Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm for letting every nation in the world know in no uncertain terms, mess with the US and you will be vaporized.
All this dancing around the real problems and the real enemies is a waste of American blood and $$$, the $$$ we can get back, the blood we never will.
Then you must support the Iraq War. Saddam violated his surrender agreement by not providing evidence that he had dismantled his WMD and stopped his WMD programs. Therefore we had to assume that he still had them and because of his affiliations with Hamas and Hezbollah, we couldn't take the chance that he would arm them with WMD to attack us. Besides he continually fired upon U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zone, which he also agreed to allow. If that is not "messing with the U.S." then maybe you could explain.
For those interested in not being upset at our leaders don't watch 9/11 The Press for truth. I think people might want to hold the administration accountable.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,387 posts, read 54,651,766 times
Reputation: 40877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Then you must support the Iraq War. Saddam violated his surrender agreement by not providing evidence that he had dismantled his WMD and stopped his WMD programs. Therefore we had to assume that he still had them and because of his affiliations with Hamas and Hezbollah, we couldn't take the chance that he would arm them with WMD to attack us. Besides he continually fired upon U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zone, which he also agreed to allow. If that is not "messing with the U.S." then maybe you could explain.
I think you're trying to make 1 + 1 = 3, no go in my book, I'm not into the 'New' math
Firing upon US planes in the no-fly zone? Simple, we have the ability to determine where the shots come from, eliminate them, certainy doesn't require a full-scale invasion, ocupation, nor does violations of an agreement.
And was that agreement exclusively with the US or with the UN?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,387 posts, read 54,651,766 times
Reputation: 40877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
What the Iraqis do is beyond our control. What we do is not. If we are to be faithful to our commitments, it is incumbent upon us to finish what we started. The Iraqis can either be heartened by our sacrifice, or throw away their lives in tribal bickering. It wouldn't be the first time that we showed the way to faint-hearted alllies, only to watch them soil their pants.
And our Number One commitment should be the protection of the American people and the country, using the military for nation-building and policing the civil unrest that we created does not serve that purpose.
I think you're trying to make 1 + 1 = 3, no go in my book, I'm not into the 'New' math
Firing upon US planes in the no-fly zone? Simple, we have the ability to determine where the shots come from, eliminate them, certainy doesn't require a full-scale invasion, ocupation, nor does violations of an agreement.
And was that agreement exclusively with the US or with the UN?
If the UN then let them deal with it.
Oil for food program ring any bells? Wasn't that a UN program?
Let the UN deal with Iraq shooting at US war planes? Sort of like how the UN dealt with our Marines on UN mission to Lebanon? How many Marines died again? 220 Marines 18 Sailors oh and 3 soldiers. The UN responded how? Oh yeah they didn't. Our Navy did. I was there I would know first hand.
Sorry the UN's credibility is about zilch.
I am not for the Iraq war. I support our troops but disagree with the mission.
But please don't even hint that the UN gives a rats azz about 1 american death or 1 million. UN missions generally turn out to be a goat screw.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,387 posts, read 54,651,766 times
Reputation: 40877
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
Oil for food program ring any bells? Wasn't that a UN program?
Let the UN deal with Iraq shooting at US war planes? Sort of like how the UN dealt with our Marines on UN mission to Lebanon? How many Marines died again? 220 Marines 18 Sailors oh and 3 soldiers. The UN responded how? Oh yeah they didn't. Our Navy did. I was there I would know first hand.
Sorry the UN's credibility is about zilch.
I am not for the Iraq war. I support our troops but disagree with the mission.
But please don't even hint that the UN gives a rats azz about 1 american death or 1 million. UN missions generally turn out to be a goat screw.
I'm not at all hinting that the UN is worth a tinker's damn. My point is that if an organization is useless and I believe the UN is in many ways, then citing some UN agreement as cause for war or any other action is just a lame excuse. I don't believe a useless organization somehow makes mystically useful agreements that we should base our policy on.
I'm not at all hinting that the UN is worth a tinker's damn. My point is that if an organization is useless and I believe the UN is in many ways, then citing some UN agreement as cause for war or any other action is just a lame excuse. I don't believe a useless organization somehow makes mystically useful agreements that we should base our policy on.
The difference is that we also entered into the UN agreement so its violation was also a violation of an agreement with us.
I'm not at all hinting that the UN is worth a tinker's damn. My point is that if an organization is useless and I believe the UN is in many ways, then citing some UN agreement as cause for war or any other action is just a lame excuse. I don't believe a useless organization somehow makes mystically useful agreements that we should base our policy on.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,387 posts, read 54,651,766 times
Reputation: 40877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr
The difference is that we also entered into the UN agreement so its violation was also a violation of an agreement with us.
And how many countries that entered into that agreement as members of the UN refused to join the coalition? As far as I'm concerned a UN agreement should be enforced by the UN, not by a small selection of countries that entered into it as members of the UN. Either that or make a new park on the East River, on a sunny day it's a very pleasant spot.
And how many countries that entered into that agreement as members of the UN refused to join the coalition? As far as I'm concerned a UN agreement should be enforced by the UN, not by a small selection of countries that entered into it as members of the UN. Either that or make a new park on the East River, on a sunny day it's a very pleasant spot.
I agree with you, but that's unfortunately not the reality of dealing with the UN. I don't think that because the UN is impotent that we should throw away an agreement that we entered into in good faith.
It would be a nice park.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
