 |
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:36
|
|
FROM page 1...
What have we learned from Iraq?
The US cannot depend upon France, (who showed no gratitude for the US WW1 and WW2 efforts) Germany and old europe, except for Denmark. This may be because they didn't believe in the WMD arguement, according to Pekka.
The US Army can't be stopped by an army equiped with old soviet stuff, no matter how large. Those expecting 20,000 casualties fighting the Iraqi army were fear mongering for political reasons.
The CIA needs people on the ground to develope credible intel. The major reason for going to war in the first place was bogus, and the resulting backlash hurt the presidency of GWB, though not badly as he was re-elected, and the credibility of the US.
Overseeing of the treatment of POWs is absolutely essential.
The US did not fabricate evidence of WMD. Those that said they would have no clue about what a democracy is or isn't capable of.
The US failed to be ready for the unexpected. The president didn't expect the post war resistance to be as strong and so wasn't ready, a major failing.
The left tends to demonize those with whom it disagrees. -Inspired by Diss's post.
The vast majority of Arabs, like other people in this world, do want to have a democracy and do not want to be ruled by ruthless dictators.-Inspired by Ned's post
*If you're selling a war for reasons that are not very clear, democratic nations will not join in (unless there's a great war booty). Out of being 'nice', no one joins.
*Put forward by a Finn. 
What else?
NEW POST>>>
Ted, check out your third post and compare it to your second. This thing has been political the whole way. It must be viewed in that light.
Diss, excellent point. It's been fixed.
Pekka, it was an evil dictatorship that gassed and tortured its minorities and abused and kept down women... The WMD reason was put forward as the reason to go to war, but even without them it wasn't a bad decision imo. Anyway, make it short, what lesson would you like added?
Immortal, 
Last edited by Lancer on 24-04-2005 at 01:46
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:36
|
|
Boris, nobody in this thread made that assertion that I can tell.
"So? It was all about WMDs in here."-Pekka
So they just ignored all the hitlerish stuff Saddam was doing?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970 time: 21:36
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Pekka
Ted, Nah, I'm just overwhelmed by the argument where France and Germany sucks, after the fact that the WMDs weren't there, and the reasons for war were bogus. That's a paradox right there! ****, they were right, they didn't join, thus they are bastards.. Uhm?
It's realpolitiks in a way. Allies or not. Don't expect anyone to gear up for you, if you're making a hard sell.
What France did, for going against, now that's a .. that's something you could debate, I mean, why blocking if you could just say we won't go with it and then sit down and shut up. I'm not defending these actions.
ALl I'm saying is, they were right, we were wrong, so why some people are blaming anyone in here!?! Weird.
Besides, how cna a country be a friend and bastard every other day, depending what the news say? Go, travel, make friends, learn about places, and make your own judgement. 'France blocks the new cheese companies from selling their products in Paris'.. BASTARDS! No.. the real answer is, who the hell cares. No one is being unfriendly, except people who are going wild about france evil this germany evil that. |
I agree
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:36
|
|
Ned, good point, might be true. However, the facts are still on their side so there's nothing we can do about it. However, had there been WMDs, the view might be different now. Then again, it's a gamble... I mean, many countries intel thought there might be WMDs, not just the US. But the citizens, majority did not believe WMDs existed in Europe. I should know, since I was in the minority .
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:36
|
|
"Lancer, No I don't think so, just that the reasons for going to war, meaning how it was sold were not good enough. Oppressing women etc etc.. hey, happens everywhere in the world."
Saddam's Iraq was just like "everywhere in the world"? Pekka, did you see the video of the women in the soccer stadium? I'll never forget it. Can't...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lancer
"Lancer, No I don't think so, just that the reasons for going to war, meaning how it was sold were not good enough. Oppressing women etc etc.. hey, happens everywhere in the world."
Saddam's Iraq was just like "everywhere in the world"? Pekka, did you see the video of the women in the soccer stadium? I'll never forget it. Can't... |
A minor geographical adjustment - that happend in Afghanistan.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:36
|
|
"The genocide going on in Sudan was much worse at the time."
True...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:36
|
|
umm, my world view says it was just like in many parts of the world. Nothing spectacular. Wrong? absolutely. Disgusting? Yes. Worth attack.. I don't know. Maybe.
The fact remains, the reasons were nto right, and frenchies and germans called it right. It wasn't sold as 'libearting women and children of Iraq'. That wasn't the deal.
What we are not remembering now, is that it was VERY MUCH PART OF the war on TERRORISM. That was the BIG mistake. People in here didn't see it as part of terrorism, adn you can twist the word to suit your needs, but the fact is, people in here did not view it as such, and it was seen as a big mistake, a dangerous thing that would set the future track of what will happen into the dangerous section, and that part contributes to why mayn voted US to be the biggest threat to the world.
You see, when they show you videos about exectuions etc. that's a sell right there. You shouldn't sell a war to begin with, because it means it's likely for wrong reasons, or not good enough reasons anyway. As for Saddam and the ways, hey, it still was one of the most tolerant places in ME, also regarding womens rights. My point is, it wasn't even the most evil place in the world, definitely NOT part of the war on terrorism, and definitely NO WMDs. I personally supported action regardless. BUT IF I was the president in here, I would NOT have supported the action, having a bigger responsibility.
It comes down to, you do not send your boys (and girls) to war, unless it's necessary. If it's about 'liberating' people, you need to be sure you can do it alone, take the crapstorm, and ready to take casualties and pay for it for couple decades later on as well and be one of the most unpopular leader. That's the price.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:36
|
|
You evil! Ok.. my point was that.. maybe it's a cultural thing I don't know. In here, folks are first cynical, when in there they might be supportive. You know, people are in distress, dying, oppressed. Freedom gear kicks in, we need to help these people. In here, it would go 'really? I don't believe it... oh it's true? .. so? .. says who? .. so what do you want ME to do about it? Is it doable? Can we afford it? I don't think we can... '. There will be million questions, with cynical and negative attitude, and selling it makes it worse. It's a whole different ball game in here. Euro countries are extremely hard to be mobilized these days. Hey look at our defense. You think offense would be better somehow? I mean the willingness... it would be there, if we wanted it to be there, but the bottom line is that we don't want it to be there.
When you say we don't want to help you, we say why the hell are you selling this crap. When we say, you are going to mess places up again, you say we are going to help people. There are diffferent views to things, none of them are right or wrong, they just are.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How about, "the Right tends to demonize anyone with which it disagrees." Seems to be accurate, given the slurs hurled at anyone who was against the war. In fact, the Bush admin. has made it clear that anyone who disagrees with any aspect of their agenda must be considered an un-American traitor. |
That's just because you haven't experienced real lefties demonizing people that disagrees with them. According to them, everybody with a political viewpoint to the right of them is a "godwin word".
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36. Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|