II left two superpowers on the whole planet, and given the fact that the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. made the United States the only superpower on earth, we can do pretty much do whatever we want. the question is, "Should we?" This is not Hiroshima in 1945, or the Halls of Montezuma in 1846. This is here and now. And here and now, we are a country that has never entered a country to plunder its wealth, or enslave its people, leftist rhetoric to the contrary.
I see they don't teach you American History where you went to school huh?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 04:49 AM |
|
|
I see nothing wrong with his statement.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 04:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And here and now, we are a country that has never entered a country to plunder its wealth, or enslave its people, leftist rhetoric to the contrary
Ever heard of this little place called america? No? How about Roosevelt's support for Panamanian rebels in order to keep the Canal under US partial control? No? Ahhh I see, this is "lefist rhetoric" ie things you don't like to admit so you generalise it with an insulting term to justify your dismissal of it.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
posted November 22, 2003 04:56 AM |
|
|
True
nothing wrong with what he said, just the usual blabber from PH.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 05:01 AM |
|
|
*yawn*
Come back when you can offer some factual debating skills rather than insults 
Also his post is quite insulting to the intelligence of people at the same time. As PM has pointed out for one, the fact that American imperialism (for name purposes) is less obvious doesn't mean it does not exist. Just because you're not physically enslaving populations doesn't make what forms of barriers you place on them or their country any better. Just because you're not physically stealing their resources does not mean you are not exploiting them.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 05:21 AM |
|
|
Sounds
Quote:
*yawn*
Come back when you can offer some factual debating skills rather than insults
Also his post is quite insulting to the intelligence of people at the same time. As PM has pointed out for one, the fact that American imperialism (for name purposes) is less obvious doesn't mean it does not exist. Just because you're not physically enslaving populations doesn't make what forms of barriers you place on them or their country any better. Just because you're not physically stealing their resources does not mean you are not exploiting them.
like some lame whiny Eurotrash reponse. Grow some nuts.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 05:30 AM |
|
|
And they wonder why americans get a reputation sometimes abroad for thinking with their fists and their **** rather than their brains... tut tut, you really should try using some discussion or social skills for a change 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 05:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
like some lame whiny Eurotrash reponse. Grow some nuts.
Grow some neurons.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 05:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
like some lame whiny Eurotrash reponse. Grow some nuts.
Grow some neurons.
Damnit Bort if you didn't say exactly what I wanted to in a wittier way!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
fd10801
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 06:20 AM |
|
|
Private Hudson, you are so smart, I'm peeing in my pants at your obvious intellectual superiority and rapier wit.
Supporting rebels to maintain a strong hold (note: not stronghold) on the Panama Canal is neither an invasion nor plunder. Don't tell me "something is like something", and then say that that means "something is something." My point was so simple that even you can understand it.
Except for an extremely tiny minority of Iraqis, most of those people want us there, and are very happy that we got rid of Sadaam Hussein. Except for an extremely tiny minority of Afghans, most of those people want us there, and are very happy that we got rid of the Taliban. In all the other countries where we have troops, none of their governments want us to leave. South Korea, for example, doesn't even want us to pull back from the DMZ, let alone pull out of their country, even if it means easing tensions with North Korea. Germany is fearful that the strengthening of our alliance with eastern European countries like Poland, will cause us to pull our troops out of their country, so much so, that they are easing away from their joint venture with France to thwart us in Iraq. Japan is not letting the fact that two of our atomic bombs fell on their country 58 years ago, stop them from pushing their own constitutional envelope to help us in Iraq. A sufficient number of Mexicans have forgotten the Mexican War to sneak, creep, crawl, ride, roll, fly, and / or be smuggled across their border into our country, by the hundreds of thousands.
In other words, you are full of crap, CH.
____________
*Are you a human?*
No. I'm a frozen meatcicle
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 04:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Supporting rebels to maintain a strong hold (note: not stronghold) on the Panama Canal is neither an invasion nor plunder.
Right, so attempting to overthrow a government simply because they threaten your domination of a canal is legitimate? You may wish to have such a narrow defenition of what makes your country great and good, others prefer to view these things with a little more of an open mind though.
BTW sometime later you criticised the British and French for doing near enough the same thing about the Suez canal, only we did invade, talk about hypocrisy...
Quote:
Except for an extremely tiny minority of Iraqis, most of those people want us there, and are very happy that we got rid of Sadaam Hussein.
Right and wrong, most are VERY happy he was deposed, equally though most I have seen on TV and through the media are very unhappy to see America's continuing presence, these two things are not the same.
Quote:
In all the other countries where we have troops, none of their governments want us to leave. South Korea, for example, doesn't even want us to pull back from the DMZ, let alone pull out of their country, even if it means easing tensions with North Korea
It's called recognising facts, they know they can't survive without you, doesn't mean they want you there as such in terms of friendship...
Quote:
Germany is fearful that the strengthening of our alliance with eastern European countries like Poland, will cause us to pull our troops out of their country, so much so, that they are easing away from their joint venture with France to thwart us in Iraq.
I'm not sure if anyone's told you, but there's not that many American troops in Germany any more.
Quote:
Japan is not letting the fact that two of our atomic bombs fell on their country 58 years ago, stop them from pushing their own constitutional envelope to help us in Iraq
Political reality, Japan's forces are miniscule, China's are vast, Japan cannot help but continue to rely on America for her defense. As for the bombs, I have never considered the first bomb a war crime anyway...
Quote:
In other words, you are full of crap, CH
A) Wrong name
B) Burying your head in the sand about my comment over less obvious forms of imperialism because you ignore them right off.
c) Ingoring the comment about America. Now I don't wish to get pedantic, but even after your revolution you continued to plunder, steal and enslave lands and people's outside what was then the USA. That is a reality, that is contary to your statements, just because it's the USA now doesn't mean it was then, which entirely throws out your blinkered perfectionist view of your country's foreign policy. Doesn't mean you will be that obvious again, political reality will never allow it these days, but don't try playing on your history when you clearly ignore set bits of it.
Bort: Excellent 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
EvilLoynis
Famous Hero
The Dark Shadow
|
posted November 22, 2003 05:36 PM |
|
|
Here is a joke I heard this morning,
Q: How does the U.S. know that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?
A: They kept the receipts.
Hope that puts a smile on someones face...lol
____________
"I am both selfish and instictive. I value nature and the world around me as means to an end as well as an end in itself; at best I ... too long to display...
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 05:55 PM |
|
|
Yeah, we supported rebels in Panama so we could keep hold of it. Is there some law saying that we're only allowed to help others if we get nothing out of it?
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 06:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, we supported rebels in Panama so we could keep hold of it. Is there some law saying that we're only allowed to help others if we get nothing out of it?
Depends on the type of people you support, if the government was elected or not, and so on. Supporting for example a bunch of right wing lunatics to overthrow a democratically elected government just because said government happens to have been Left wing is not entirely justifiable for example, something that was rife during the cold war. Hence why his blinkered cosy memory of US history is a little innaccurate.
Dunno about laws against it, don't know enough about current UN law, but since the powerful nations ignore the UN more often than not it's a little irrelevant to decide on illegal or not. More relevant is whether it is Immoral.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 06:41 PM |
|
|
What's with the bashing of America? True, we have done unreputable things in the past (and still are today, no doubt), but the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely" comes to mind. At least we have escaped absolute corruption, though some may think that even that is debatable.
Not all US action is justifiable, but how can it be when the popular opinion of our people sometimes starkly contradict moral, and even reason? One of the troubles of a democracy is that it trades an unaltered and educated response of the government for the freedom and wills of its people. The government is all too often obliged to follow where the voice of the people leads.
Of course I'm not saying that the government never acts against the will of the people (Vietnam, anyone?), but no government can even come close to being perfect, especially if the issue is divided even amongst its own members. IMO, the only reason the American government is so highly criticised is because it is willing to take high-profile risks that may or may not have the support of the world, or even America for that matter, and they have the power to do so.
____________
>_>
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 07:08 PM |
|
|
There's a difference between "bashing america" and refuting the perfect view of it put forward in that remark...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 07:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The government is all too often obliged to follow where the voice of the people leads.
---- or ----
Quote:
The voice of the people is all too often obliged to follow where the government leads.
I may be wrong about this, but as I recall at the start of it our action in Iraq was one of the most contentious -- in the dialogue of the American public -- in history. In international relations, the "voice of the public" is usually a stumbling block for the administration, which has its own ideas, information and agendas, frequently very little of which the American people are informed. Getting the people to follow along and support the action is the sign of a truly crafty administration (or the intellectual and emotional fatigue of the American public).
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
