 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark
It did not explicitly authorize war. It ALSO did not explicitly say that a second resolution was required. |
No need to state the obvious, that follows from the UN Charter.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999 time: 05:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
And the only reason they will do that is because we are ****ing around with them. If we leave them alone, our problems dissapear. The simple fact is that we dont have the support of the population, and no country has been held long when the people dont support the occupier. Invading wont solve the problem, it will only compound it.
And heres for lotm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3184683.stm |
If we leave them alone our problems disappear, are you for real, leaving them alone only invites more attacks, terrorists attack the weak, that is what they do, and if you look at the latest polls in the USA, even Sava would agree that America is in favor of what we did. If we take anymore serious hits like 9-11 you just might see an all out war in the middle east, no tactical bombing, only turn and burn the turf. Get it through your head, USA will not take hits like 9-11 and then leave them alone.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
You removed one big problem: Saddam
But you created at least 3 new big problems:
1) A damaged infrastructure, particularly water treatment, but plenty of other problems as well. And you lack the funds to fix it.
2) Anarchy, terrorism, and etnic conflicts, which you lack the manpower to keep at bay.
3) Massive unemployment, leading to poverty and more anarchy |
The infrastructure was already damaged. Prewar Iraq did not have enough power to meet demand. Large areas of the South now have MORE power than they did pre-war. Baghdad has less, because under Saddam Baghdad was privileged. We are close to 75% of pre-war power supply, and will be at 100% in a few weeks. Where we need international HELP is going beyond 100%, and actually meeting full demand. Ditto, to a greater or lesser degree, for most other services and infrastructure.
ethnic conflict - plenty of ethnic conflict under saddam - just that it was all inflicted by the state on the Kurds and Shia. In fact relatively little ethnic conflict since liberation. Terrorism yes, but Mosul, Kirkuk and the north remain quiet, and despite the assasination in Najaf the south remains relatively quiet. The problem of violence (not literally anarchy) is essentially in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle. We need help fixing that quickly - but we'll fix it everntually, even without help.
Poverty - we're making slow but real progress - there was certainly plenty of poverty under Saddam - But now there are plenty of unemployed ex-soldiers, etc
And in all these areas expectations are high - in reports from Iraq you generally do not hear "it was better under saddam" instead you hear " these are Americans, theyre rich and powerful, why cant they make it better faster?" The frustration is VERY real, but lets not let it blind us to what is happening.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999 time: 05:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Iraq never hit America |
That is right, "convential ollie", but Iraq was the best tactical choice for an invasion for a presence in the ME, we couldn't attack Saudi(who I am believing needs it desperately) but because of Mecca and we would start a massive war with the Muslims. What Bush did was take the best target, Iraq(because of Saddam and his history) to gain a presence in the ME, now we are in the back door of Saudi, Syria, Iran. The worst thing we could do now is envite the UN to help, keep those bastards out, let this remain a US and British operation.
If we are attacked and money or direct links can be established to Saudi, you just might see another war, much larger with global consequences.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999 time: 05:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark
The infrastructure was already damaged. Prewar Iraq did not have enough power to meet demand. Large areas of the South now have MORE power than they did pre-war. Baghdad has less, because under Saddam Baghdad was privileged. We are close to 75% of pre-war power supply, and will be at 100% in a few weeks. Where we need international HELP is going beyond 100%, and actually meeting full demand. Ditto, to a greater or lesser degree, for most other services and infrastructure.
ethnic conflict - plenty of ethnic conflict under saddam - just that it was all inflicted by the state on the Kurds and Shia. In fact relatively little ethnic conflict since liberation. Terrorism yes, but Mosul, Kirkuk and the north remain quiet, and despite the assasination in Najaf the south remains relatively quiet. The problem of violence (not literally anarchy) is essentially in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle. We need help fixing that quickly - but we'll fix it everntually, even without help.
Poverty - we're making slow but real progress - there was certainly plenty of poverty under Saddam - But now there are plenty of unemployed ex-soldiers, etc
And in all these areas expectations are high - in reports from Iraq you generally do not hear "it was better under saddam" instead you hear " these are Americans, theyre rich and powerful, why cant they make it better faster?" The frustration is VERY real, but lets not let it blind us to what is happening. |
LOTM, is right, in an age of FAX, FED EX, CELL phones, everything has the connotation of being fixed overnight, some things cannot, patience must be given.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001 time: 06:30
|
|
quote: If we leave them alone our problems disappear, are you for real, leaving them alone only invites more attacks, terrorists attack the weak, that is what they do, and if you look at the latest polls in the USA, even Sava would agree that America is in favor of what we did. If we take anymore serious hits like 9-11 you just might see an all out war in the middle east, no tactical bombing, only turn and burn the turf. Get it through your head, USA will not take hits like 9-11 and then leave them alone. |
Wrong. Leaving them alone means they can no longer count on the support of the people because America is no longer messing with their affaires. Maybe you should try looking deeper then 9-11, which was brought about because of what we have done the last 40 years in the Gulf Region, which is have our fingers in every countries pie. You too would hate it if foreigners told you how to run your country and would manipulate elections, support dictators, and kills opponents.
quote: Really? Ooops! Oh, well, I guess what's done is done...
Still, if he did destroy them, were's the evidence? Were's the proof that he destroyed them? Burried in the sand? Or in the Russian documents that say that they hid the weapons for the b-strd? |
The proof is in the pudding. We've been in Iraq for a long time now and we havnt found anything - no mobile weapons labs, no weapons of mass destruction.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark
Bunk - everyone knew at the time that there were people in the US admin who didnt think even 1441 was necessary. |
There were people in the US admin who thought post war Iraq would be quick and easy. Or people who think they talk to Jesus. How is that relevant?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
You removed one big problem: Saddam
But you created at least 3 new big problems:
1) A damaged infrastructure, particularly water treatment, but plenty of other problems as well. And you lack the funds to fix it.
2) Anarchy, terrorism, and etnic conflicts, which you lack the manpower to keep at bay.
3) Massive unemployment, leading to poverty and more anarchy |
a former "human shield" writing in the Washington Times
'I have been shocked at the difference between the Baghdad I found on my return and all the bad news from the city. Despite the recent bombings, Baghdad looks dramatically different. The stores are full of supplies. The streets are crowded with people and cars. The buses are working and police are on the streets, directing traffic. At night the streets are full of pedestrians, many families with children. I am at a loss to reconcile what we see on the ground with what is being reported.
The "regular people" are much better off than they were. Security has improved with Iraqi police everywhere, telephones are starting to work, electricity, while off and on, is relatively stable, the stores are full of food, and, little by little, people are getting jobs back. Pensions have been paid on time. The schools are working and people for the first time have hope and a future. When I was here before the war what was most awful for people was that they had no future — nothing to look forward to. For us who have never experienced that situation, it is difficult to understand, but it is akin to being in prison without the possibility of parole.
Those who naysay everything are very interesting. The people are very clear on who they are — they all were connected to Saddam. For the first time in their lives, they are going to have to work; no more handouts. The easy life is over. But the numbers are staggering. People estimate nearly 20 percent or more of the population was in some form on Saddam’s gravy train, some by choice, others by force. And nearly all of the population had been getting free food, tea and sugar. As for the crime, they emptied the prisons so nearly 50,000 hard-nosed criminals are on the streets. '
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Defiant
|
 |
WISCONSIN
Aug 1999 time: 05:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Wrong. Leaving them alone means they can no longer count on the support of the people because America is no longer messing with their affaires. Maybe you should try looking deeper then 9-11, which was brought about because of what we have done the last 40 years in the Gulf Region, which is have our fingers in every countries pie. You too would hate it if foreigners told you how to run your country and would manipulate elections, support dictators, and kills opponents.
|
NO, you are wrong, Saudis are manipulating their territory by supporting the terrorists against Israel, we support Israel, so unless we start firing missiles on Isreal they will always hate us. That is the plain facts, and if it is all out war they want we can give it to them.
Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, they don't have a particular problem with us, the rest fear freedom and we represent that. Only one country in the ME is a democracy and that is Israel. In the rest the state controls the money and the press, so of course we are the bad guys, but as you saw during the war with abbascoobbydoobby TV, they slant the version of the truth a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee bit.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark
in response to this
"No need to state the obvious, that follows from the UN Charter." |
Yes, and? This is one of the few relatively clear rules of international law. Of course if you're a neocon or other extreme ideologue (not you, the admin), everything you don't like will go away if you just say it doesn't exist. For the rest of us, that doesn't work.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001 time: 06:30
|
|
quote: NO, you are wrong, Saudis are manipulating their territory by supporting the terrorists against Israel, we support Israel, so unless we start firing missiles on Isreal they will always hate us. That is the plain facts, and if it is all out war they want we can give it to them.
Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, they don't have a particular problem with us, the rest fear freedom and we represent that. Only one country in the ME is a democracy and that is Israel. In the rest the state controls the money and the press, so of course we are the bad guys, but as you saw during the war with abbascoobbydoobby TV, they slant the version of the truth a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee bit. |
If we stop supporting Israel (ie stop giving them billions in aid) and stop meddling in their affaires, they will leave us alone. We cannot win the war, so why start it.
And who cares if only one country is a democracy. Thats not my problem. Democracy can only come about if there is a consensus. There are too many factions fighting in those countries to bring it about. Democracy doesnt work if it is forced. instead of shoving your arrogant morally superior ideals on everyone, let them figure it out themselves. Forcing anybody doesnt solve anything.
The reason for the kings is western of course. The Brits installed them all.
quote: I thought I heard different. |
Well you heard wrong.
quote: we have found peices of them, and traces of them
I think they were there, and not to long ago... They are just not there any more, which says nothing about them not having been there. Who needs a smoking gun when you have victims? Who needs a smoking gun when you heard the shot and see the smoke? |
No we havnt. We have victims all over the world. Cry me a river.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Chemical Ollie
|
 |
Bored of this board
Jan 2002 time: 06:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Defiant
That is right, "convential ollie", but Iraq was the best tactical choice for an invasion for a presence in the ME, we couldn't attack Saudi(who I am believing needs it desperately) but because of Mecca and we would start a massive war with the Muslims. What Bush did was take the best target, Iraq(because of Saddam and his history) to gain a presence in the ME, now we are in the back door of Saudi, Syria, Iran. The worst thing we could do now is envite the UN to help, keep those bastards out, let this remain a US and British operation.
If we are attacked and money or direct links can be established to Saudi, you just might see another war, much larger with global consequences. |
[Troll mode] Nuke the Kaba! [/Troll mode]
And for "conventional" I am everything but that, I can assure you!
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
If we stop supporting Israel (ie stop giving them billions in aid) and stop meddling in their affaires, they will leave us alone. We cannot win the war, so why start it.
And who cares if only one country is a democracy. Thats not my problem. Democracy can only come about if there is a consensus. There are too many factions fighting in those countries to bring it about. Democracy doesnt work if it is forced. instead of shoving your arrogant morally superior ideals on everyone, let them figure it out themselves. Forcing anybody doesnt solve anything.
The reason for the kings is western of course. The Brits installed them all.
|
Bullshit. Hitler used the same victimization argument to gain concessions from the Allies and his appetite only grew larger with each one. Do you honestly believe that OBL and all those Taliban freaks are any better?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|