Why fight America's war?

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: K1052
No, we can't do that. The CIA has uncovered evidence that Canada has built the most advanced tank known to mankind. It is reportedly impervious to all current US weaponry and is powered by Labatt Blue.

However, Canada was only able to produce one due to the huge cost and unwillingness to sacrifice beer.

That seems like a fair tradeoff. I mean it's only a deterrent, right?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: hatim
And back at home, we are bearing the brunt of America's wars. All roads leading to the US consulate are closed. Takes 15 more mins to cross the major part of the city. Why should we have to suffer because of the stupidity of USA's actions.

"Nuff said
hatim

Wow. Just... wow. You think that dealing with traffic problems constitutes "bearing the brunt of America's wars"? I hope while you've got your head up your @ss you do something productive, like check yourself for colon polyps.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: hatim
Im talking about the recent past. Last 15 years. After America became the lone super power. Has it helped anyone without any benifits to themselves.

Look at the African countries. North Korea suffering because of rougue regimes. Sudan etc. Bush is after the ME. Why? OIL!

If you ask me the European nations need to setp up to the freaking plate in Africa, after all their colonial rule is mainly responsible for the disaster zone that is Africa.

So then if the USA is so liberating why doesnt it help the coutries which need "real" help first, rather than wasting its resources on other's oil?

Give me a list of the countries you are speaking of.

Sundan
North Korea
Uganda
Zimbabwe

See my quote above about Africa. We have already tried to help there and gotten about jack in the way of international support. Africa is a huge place with tons of trouble.

North Korea - Attempting a military option with NK would likely cost the lives of many (possibly millions) of South Koreans. We are not about to risk that no matter what anyone says. Also, a NK-US war could get China involved as before. Once they are in you can kiss Taiwan good by as well.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: hatim
Im talking about the recent past. Last 15 years. After America became the lone super power. Has it helped anyone without any benifits to themselves.

Look at the African countries. North Korea suffering because of rougue regimes. Sudan etc. Bush is after the ME. Why? OIL!

If you ask me the European nations need to setp up to the freaking plate in Africa, after all their colonial rule is mainly responsible for the disaster zone that is Africa.

So then if the USA is so liberating why doesnt it help the coutries which need "real" help first, rather than wasting its resources on other's oil?

Give me a list of the countries you are speaking of.

Sundan
North Korea
Uganda
Zimbabwe

See my quote above about Africa. We have already tried to help there and gotten about jack in the way of international support. Africa is a huge place with tons of trouble.

North Korea - Attempting a military option with NK would likely cost the lives of many (possibly millions) of South Koreans. We are not about to risk that no matter what anyone says. Also, a NK-US war could get China involved as before. Once they are in you can kiss Taiwan good by as well.

As if they had UN support before they went into IRAQ

As if they havent killed thaousands of Afghan and Iraqi civillians?

 

[The Green Bean]

repost. sorry

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: hatim

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: hatim
Im talking about the recent past. Last 15 years. After America became the lone super power. Has it helped anyone without any benifits to themselves.

Look at the African countries. North Korea suffering because of rougue regimes. Sudan etc. Bush is after the ME. Why? OIL!

If you ask me the European nations need to setp up to the freaking plate in Africa, after all their colonial rule is mainly responsible for the disaster zone that is Africa.

So then if the USA is so liberating why doesnt it help the coutries which need "real" help first, rather than wasting its resources on other's oil?

Give me a list of the countries you are speaking of.

Sundan
North Korea
Uganda
Zimbabwe

See my quote above about Africa. We have already tried to help there and gotten about jack in the way of international support. Africa is a huge place with tons of trouble.

North Korea - Attempting a military option with NK would likely cost the lives of many (possibly millions) of South Koreans. We are not about to risk that no matter what anyone says. Also, a NK-US war could get China involved as before. Once they are in you can kiss Taiwan good by as well.

As if they had UN support before they went into IRAQ

As if they havent killed thaousands of Afghan and Iraqi civillians?

Iraq was in violation of UN resolutions, this is not in debate. The UN is practically useless IMO when it comes to resolving problems like these.

Afghanistan would have made your list a couple years ago.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: hatim
repost. sorry

The taliban protected Osama Bin Laden after he had killed 3000 american citizens. And if by thousands of Afghan citizens, you mean taliban, then yes thousands of taliban were killed. You need to learn there are two sides to these conflicts. Do you think the hijackers and terrorist are good people, Hatim?

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: hatim
Im talking about the recent past. Last 15 years. After America became the lone super power. Has it helped anyone without any benifits to themselves.

Look at the African countries. North Korea suffering because of rougue regimes. Sudan etc. Bush is after the ME. Why? OIL!

How was our intervention in Somalia beneficial to ourselves? When the Croations and Serbs were killing each other off, how was our intervention beneficial to us? Yes, we've made some bad choices, but you're still making a broad sweeping statement that the US is always doing things for its own interest that isn't true. People are using your same tactic of bling broad sweeping generalizations to justify this occupation in the middle east. Don't lower your self to thier stupidity. If you believe you have right on your side then just tell the facts and that's all you'll need.

emm, did we not run from Somalia? or was it Rwanda? And didnt we act too late, waaaaaaay too late to act in the Bosnian war, after the enclaves or Srebenica (sp?) underwent mass massacre?

I dont understand why people are upset at Germany, France and Russia. They were not only morally right (as were most of the World's nations who did not support this war), but they were also sensible of not losing lives of their soldiers, nor of the Iraqi civilian population. and no, most of the world did not back America on this war. America being the superpower it is can strong arm many nations into agreeing with them, either through direct threat (as in the case of Pakistan, 2001, when the President Musharraf himself came on national TV and said Bush called him and said "you are with us, or against us"), through financial rewards (as in the case of Poland, who's foreign minister frankly said they're contributing soldiers to get a share in the oil pie), or through personal alliances between the presidents (like Spain's president, who agreed to contribute, despite the overwhelming public opinion against the war).

How is Iraq better now? Just because we have removed a dictator and are now concentrating on pumping oil for (supposedly) rebuilding Iraq? Most of the country still does not have electricity and water. The former head of the Iraqi National Congress is now a wanted man, the same guy who was CHOSEN by us to be Iraq's next head of government. The current Prime Minister of Iraq is regarded ALL over the world, and most importantly, in Iraq itself, as a puppet of our government. What makes you think Iraqis are better off?

People who talk about the UN Resolution regarding use of excessive force if Saddam doesnt comply forget that this resolution was passed unanimously because of the world's sympathy with us for the 9/11 attack, and due to THIS governments insistence that Saddam Hussein had WMD and had links to Al-Qaeda and posed an imminent threat to the Western world. The same reason When all of this started unravelling, the USA never even bothered to head back to the UN to ask for authorisation.

Admit it folks, we were MAJORLY wrong on this one, and the blood of many thousands now is on our hand.

And please dont start with the Humanitarian reasons for going to this war - and removing a dictator. If our government is sooooooooo humanitarian, they should immediately put troops on the ground in Sudan, where the UN envoy has stated "there's more guns here than there is bread". I think that nation deserves more humanitarian assistance. And most of Africa is headed by corrupt dicatators who plunder their nations, and kill many thousands of their people.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: hatim
Im talking about the recent past. Last 15 years. After America became the lone super power. Has it helped anyone without any benifits to themselves.

Look at the African countries. North Korea suffering because of rougue regimes. Sudan etc. Bush is after the ME. Why? OIL!

How was our intervention in Somalia beneficial to ourselves? When the Croations and Serbs were killing each other off, how was our intervention beneficial to us? Yes, we've made some bad choices, but you're still making a broad sweeping statement that the US is always doing things for its own interest that isn't true. People are using your same tactic of bling broad sweeping generalizations to justify this occupation in the middle east. Don't lower your self to thier stupidity. If you believe you have right on your side then just tell the facts and that's all you'll need.

emm, did we not run from Somalia? or was it Rwanda? And didnt we act too late, waaaaaaay too late to act in the Bosnian war, after the enclaves or Srebenica (sp?) underwent mass massacre?

I dont understand why people are upset at Germany, France and Russia. They were not only morally right (as were most of the World's nations who did not support this war), but they were also sensible of not losing lives of their soldiers, nor of the Iraqi civilian population. and no, most of the world did not back America on this war. America being the superpower it is can strong arm many nations into agreeing with them, either through direct threat (as in the case of Pakistan, 2001, when the President Musharraf himself came on national TV and said Bush called him and said "you are with us, or against us"), through financial rewards (as in the case of Poland, who's foreign minister frankly said they're contributing soldiers to get a share in the oil pie), or through personal alliances between the presidents (like Spain's president, who agreed to contribute, despite the overwhelming public opinion against the war).

How is Iraq better now? Just because we have removed a dictator and are now concentrating on pumping oil for (supposedly) rebuilding Iraq? Most of the country still does not have electricity and water. The former head of the Iraqi National Congress is now a wanted man, the same guy who was CHOSEN by us to be Iraq's next head of government. The current Prime Minister of Iraq is regarded ALL over the world, and most importantly, in Iraq itself, as a puppet of our government. What makes you think Iraqis are better off?

People who talk about the UN Resolution regarding use of excessive force if Saddam doesnt comply forget that this resolution was passed unanimously because of the world's sympathy with us for the 9/11 attack, and due to THIS governments insistence that Saddam Hussein had WMD and had links to Al-Qaeda and posed an imminent threat to the Western world. The same reason When all of this started unravelling, the USA never even bothered to head back to the UN to ask for authorisation.

Admit it folks, we were MAJORLY wrong on this one, and the blood of many thousands now is on our hand.

And please dont start with the Humanitarian reasons for going to this war - and removing a dictator. If our government is sooooooooo humanitarian, they should immediately put troops on the ground in Sudan, where the UN envoy has stated "there's more guns here than there is bread". I think that nation deserves more humanitarian assistance. And most of Africa is headed by corrupt dicatators who plunder their nations, and kill many thousands of their people.

I agree with you. We wrong. But Hatim was saying that we NEVER do anything unless its for our own profit. Although, we did a bad job as you pointed out in Somalia and Rwanda, we weren't doing it for own benefit. That was my point.

 

[K1052]

Why do people insist that Europe holds some sort of high moral ground on these issues? They do not.

Ever heard of Chechnya?

Large parts of Eastern Europe have been a clusterfvck of death and destruction and the major European powers didn't seem to want to lift a finger to help save lives.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Sultan
I dont understand why people are upset at Germany, France and Russia.

Well people are probably upset at France & Germany because they believe they supported the dictator for money and power.

How is Iraq better now?

I have no idea if it's better off now, but it's probably better off in the future.

I don't like the war though.

I also don't care what Hatim says since he's a brainwashed sheep. He can't blame his own people at all and must place all blame on the US. What a great way to continue to be backwards. In addition, he has publically stated his support for the 'proper execution' of atheists.

What a great guy! :thumbsup:

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Sultan
emm, did we not run from Somalia? or was it Rwanda? And didnt we act too late, waaaaaaay too late to act in the Bosnian war, after the enclaves or Srebenica (sp?) underwent mass massacre?

So are you for multi-lateralism, or against it. We waited around for a long time for Europe to decide to do anything about it. So either you support intervening alone and acting while it will do the most good, or you support waiting for broad, multinational support. In general, they are exclusive.

And Clinton should never have pussied out of Somalia.

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: K1052
Why do people insist that Europe holds some sort of high moral ground on these issues? They do not.

Ever heard of Chechnya?

Large parts of Eastern Europe have been a clusterfvck of death and destruction and the major European powers didn't seem to want to lift a finger to help save lives.

who cares about Europe man? Stop pointing fingers at others. When you point fingers at another, remember, four fingers point back at you. As regards to your specific example of Chechnya, you think any leader in their right mind would try to solve the Chechnya problem militarily? Against a nation wit nuclear weapons? If that was the case, WE should be in North Korea right now.

tss4

I agree with you. We wrong. But Hatim was saying that we NEVER do anything unless its for our own profit. Although, we did a bad job as you pointed out in Somalia and Rwanda, we weren't doing it for own benefit. That was my point.

As per my understanding, a majority (albeit slight) of Americans DONT support this Iraq misadventure. What Hatim is trying to convey is our GOVERNMENT and our LEADERS, such as George Bush and Dick Cheney falsify to US, the people, for their OWN good. I mean, our Vice President, with strong ties to Halliburton, visits CIA multiple times for going about trying to prove Iraq had WMD... how can you NOT see a confict on interest??? And then there's another ~45% of American people who STILL have blind faith in this President and are supporting this war. Thats just more wrong.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: hatim
Im talking about the recent past. Last 15 years. After America became the lone super power. Has it helped anyone without any benifits to themselves.

Look at the African countries. North Korea suffering because of rougue regimes. Sudan etc. Bush is after the ME. Why? OIL!

If you ask me the European nations need to setp up to the freaking plate in Africa, after all their colonial rule is mainly responsible for the disaster zone that is Africa.

I agree with you. Europe should help out more in Africa.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Sultan

Originally posted by: K1052
Why do people insist that Europe holds some sort of high moral ground on these issues? They do not.

Ever heard of Chechnya?

Large parts of Eastern Europe have been a clusterfvck of death and destruction and the major European powers didn't seem to want to lift a finger to help save lives.

who cares about Europe man? Stop pointing fingers at others. When you point fingers at another, remember, four fingers point back at you. As regards to your specific example of Chechnya, you think any leader in their right mind would try to solve the Chechnya problem militarily? Against a nation wit nuclear weapons? If that was the case, WE should be in North Korea right now.

tss4

I agree with you. We wrong. But Hatim was saying that we NEVER do anything unless its for our own profit. Although, we did a bad job as you pointed out in Somalia and Rwanda, we weren't doing it for own benefit. That was my point.

As per my understanding, a majority (albeit slight) of Americans DONT support this Iraq misadventure. What Hatim is trying to convey is our GOVERNMENT and our LEADERS, such as George Bush and Dick Cheney falsify to US, the people, for their OWN good. I mean, our Vice President, with strong ties to Halliburton, visits CIA multiple times for going about trying to prove Iraq had WMD... how can you NOT see a confict on interest??? And then there's another ~45% of American people who STILL have blind faith in this President and are supporting this war. Thats just more wrong.

I was merely pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of the most of the European nations. Self interest is all that ususally governes their actions (or lack thereof). You simply cannot hold Europe up as the gold standard of international behavior.

For the record: I really dislike the current admin. I just wish they had been straight with the public from the start and I would not have had a problem with Iraq. However, my greatest fear is Kerry turning a bad situation into a true disaster and giving up. Overall, I am rather disappointed with my options this November.

 

[Sultan]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Sultan
I dont understand why people are upset at Germany, France and Russia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well people are probably upset at France & Germany because they believe they supported the dictator for money and power.
:

As many examples you will give me of France and Germany supporting Saddam for money and power, I'll give you the same as USA supporting the very dictator for more or less the same reason.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is Iraq better now?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I have no idea if it's better off now, but it's probably better off in the future.

I don't like the war though.

Remains to be seen, how long in the future that would be. If the "better off" part is much later than sooner, we could have just waited for that ass Saddam to die a natural death, rather than commit this nation into a War. No point in arguing about this. We were wrong to go in. Leave alone what we think is better in the interest of the people of Iraq.

So are you for multi-lateralism, or against it. We waited around for a long time for Europe to decide to do anything about it. So either you support intervening alone and acting while it will do the most good, or you support waiting for broad, multinational support. In general, they are exclusive.

When the leaders of our government see an interest in going to battle, they will stop at nothing. How much of America was concerned about Bosnia when the war was going on? Apart from Slobodan Milosevic, I dont even remember any significant figure in that war. Acting militarily in Bosnia would have gained little for our leaders, and we only went in when it was evident that the war would spill over. Even then the most we did was aerial bombing, not an occupation as in Iraq. UN Peacekeepers were supposed to gaurd the enclave I mentioned before. They were all gone when news of approaching Serbian troops reached them. Leave alone this. Not relevant to this topic.

And Clinton should never have pussied out of Somalia.

Agreed, but we, the people never cried about it then. We saw a soldier being dragged in the streets and cried "Fvck, we're dying there, why are we there, not our problem""

 

[RabidMongoose]

As many examples you will give me of France and Germany supporting Saddam for money and power, I'll give you the same as USA supporting the very dictator for more or less the same reason.

That's nice and all, but I'm just saying why some people may be upset at France and Russia now. To think that France and Russia objected to an Iraq invasion purely out of moral reasons is hilarious.

Remains to be seen, how long in the future that would be. If the "better off" part is much later than sooner, we could have just waited for that ass Saddam to die a natural death, rather than commit this nation into a War. No point in arguing about this. We were wrong to go in. Leave alone what we think is better in the interest of the people of Iraq.

Of course it remains to be seen. That's why I said 'probably' - I think that Iraq is better off in the future now. I don't see how waiting for Saddam to die of a natural death would end any dictatorship for the Iraqi people.

 

[0marTheZealot]

We play international chess with dictators. Don't act like we didn't support Saddam for decades before he invaded Kuwait. In fact, he was a top buyer of US arms (illegal and legal) before he invaded Kuwait.

In most of these problems in the Middle East, we have dipped our hands fairly deep. We support, prop, and protect dictators. We overthrow democracies all in the interest of oil. You can read about Qassem (Iraqi revolutionary who overthrew the monarchy at the behest of the US, fell out of favor and was overthrown by another US operative, Saddam Hussein). You can read about the Shah of Iran (CIA overthrew a democractic state and installed the Shah who made Iraq under Saddam look like Disney land, all because the former PM said that 50% of Iranian oil profits must go to Iran). You can read about how the US stops international outrage at Israel's policies by vetoing resolutions in the UN.

We bring this upon ourselves. If you think for one minute we went to Iraq to help little Iraqi children, you should think again. It was Bush's little dick obsession that drove us to war. It was also Cheney's manipulative mind that complacented the public (along with others) and gave no-bid contracts to all his buddies in the reconstruction of Iraq. Oil, oil, oil, and maybe natural gas are the prime reasons for going to war. We didn't give two dumps about Iraqi civilians being massacred during the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. We still don't give two dumps about the Chinese getting murdered in their own homes everyday. China is set to become an important American business partner, no need for pesky human rights issues to get in the way.

US interests come before any notions of human decency and rights. If it didn't then we wouldn't be supporting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Emirs of Kuwait, the Kings of Jordan, the rich, ruling oil Sheiks of the UAE, the dictatorship in Egypt, and Pakistan's dictators. Each of those states runs a totaliatiran regime and yet Saddam is singled out for being a cruel dictator? Hypocriscy at it's finest. As long as the cheap oil, lucractive business contracts, no-questions-asked policies, air, land, sea bases and assurances that dissent will be quieted, the American Government doesn't give one iota of thought or sympathy to the peoples.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Sultan

So are you for multi-lateralism, or against it. We waited around for a long time for Europe to decide to do anything about it. So either you support intervening alone and acting while it will do the most good, or you support waiting for broad, multinational support. In general, they are exclusive.

When the leaders of our government see an interest in going to battle, they will stop at nothing. How much of America was concerned about Bosnia when the war was going on? Apart from Slobodan Milosevic, I dont even remember any significant figure in that war. Acting militarily in Bosnia would have gained little for our leaders, and we only went in when it was evident that the war would spill over. Even then the most we did was aerial bombing, not an occupation as in Iraq. UN Peacekeepers were supposed to gaurd the enclave I mentioned before. They were all gone when news of approaching Serbian troops reached them. Leave alone this. Not relevant to this topic.

It is relevant. If people are complaining that the USA shouldnt have gone it alone, and complain that the USA doesnt intervene fast enough, they're trying to have their cake, and eat it too, while b!tching that poor people need more to eat.

 

[Sultan]

That's nice and all, but I'm just saying why some people may be upset at France and Russia now. To think that France and Russia objected to an Iraq invasion purely out of moral reasons is hilarious.

Just like its hilarious to say the USA invaded Iraq based on moral reasons to remove a dictator. Each country has its own interests, or rather, I'd say each country's leader thinks so and so act is in the country's interests.

Of course it remains to be seen. That's why I said 'probably' - I think that Iraq is better off in the future now. I don't see how waiting for Saddam to die of a natural death would end any dictatorship for the Iraqi people.

As I have said many times before, it is not the US government's or the US people to decide what is better for the people of another nation. Hell, I want a job. And I'm in the US. Why dont the US get me a job first and then lets worry about the betterment of Iraq. Last I saw, the job growth in the US was 34000 as compared to the predicted 270000. This issue of "betterment" of Iraq is NOT for us to decide. You dont call invading another country "liberation" and you dont call putting a puppet, Mr. Allawi as the Prime Minister "freedom". Again, we should drop this issue of BETTERMENT of Iraq.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Just like its hilarious to say the USA invaded Iraq based on moral reasons to remove a dictator. Each country has its own interests, or rather, I'd say each country's leader thinks so and so act is in the country's interests.

Obviously.

As I have said many times before, it is not the US government's or the US people to decide what is better for the people of another nation. Hell, I want a job. And I'm in the US. Why dont the US get me a job first and then lets worry about the betterment of Iraq. Last I saw, the job growth in the US was 34000 as compared to the predicted 270000. This issue of "betterment" of Iraq is NOT for us to decide. You dont call invading another country "liberation" and you dont call putting a puppet, Mr. Allawi as the Prime Minister "freedom". Again, we should drop this issue of BETTERMENT of Iraq.

Why? Why drop the issue if Iraq is better off in the future or not? Just because you want to drop it? Sorry, but no. It is a significant topic. Sure, it isn't anyone's role to try to decide what is better off for the people, but that's what happens in the world.

Why are you talking about jobs and such? Are you saying that the US should do absolutely nothing, refuse to help any countries with any sort of aid, just because some Americans don't have jobs? Ridiculous.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Sultan
Hell, I want a job. And I'm in the US. Why dont the US get me a job first and then lets worry about the betterment of Iraq.

They are hiring lots of people in Iraq. The US doesn't owe you a job.

I bet you can go get a job today. It may not be the job you want, but it's better than sitting around bitching about not having one.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Sultan
Hell, I want a job. And I'm in the US. Why dont the US get me a job first and then lets worry about the betterment of Iraq.

They are hiring lots of people in Iraq. The US doesn't owe you a job.

I bet you can go get a job today. It may not be the job you want, but it's better than sitting around bitching about not having one.

:thumbsup:

 

[Sultan]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Sultan

So are you for multi-lateralism, or against it. We waited around for a long time for Europe to decide to do anything about it. So either you support intervening alone and acting while it will do the most good, or you support waiting for broad, multinational support. In general, they are exclusive.

When the leaders of our government see an interest in going to battle, they will stop at nothing. How much of America was concerned about Bosnia when the war was going on? Apart from Slobodan Milosevic, I dont even remember any significant figure in that war. Acting militarily in Bosnia would have gained little for our leaders, and we only went in when it was evident that the war would spill over. Even then the most we did was aerial bombing, not an occupation as in Iraq. UN Peacekeepers were supposed to gaurd the enclave I mentioned before. They were all gone when news of approaching Serbian troops reached them. Leave alone this. Not relevant to this topic.

It is relevant. If people are complaining that the USA shouldnt have gone it alone, and complain that the USA doesnt intervene fast enough, they're trying to have their cake, and eat it too, while b!tching that poor people need more to eat.

Well Mookow, lets revisit history, even though it is irrelevant to this thread. Bosnia HAD UN forces on the ground. The US didnt. UN forces (I remember atleast Pakistan contributring forces under the UN banner) WERE present on the ground in Somalia, even AFTER the US packed up. And the US went into Iraq on its own (and with a handful of other nations) based on LIES. Therefore, there wasnt widespread support for the Iraq war. And there still isnt. So people who complain, complain of the REASONS behind the actions. There wasnt any economical or power base gain in Somalia or Bosnia, so the US didnt step in. There was gain in Iraq, and therefore we've had the loss of ~20000 human lives.

I still dont get it. Dont you even see a conflict of interest that this current administrations Vice President has VERY strong ties with Halliburton, he PUSHED for the war in Iraq, made numerous visits to the CIA's office, and Iraq is FULL of oil??? Like how dont you realize this?

 

[Sultan]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just like its hilarious to say the USA invaded Iraq based on moral reasons to remove a dictator. Each country has its own interests, or rather, I'd say each country's leader thinks so and so act is in the country's interests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously.

Then we should stop pointing fingers at France, Germany and Russia for being pansies or whatever other members on this forum call it.

Why? Why drop the issue if Iraq is better off in the future or not? Just because you want to drop it? Sorry, but no. It is a significant topic. Sure, it isn't anyone's role to try to decide what is better off for the people, but that's what happens in the world.

Drop it because it is not for the US to decide, nor up to you or I. I dont see any betterment of Iraq, and frankly, I wont. Because Iraq is halfway across the world, CNN shows one thing, FOX another, Al-Jazeera another. So you'll never know, nor will I. Thats why, drop it. This point is very subjective. And only the Iraqi people will be the judge of that. And if they thought removing Saddam was for their betterment, they'd have done it. Dont say that they couldnt because Saddam was brutal. Iraqis are now fighting against the world's superpower, on the streets of Basra, Najaf, Baghdad, etc, etc.

Why are you talking about jobs and such? Are you saying that the US should do absolutely nothing, refuse to help any countries with any sort of aid, just because some Americans don't have jobs? Ridiculous.

Take a joke buddy. There's a lot of things that the US should do rather than invade a country, be responsible for round about 20000 deaths and all this based on lies.