SkyDekker 1,465 #101 March 21, 2003 Quotethe question for me is why it took 12 years to enforce what it said. I think in many ways it was enforcing many of the things it said, just not in the way or speed the US wanted it to be done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #102 March 21, 2003 Quote Give me a break here, I'm allowed a few mistakes in grammer and spelling (even if it is a made up word) And I can hide behind the fact that English is not my first language Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #103 March 21, 2003 "I've pulled a lot of historical data out of my ass, that was factual." Thats okay Dave, a lot of people here are talking out of their asses, so it all balances out....Peace brothers and sisters, I'm off to sink a couple of frosty cool ones. And maybe, just maybe, make a jump or two this weekend. Cya on the far side. Dave -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #104 March 21, 2003 QuoteThat may be the case, but do not be upset that people get mad when the US on its own decides which non compliant nations it decides to invade. Insert Mode: That may be the case, but do not be upset that people get mad when the US on its own with the backing of 35 other nations decides which non compliant nations it decides to invade. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #105 March 21, 2003 Quotewith the backing of 35 other nations Come on, when you look at that list, it is not that impressive. Especially since the majority of countries on that list are asking for money at the same time or are trying to get into NATO. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #106 March 21, 2003 QuoteAny ideas why they didn't kill Saddam in the last war? Just curious from 1st hand reports, I work with 4 gulf war vets. It was turning into a real sad massacre. We pulled back to save the life of Iraq's people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #107 March 21, 2003 QuoteCome on, when you look at that list, it is not that impressive. Especially since the majority of countries on that list are asking for money at the same time or are trying to get into NATO. Right. Everyone in the global village does that which serves their own best interest, which is why France used the veto threat, which is why we walked away from the table, which is why the UN has limited usefulness, and which is why some other countries support us. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #108 March 21, 2003 That was my interpretation of why GW1 finished. Especially the "Highway of Death" (I know a guy in the Royal Engineers helped clean that up). Soldiers will act within the laws and customs of war but war is always the failure of diplomacy. Simply put I feel that there have been no teeth to enforce UN resolutions because of individual countries' political stance or an unwillingness to commit troops when not in their own interest. There lies the failure of diplomacy. SAddam had no intention of doing whtathe UN intended but the diplomacy failed when a concensus of those countries that could enforce the will of the UN chose not to do so. I don't agree with the historical references between 1939 and today, but yes SH is an evil guy. I also think the oil is going to stay with Iraq and not be stolen away. I also thought that taking out SH in GW1 would have screwed up the Arab nations in the coalition. I've read posts on this thread about sheep following orders and I will disagree given the debate that I've seen here and in other democratic forums. British Houses of Paliament, street of many cities in different countries etc. Sorry if I've addressed different points in a half-arsed way. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #109 March 21, 2003 Ron, Skydivemonkey - cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #110 March 21, 2003 But he started it !! ____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,030 #111 March 21, 2003 QuoteQuoteThe question for me has never been if Saddam is a bad man, the question is how the western world is dealing with it. the question for me is why it took 12 years to enforce what it said. (The UN) So - is the US going to enforce 242 next?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #112 March 21, 2003 QuoteQuotewith the backing of 35 other nations Come on, when you look at that list, it is not that impressive. Especially since the majority of countries on that list are asking for money at the same time or are trying to get into NATO. Many of the others have been sucking at the UN teat for quite a long time at our expense. Given a choice, which organization would you rather be part of? "Yet the defenders of the United Nations tell us that cooperation with this unsavory crowd is essential for America's well-being. In 2001, Madeline Albright declared, "The role of the United Nations is … vital, because no other institution combines a comprehensive mandate with near universal representation." Which means: the United Nations is valuable precisely because it fails to exclude the world's worst regimes. Kofi Annan recently offered his pitch for the importance of the United Nations: "Let us all recognize … that the global interest is our national interest." Which means: the interests of Russia, France, and China are identical with America's interests. Tom Friedman of the New York Times, who has spent recent weeks hyperventilating about America going it alone, tells us: "the key to managing this complex, dangerous world … is our ability to stand united and with others." Which means: we are doomed unless we are propped up by the support of Angola and Cameroon. All of the arguments for why we need a coalition of hostile powers and tin-pot dictatorships make no sense. Instead, they are the reflection of a deeper philosophical premise that the U.N.'s apologists refuse to question. The real basis of the United Nations is global collectivism—the belief that America's judgment and interests must be subordinated to the collective opinion of the "world community." When the Times' Friedman, for example, calls the attack on Iraq a "war of choice" that should not be waged without a vast international consensus, what he means is that the choice of how America defends itself ought to be made by France, Russia, Cameroon, Chile—by anyone and everyone except the United States. Yes, there is a value to cooperating with other nations—but only with free nations who share a commitment to standing up against the threats of terrorism and dictatorship. Any time free nations agree to subordinate themselves to a collective consensus with hostile dictatorships, it is only the free nations that lose—and it is only the dictatorships that gain. Indeed, the dictatorships run the United Nations. Within weeks of September 11, terrorist-sponsor Syria was invited to chair the United Nations' Security Council. Iraq and Iran are scheduled to trade chairmanship of its disarmament committee, while Libya is set to chair its human rights commission.""The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #113 March 21, 2003 Quote*crossing fingers hoping that it is true* http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/World/iraq_saddam_030321.html QuoteSaddam Hit? U.S.: Saddam Seen Leaving Baghdad Complex on a Gurney After Strike March 21 — U.S. intelligence sources say Saddam Hussein was seen being wheeled out of a Baghdad residential complex on a stretcher Wednesday night after the complex was struck in "decapitation attacks" by the United States. "In 1991, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died after prematurely celebrating what they believed was their liberation from Saddam after the Gulf War. Some even pulled down a few pictures of Saddam then -- only to be killed by Iraqi forces." I'm really hoping that the Iraqi people will turn on him and string him up the way the Italians did to Mussolini."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #114 March 21, 2003 You still never answer any of the questions I asked to you. You think we should have just left saddam alone to build a large stock of WMD and maybe become Nuclear? Ignore the fact that he supports terrorist activities? Ignore that he has been acting in defiance of UN resolutions? Ignore that he has used tourture and an iron fist on his own people? Ignore that fact that he HAS USED WMD before? Look I think that the U.S. has opened a large bag of shit...This is a holy war to them. They are raised to think that the best way to die is in a jihad, with the blood of an enemy on your hands. It is tha way they are raised.... But in truth...Christains started this...9/11 was just an extension of the Christans/Islam agression. Anyone care to think about the crusaides? We walked up to them and to quote George Carlin. "you believe in God? You do????...Well, do you believe in MY God?" Bin Ladin told Saudi's not to let us on their soil...we would never leave..... Guess what??? We never did! Do I think that someone (I would have prefered the UN to not be so damn spinless and prove they are an empty group with no power) should step up and crush SH....Yep, it needs to be done. But in no way can we win this war....MANY people see this as an attack on ISLAM....Not Saddam....So now we will have extreme groups doing more terror acts. They were going to do them anyway, but now they will happen sooner. It is not a holy war to the US...But it is to MANY others. We are seen as a giant using its power to destroy the things we don't like....We are being bullies on the playground. Sometimes you have to be. SH cannot be allowed to have WMD, and finance terror. But we are in deep now. But like I said you still did not answer my questions. Is it because the only answers you have are insults? Answer my questions. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #116 March 22, 2003 QuoteI think in many ways it was enforcing many of the things it said lets see 12 years and maybe 12 bombs (approx)destroyed. The only enforcing I saw was the US enforcing no fly zones at US expence. Give examples please..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #117 March 22, 2003 QuoteThat may be the case, but do not be upset that people get mad when the US on its own with the backing of 35 other nations decides which non compliant nations it decides to invade. we now number 45 strong and more unnamed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
