 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
MOBIUS
|
 |
Prifysgol Caerdydd
Dec 1999
time: 15:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Which sh!t are you referring to? That Saddam murdered up to 300,000 of his own people?
Oh, yea, and we're too ckickensh!t to invade Liberia? How many combat casualties has your nation sustained in the last 50 years? Care to compare on a per capita basis? And if you consider yourself such a brave stud, how is it that you aren't protecting the world and your ideals with your own life? You're a hater, and no number of weepy smilies can disguise it. |
Finally got to this post! I thought it was another Ted Striker post, seeing as you seem to have adopted his posting style...
Sigh...
Firstly I'm hoping you're being deliberately obtuse re the post you're replying to - because we all know what it means if you're not...
I am talking about the double standards of calling the deposing of Saddam a humanitarian mission when the US was so, erm, 'reluctant' perform a similar 'humanitarian' mission in Liberia for a miniscule fraction of the cost of Iraq...
Pure hypocrisy don't you think?
Besides, as I said earlier, Saddam wouldn't have have to kill that many people if Bush Snr had followed up and actually helped the Kurds and Shias he incited to revolt - instead of betraying them!
AND you didn't have to 'invade' Liberia - you were invited by both sides of the conflict!
As for combat casualties, let's start with after Vietnam shall we - because that is when the US Govt seems to have developed a decidely yellow streak with regards their deployment, which is the whole point...
In which case per capita, I'd say we beat you hands down.
Also, if the UK could handle Sierra Leone volutarily - why couldn't the US deal with Liberia???
As for my not personally protecting the world, I am not a soldier and don't have to. I fail to see what point you are trying to make - because my own lifestyle choice is not the issue here. If I were a soldier I would be far happier being a peacekeeper than embarking on acts of aggression.
As for being a hater, I hate hypocrisy like the stuff that is pouring out of the US govt on a daily basis - first it was WMD, then terrorism - then they said it was humanitarian...
BS!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MOBIUS
|
|
Prifysgol Caerdydd
Dec 1999
time: 15:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
You might as well talk to a post, as talk to Mobius.
Move on, move on. |
I can see why you would talk to a post - it's about the only thing not capable of beating you in an argument...
quote:
Originally posted by Dinodoc
That's actually correct on both counts as long as they confine themselves to their own citizens and don't threaten our interests |
Yeah, well you couldn't sum your attitude better could you?
0.00000000000000000001
Has to be a troll - not even you could be that callous...
quote:
Originally posted by Dinodoc Really? So any regime change must be done through the UN in order to be 'legal' under international law? Does that mean Kosovo was illegal under international law? Does that mean that when Vietnam took out Pol Pot in Cambodia, that was illegal under international law? There are exceptions to the prohibition of force, such as for humanitarian reasons, to bring self-determination, or to bring democracy. Making the UN the ultimate arbitrator of international law is foolish, especially because many actions now celebrated (under humanitarian reasons) would be thus considered contrary to international law. |
Technically I believe they are/were unless sanctioned by the UN. Can't remember the vagaries of Kosovo, however Vietnam taking out Pol Pot was seen as an 'invasion' because the US was still sore about getting its ass kicked out of Vietnam and pressured the intl community to sanction Cambodia after it was liberated - it was something like the poorest country in the world because of 'year zero' and then the sanctions! You'd think the intl community would want to rush in and help the cambodians after having to endure the terror of the killing fields - but oh no, slap those 'commie scum' with sanctions AND arm, equip and train the very scum that had laid waste to the country in the 1st place!!! Not sure what the yanks did to help the Khmer Rouge (except create their strength by bombing the crap out of Cambodia in the Vietnam war!), but my wonderful govt under Thatcher thought it would be a good idea to send in the SAS to help train them!!!
Anyway, certain places like Cambodia, Rwanda, East Timor, Congo, Sierra Leone and Liberia for example - it is expedient to find a way to short circuit UN red tape, especially as when you are watching civilians being slaughtered on a daily basis (but don't ask Dino to help!)... Some places like this has occurred, like the Aussies in East Timor and the British in Sierra Leone - both places a far worse bloodbath was averted.
Others like Rwanda and Congo this has happened after the bloodletting occurred and is an embarrassment to the inertia of the intl community. That is why, again, invading Iraq on 'humanitarian' grounds was wrong and the US dithering over Liberia was also wrong as hundreds if not thousands of civilians died needlessly because of this...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2003 17:47
Anyone who thinks Shrubby is doing this on humanitatian grounds is naive and ignorant. What about Congo... oh wait, they don't have oil; what about Saudi Arabia... oh wait, that would make Big Oil loose money. 
I wasn't against the war, I was against the ulterior motives of the Neo-cons and Haliburton. 
|