 |
| |
|
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000
time: 01:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Actually we contained Iraq for a decade with just a few lead elemenst and the troops we had based in Kuwait and SA. |
(emphasis mine)
Somebody finally brought up this point, so allow me to blow away this reason for continued containment: The troops based in Saudi Arabia to contain the Iraqi threat to the region were a major cause behind 9/11. The Saudi Arabian government has been effectively able to cast themselves as an "ally of the West" while at the same time oppressing their people and underhandedly funding terrorist organizations. The presence of US troops in the "holy land' has been one of Osama bin Laden's most oft-cited grievances and a source of recruitment propoganda. The USA has been able to take no effective action against the Saudis because of the continuing containment policies -- or does anyone believe for a second that the Saudis, other Arab regimes, and the UN wouldn't have *****ed and moaned if the USA pulled out of the country and/or begun to exert diplomatic/economic pressure on the Saudis? Hence the need to end the containment policies, but Saddam's continuing noncomplaince with UN resolutions made that impossible. Since the UN offered no peaceful means for the USA to extricate itself from the situation -- I didn't see France, Germany, Russia, or China offering to take over the USA's presence in Saudi Arabia, for example -- removing Saddam's regime became the only viable solution.
So to put your pro-war/anti-war question into another light, GePap: would you continue to keep American troops in Saudi Arabia to contain Iraq, knowing that further terrorist attacks against the USA because of those troops, was not only possible, but likely? That's the "imminent threat", the threat that steps can now be taken toward removing with an Iraq that no longer needs to be contained.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Blix and his boys did not have 150,000 men and general control of large sections of the country. |
It should be painfully obvious that almost every one of those 150,000 men are soldiers not inspectors. They are there to fight, not dig around looking for WMD.
quote:
Oh, and your statement is factually wrong. The inspectors did find huge amounts of WMD |
I never said they didn't.
quote:
and destroyed far more then the coolition in the first gulf war. |
Destroying WMD was not even remotely part of the agenda of GWI. And before it is mentioned, regime change was also not a primary goal of GWI.
quote:
Even during the time Blix was there he found a few munitons and the Al Samoud II's. |
Proof positive that Saddam is a lying bast@rd but I supposed we can just trust him about all the unaccounted for WMD, especially when there is so much at stake finacially for German, French and Russian fat cats.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
quote:
GePap: What does Kurdish inability to respond in kind have to do with the fact that Saddam HAD the goods to do it? Or, with the fact that he undoubtedly didn't use 100% of his supply in the effort (and therefore, would still have some left to use later)? |
It tells us that he would not use them against somoene, I don;t know, like the US, who could respond with far greater force, menaing that if the only thing we had to worry about was the threat he possed with whatever ha had, he could be easily detered. It tells us that as far as the threat from Saddam's WND;s was concerned, deterence was a viable and successful strategy, and that henece, the UN process had put him in a box, even if he had any WMD's left. |
GePap, this is nonsense. Saddam did authorized the use of WMD against the US in this war. It so happened, though, that his field commanders did not use the WMD's. The thinking is that the Republican Guard commanders heeded Bush's warnings about prosecution for war crimes if they used WMD's.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by optimus2861
(emphasis mine)
Somebody finally brought up this point, so allow me to blow away this reason for continued containment: The troops based in Saudi Arabia to contain the Iraqi threat to the region were a major cause behind 9/11.
|
Excuse, not cause.
quote:
The Saudi Arabian government has been effectively able to cast themselves as an "ally of the West" while at the same time oppressing their people and underhandedly funding terrorist organizations.
|
Of course. And the House of Saud will continue to buy off and play various factions, so long as it remains in power. That's their method.
quote:
The presence of US troops in the "holy land' has been one of Osama bin Laden's most oft-cited grievances and a source of recruitment propoganda. |
Read al Qutb, OBL and al Zawahiri's spiritual and ideological inspiration. There's an endless list of things they can come up with, but the real objection to US forces in the region is that it derails the fundamentalist's initial goals of establishing Islamic states in the region.
quote:
removing Saddam's regime became the only viable solution.
|
So they're pissed off because we have a few troops in Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain, but they won't be pissed off when we invade another Arab country? 
quote:
So to put your pro-war/anti-war question into another light, GePap: would you continue to keep American troops in Saudi Arabia to contain Iraq, knowing that further terrorist attacks against the USA because of those troops, was not only possible, but likely? |
So, gee whiz, now that we knocked off Saddam, our troops can all come home and we can leave the ME alone, so the fundamentalist *******s won't pick on us any more? 
quote:
That's the "imminent threat", the threat that steps can now be taken toward removing with an Iraq that no longer needs to be contained. |
We're years from figuring out if and when Iraq no longer needs to be contained.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DAVOUT
If the UN are supposed to reflect some democratic trend in the community of nations, it seems impossible for a great democracy to refuse to be part of it. The argument that the UN are impotent is not relevant : they have not been created to govern the world, only to make possible that the problems can be described, analysed, and appropriate solution recommended.
The fact that the US disagree with one recommendation (even if they have sentimental reasons to believe otherwise) does not mean that the UN has failed.
|
The problem with this statement is that a great many states in the UN are not democratic and do not accord their own people human rights. Were the UN a great force for democracy, I for one would be an enthusiatic supporter. But, what I see, is that is an organ that excuses abuses by dictators, and does everything in it power to see that they are not overthrown.
I think the UN needs reforming. We should have it actually adopt democracy as the only acceptable form of government and provide the people of the world its guarantee that the democracies of the world, represented by the UN, are on their side.
But this is a fantasy, of course. It also illustrates why the UN is not, ultimately, an organ for advancing civilization and making the world a better, more humane and good place in which to live.
Last edited by Ned on 11-04-2003 at 04:02
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
So the UN is not an organ for advancing civilization because it exists in the real world where the majority of the world's population do not live in democratic nations? It is a world organization not a democratic government country club.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
The problem with this statement is that a great many states in the UN are not democratic and do not accord their own people human rights. Were the UN a great force for democracy, I for one would be an enthusiatic supporter. But, what I see, is that is an organ that excuses abuses by dictators, and does everything in it power to see that they are not overthrown.
I think the UN needs reforming. We should have it actually adopt democracy as the only acceptable form of government and provide the people of a world its guarantee that the democracies of the world, represented by the UN, are on their side.
But this is a fantasy, of course. It also illustrates why the UN is not, ultimately, an organ for advancing civilization and making the world a better, more humane and good place in which to live. |
The US do not refuse, and they are right, to discuss with non democratic countries, why should the UN refuse ? And an imperfect UN is certainly better than nothing for advancing civilization and making the world a better, more humane and good place in which to live.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
1) War with Kuwait. (oh wait! That wasn't regional bullying....what am I thinking!)
2) Lobbing scuds at Israel (nahhhh....never happened)
3) War with Iran (nope....not regional bullying at all)
The proof has been in the headlines over the years....what more do you want?
And Rah...shhhh! We're not supposed to talk about that! We're the US....you know....our mission is to be the open check book for the UN. 
-=Vel=- |
Oh yes, Vel, and next we can hope the Apartheid government in South Africa will allow the black majority to rule, and then we can hope that Israel and Jordan can make peace..
Oh wait, its not 1991, its 2003! Well I'll be damned!
All those things you pointed out happened in, or before 1991. Now, i don;t know how you like to access the capabilities of states, but I prefer not to do it based on 12 year old info: I think it makes mroe sense to examine what sort of threat Iraq was based on its capabilities in 2003, not 1991. Since no SCUD's have been found, and the hunt for banned weapons is on, you can ahrdly cliam to know what its capabilities were as of the beginning of March. I do claim that those capabilities did not make Iraq an impending threat to his neighbors, specially given the extremely poor perfomance the Iraqi army at all levels put up.
RAH:
Let me start by saying that the UN did not approve of the no flight zones: that was something the US and UKon their own kept flying for 12 years. It was something we decided to fund ourselves, thorugh US and UK military budgets, not in any way throught the UN (that is right Vel, the UN had nothing to do with the no-flight zones), and I am positive that the costs of this one month of war far outweight the cost of those operation. If those ops. cost 2 billion a year, then we spent 24 billion on them...and could have kept them going 20 more years before they begun to equal the cost of this operation. If money was an issue, we would not have invaded.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
So....a leader's past actions have no weight in determining possible future actions he might make? I see.
We should, therefore, simply ignore Saddam's past track record entirely, and when he uses the same stall tactics (as he did quite recently, and in fact, up until the day before the invasion to remove him began), we should in no way *percieve* this as the same old song and dance we've seen before, but simply assume that suddenly he has turned over a new leaf and is now an upstanding citizen.
Hate to break it to you, but here in the real world where the rest of us are living, that's not how it works. He has a time-tested PROVEN track record for regional bullying. EVERY indicator there is suggests that if allowed to rebuild, he'd continue along that path.
But that's not what you want to hear, so it comes as no real surprise that you choose to ignore it.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Hate to break it to you, but here in the real world where the rest of us are living, that's not how it works. He has a time-tested PROVEN track record for regional bullying. EVERY indicator there is suggests that if allowed to rebuild, he'd continue along that path. |
Do you actually know Vel why iraq invaded Iran in 1980? or why it invaded Kuwait in 1990?
There were actual reasons for those wars: even if we come to some agreemnt that they were bad reaosns, it was not just "regional bullying" as you claim. In fact Vel, go to your neighborhood library and find some magazine from sept 1980, and read for yourself to see how the world saw Iraqs invasion of Iran..it sure wasn;t seen as just local bullying.
When you so utterly simplify a situation beyond recognition, any judgement based on that to me is highly supect. I also ask you to read up on the hisotry of the Iran-Iraq war. If it were up to hussein the war would have ended in 1983 or '84 once his innitial attacks were beaten back. That it went on until 1988 is more the fault of the Iranians. And it was in this second half that Iraq begun the widespread use of Chemical agents.
So no, just looking at what Hussein did in 1980 and 1990, speciually since he did what he did based ont he specifics of that time and what he saw as his capabilities versus that of the other guy, is no aguge of what he would do.
You say every indicator? What indicator? the actiuons he took from 1991 to 2003? cuase they hardly point to him as preparing to launch some war of aggression against his enhgbpors, given how he was mending fences with the Kuwaitis and saudis, if not very well. Who was he going to invade next? A much much stronger Iran, or an even stronger Turkey? or syria?
Sorry, but I don't buy your argument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
The UN is a failure. The failure to back 1441 with the serious consequences that were agreed to just made a joke of the whole organization. They have no credibility. The US might as well withdraw and tell them to meet somewhere else.
France, Germany and Russia sold out the UN for whatever business they were doing with Iraq. France in particular used it as a forum to grandstand and thumb their nose at the US. There is no United Nations. They should call it something else, maybe Sanctions R Us. To be United they need a charter that spells out exactly what they are united on and then back it up.
The UN will have a vital roll in Iraq. The French can bake some bread. Their whining is music to my ears. The ****ards.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
serious consequences almost certainly meant war by the US when they shoved the resoultion through. whether u think it does is sort of irrelevant.
we were sending 100 000's of troops, we already had them in sanctions. wut is the next level? starvation sanctions? do u think the US was planning on sitting 250 000 troops on iraq's border indefinitely?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
An answer filled with righteous indignation, that DIDN'T answer what I said. 
Care to have another go, oh Master of Zen? |
Can't have enough of UN arguments huh? 
Since once is apparently not enough for you (and many others), I'll be more than happy to comply
The UN HAS been successful in that it has given many nations a voice that they could not have before 1945 and were subject to aggression by the world powers or their neighbours. Before 1945 there was really no effective institution capable of resolving all but the most serious threats to peace (i.e. those involving the superpowers).
The UN has also promoted certain universally held rights and standards which if anything has bettered the overall perspective of man, if you consider how many countries in 1945 were true democracies, and how many are now, there IS a big difference, and the collective promotion of these values by the UN and other similar instituations has undoubtedly helped it.
You cannot expect the UN to solve every problem since it, like every other institution is not perfect. To expect the UN to do everything right is to expect the IMF to do the same, to expect your government to do what's right. Everyone screws up, the UN is no exception and there have been serious failures: Rwanda, Yugoslavia, etc. But considering its victories: Rhodesia, East Timor, the whole de-colonization process, etc. there is much to celebrate, much more in fact than to regret.
Now the UN has some major institutional flaws, not only due to countries like France as you right-wingers don't stop bashing, but ALL countries with veto power. These are the nations that always blame the UN for not working, yet they do not realize that the veto power in itself is the major obstacle to getting things done. It is an easy way to pull the plug when things don't go your way.
You should not that after the 1960s, the US has been BY FAR the biggest user of the veto, even more since after the Cold War.
Now on a personal note, I have worked at the UN and I know what gets done and what not. You may look at the news and see the UN's inablity to tackle a major power's muscle flexing but few people really realize the huge amount of things the UN is involved in, many things that go unnoticed by most people. So, before you go on a rant about how useless the UN is, I suggest you actually bother to investigate a little about ALL it does, before jumping to ignorant conclusion.
So, want to continue AoA?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-04-2003 22:55
|