US and France and others

[Anathema]

Acriku: The US has some support (most of wich bribed, and in most countries the majority is against war), but not a majority in the UN council, wich is what counts. If the lack of UN permission doesn't stop the US from doing whatever they want, how can you expect China to honour the UN charter? China has less friends in this world these days, but that's not going to stop them either. The aid of all the US allies in the Iraq was largely for show anyway.

[lowzeewee]

Acriku: The US has some support (most of wich bribed, and in most countries the majority is against war), but not a majority in the UN council, wich is what counts. If the lack of UN permission doesn't stop the US from doing whatever they want, how can you expect China to honour the UN charter? China has less friends in this world these days, but that's not going to stop them either. The aid of all the US allies in the Iraq was largely for show anyway.

Well said! :D I support what you say.

E.g.--->Spain's Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar is seen in this March 17, 2003 file photo. Aznar infuriated Spaniards with his staunch support of the U.S.-led coalition fighting in Iraq (news - web sites) and his approval rating has dropped 10 points in three months, tumbling to 31 percent.(AP Photo/Paul White)

- Apr 11 12:12 AM

From www.yahoo.com

THe PM might support the INVASION[iMHO] of Iraq,just because USA is either doing a lot of trade with them and it is needed for reeling in the dough or they are bribed already.Why don't every single country in the UN get to vote[Without US mind-controlling the UN to allow them to pick-and-choose]

[Nyarlathotep]

We will lose some credibility if WMD are not found. I'm not too worried though.

However, the stories being told by the Iraqi citizens of torture, rape and murder justify the war. Their gratitude towards us negates any of the bullsh1t that comes from Europe.

Think about it. France/Germany/Russia would have had us contain Saddam Hussein for an indefinite time, and continue sanctions and weapons inspections. The chemicals we have found would NEVER have been discovered by the weapons inspectors. How many innocent Iraqi civilians would have not only died but been tortured and raped because of their lack of courage? I'm sure the Iraqi people thank them for their opposition. ::) Was that Chirac's face being kissed by an Iraqi man? Were those French flags being waved? Face it, they were wrong even if WMD aren't found.

In the Arab world, I see a "wait and see" attitude heavy with skepticism. That's understandable, but we have a golden opportunity to show the Arab world our intentions by setting up a free Iraq. This is in our greatest interest as a country. Far more important than the oil reserves which we could have gained access to anyway without a war. I want to see a free democratic Iraq, where the citizens reap the benefits of their labor and the country's wealth. If the rest of the Arab world would see this, then, I think opinion of the US in Arab countries would increase. This is our ultimate goal.

Miles, I agree to the fact that the people of Iraq are freed from a dictator, no issues there.

Fact is that Bush started his hunger for war with the fact that he had proof of WDM's. IMO, if he had proof, he'd know where to look for those WDM's. If they don't find WDM's, it partially proves my statement that Bush had his CIA director change his report and therefore justifying the war (the original report didn't had enough evidence for Bush to justify a war in Iraq).

If I remember correctly, freeing Iraqi people became a reason in a later stage of Bush pushing the war.

The thing I oppose to is the way Bush pushed this war through everyones throat in every way he could. Just like I child that get's something denied from his parents and later does it anyway.

If Bush's true inetentions are world peace, he should be more open to negative comments and don't wave them away with teh attitude "don't need it". Like I said earlier, to get world peace, you need everyone and all.

[Acriku]

Acriku: The US has some support (most of wich bribed, and in most countries the majority is against war), but not a majority in the UN council, wich is what counts. If the lack of UN permission doesn't stop the US from doing whatever they want, how can you expect China to honour the UN charter? China has less friends in this world these days, but that's not going to stop them either. The aid of all the US allies in the Iraq was largely for show anyway.

Most of it is not bribed, just America tried to bribe some who wouldn't already give it. The US has all the support it needs, Britian, Australia, and Israel. What is it in the UN that counts? Nothing. If it can't do its job correctly, and it takes military action to do it, then nothing of the UN counts. It is a sham. You are forgetting that the U.S. did not just pack up and leave for Iraq and start shooting some Iraqi soldiers. No. If China decides to invade Taiwan for whatever reason, then we will stop them and if it comes to it, use military action against China. You have no basis to say that the aid of all the US allies in Iraq was for show, so say something you know for a fact.

[nemafakei]

If the purpose of the UN is to prevent war by diplomatic means, then when the memmers of the UN break off diplomacy with the UN ITSELF, something's wrong.

Surprising how the the UN's failure is in the departments wherein the politicians are involved.

[SurlyPIG]

Yup. I loathe politicians. They are not educated about money, economics, morality, diplomacy or anything of the sort of content that the leaders of society SHOULD have. Instead, they take political science (I've always wondered why it's called a science. It belongs under kenesiology. When you think about it, its more of a sport) and learn the arts of manipulation. Their goal is not to lead the nation well, their goal is to get elected. There are exceptions, of course, but I feel this trend is sadly dominant among politicians in most country. Thankfully, there are a few relenting individuals who lead the charge away from this inadequacy. Blair is somewhat of one. Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura would definately be one. Bush is not. Chirac is about the farthest thing from it. The Australian political system also seems to be more like this.

[Miles]

[c]

1. YES, I fully agree that those people I saw celebrating and waving around American flags and kissing posters of Bush are valid enough reasons for toppling Hussein.

Then we are vindicated. yey! ;D

2. HOWEVER, taking out Hussein despite UN opposition was an extremely wrong thing to do. As you pointed out, Emprworm, this action completely undermined the UN. The UN lost almost all credibility, and the way is laid bare for another Hitler to unleash hell on the world.

The UN was wrong. If we had followed the UN, Saddam would have been "contained" and millions more Iraqis would have died. The UN failed to do what was right. We don't have to stand around and be stymied by their stupididy. We learned our lesson from Rwanda. Too bad the UN didn't. Now they lost all credibility, and you have France to thank for that.

If America can defy the UN and get away with it, who's to stop Nazi Germany from claiming the same right? The UN is turning into the League of Nations. And we all know how that ended up.

Who's to stop Nazi Germany? We are, since the UN would sit and debate it while millions of Jews were killed.

The UN is acting like the legue of nations-- ineffectual. Their demise is their own fault.

[Anathema]

4 things for Miles:

1. The mass murdering of the jews didn't start before WWII was in progress

2. The US supported Sadam for years before the Gulf War, and turned a blind eye to all the deaths indirectly caused by them when they sold weapons to Sadam

3. The UN was IMO not set up properly. Giving the permanent SC countries veto was the worst thing they could have done at the start- but the US was one of the founders of the UN and thus partly responsible for its flaws.

4. If you would have followed the UN, you wouldn't have intervened in Vietnam, Chili, Cuba, Argetinia and just about every other country in South America. If you would have followed the UN, millions of lives would have been spared.

For Acriku:

Do you honestly think that the US is going to attack China if they invade Taiwan? They would have done 50 years ago, but now they're a nuclear superpower.

With "for show", I meant the fact that 85% of the coalition forces is American. The British are only there to show the whole world "hey, we're not acting alone here!".

[emprworm]

Do you honestly think that the US is going to attack China if they invade Taiwan? They would have done 50 years ago, but now they're a nuclear superpower.

With "for show", I meant the fact that 85% of the coalition forces is American. The British are only there to show the whole world "hey, we're not acting alone here!".

this point is so absurd it is astonishing that anyone would try to make this.

Will the Taiwanese people REJOICE at Chinese tanks rolling into their country?

PLEASE EARTHNUKER! get a grip on reality and cease with these rediculous, irrational, preposterous analogies.

[Acriku]

1. The mass murdering of the jews didn't start before WWII was in progress

They actually did, to finance the war for Germany.

[Gobalopper]

2. The US supported Sadam for years before the Gulf War, and turned a blind eye to all the deaths indirectly caused by them when they sold weapons to Sadam

The US didn't sell tons of weapons to Iraq for one. It did sell some but there have been a lot of countries that sold far more then the US ever did. Hint they also opposed this war and Iraq still owes them billions. Yes thats right Russia(57%), China(12%), and France(13%). They also supposedly found 6 new German made helicopters in Iraq.

I think the important thing is that the US may have supported Iraq at one point but after realizing that Saddam was a crazy madman they stopped supporting him. Everyone makes mistakes but its important to learn from those mistakes and hopefully do the right thing for the time that really matters, now.

[Anathema]

Not really Acriku. It wasn't until 1939 that they actually mass deported jews from their homes to labour / concentration camps.

Gob, don't you think that it is at least a slight bit odd that the US found it okay that Sadam used chemical weapons to gass Iranese civilians and troops (the US even gave the Iraqis satelite imagery to help them do just that) but suddenly break a long period of friendship with him when he attacked Kuweit? (oil producing country!) The US has proven countless of times in the 20th century that democracy and human rights are dispensable to American influence.

Maybe it's true that other countries sold more weapons to Iraq then the US and that Iraq owes them tons of money, but fact is that the vast majority of the people in those countries is against war.

And I agree that the US made a mistake. They supported a dictator that could very well threaten their interests when he would no longer be of use. Maybe they'll learn from their mistakes, and choose their puppet dictators with more caution in the future.

[Acriku]

Earthnuker, think about it. The country of Germany was going through a serious economic depression, and for Hitler to go with his plan, he needed a lot of money for troops, tanks, ammo, weapons, etc. You can't declare war without all of those, that'd be stupid. So, before the war started, they had to finance for these things - and where do you think they got the money? From stealing jews from their houses and taking everything of value from them and melting the gold down and selling it.

Maybe it's true that other countries sold more weapons to Iraq then the US and that Iraq owes them tons of money, but fact is that the vast majority of the people in those countries is against war.

What does the stance of the people have to do with the country giving weapons to Iraq? Does it suddenly make the weapons not-so-bad?

And I agree that the US made a mistake. They supported a dictator that could very well threaten their interests when he would no longer be of use. Maybe they'll learn from their mistakes, and choose their puppet dictators with more caution in the future.

They could not have possibly have known he was going to use them against us, and it's easy to look back from now and see what went wrong, hindsight is 20/20.

[SurlyPIG]

WOW

You did something I didn't think would ever be done, Earthnuker. I realise now what emprworm meant when he was talking about the unconditional hatred for Americans across most of the world...

[Gobalopper]

Earthnuker when you are friends with someone and they do something wrong do you immediately disown them or do you try to work with them and see if you can make things better? The US tried but failed to "fix" Saddam, his invasion of Kuwait was pretty much the last straw.

[Anathema]

Acriku: it's certainly true that jews were robbed and mistreated before 1939, but there wasn't any large scale murdering yet. Anyway, there was no UN back then, only a horroribly ineffective League of Nations (wich the US was not a part of), that wasn't as much unwilling to do anything as much as it was unable to do anything. Maybe the UN would have turned a blind eye if it were around back then, but we don't know that for fact. What we do know for fact is that the US did do just that until they were dragged into the war by Japan.

Acelethal: if saying that the US were not universally right in doing everything they did throughout history is showing unconditional hatred for Americans, then I suppose I'm guilty as charged. But I can tell that you're okay by this definiton.

Gob: I'm not sure what you mean here. In what way did they try to "fix" Sadam? Anyway, there are certain things friends can do that could not possibly be forgiven, in this case invading Kuweit.

[Gobalopper]

Well I don't know the exact ways the tried to fix him but the point was you don't attack your friend over a few mistakes they make, you normally try to work things out.

[Anathema]

Sure, but say that if one of my friends almost killed another friend of mine over no reason, I'd kick his ass and never talk to him again, and don't tell me you would forgive him in that situation.

[Gobalopper]

I believe you should forgive anyone as long as they actually are sorry for what they have done, regardless what the crime is. And you can't just go around kicking the ass of every country that almost kills your friend.

[Anathema]

Well I think we can safely say that Sadam is not genuinely sorry for what he did, so I'm not surprised the US doesn't forgive him. But if you're saying that you can't kick the ass of everybody who attacks a friend of yours, why are you supporting the war?

[Gobalopper]

Iraq != Everybody

12 years is more then long enough for me to wait to see if Saddam would change. He didn't. Time to kick some ass as you put it. :)

[Acriku]

The US was not a part of the League of Nations because Wilson could not get his 14 points (pretty good points, indeed) in. He got one of them in, but still refused. I think he knew that the League of Nations was useless, when they turned down his other points.

As Gob has said, we waited way too long to try and fix the situation with inspectors, and diplomatic relations. We probably worsened the situation by waiting so long, by not going in and "kicking ass" so quickly.