France could have vetoed the UN SC 1441 resolution but they didn't so...Shocking wrote:
Nobody believed curveball after it had become known that curveball was curveball. He wasn't all that important in the bigger picture anyway, as intelligence is gathered from many more sources than just one guy.
Germany and France weren't convinced by the reports. That's not the same as disregarding the accuracy or factuality of the reports. At that point everyone was suspicious of Iraq's alleged WMD programs, though some parties such as France and Germany didn't see it as enough proof to warrant an invasion, instead opting for more sanctions/inspections and a diplomatic approach.
oh, yeah, sadam was in such an awesome economical position that it would hurt him so fucking much! pffft. this discussion is getting more ridiculous by the minute: "oh, but wmd's were a ruse", "oh, but withdrawal from dollar-based oil market was a bluff", ffs, admit it already - the whole adventure had no legitimate basis at all. you went in to destroy saddam who refused to play by your rules, end of story.Shocking wrote:
Oh really now, those weren't empty bluffs you reckon? Did he have a monopoly on oil? No. If he was going to sell his oil for anything other than dollars he would've destroyed his own economy.
Last edited by Shahter (2012-03-05 21:01:18)
being gay doesn't exempt you anymoreMacbeth wrote:
I hope there is a war with Iran. I also hope it leads to a draft of all U.S. males.
I'll be exempt from the draft so while all the male competition is fighting in the war I'll be back here chilling with the Azn girls.
Shahter wrote:
oh, yeah, sadam was in such an awesome economical position that it would hurt him so fucking much! pffft. this discussion is getting more ridiculous by the minute: "oh, but wmd's were a ruse", "oh, but withdrawal from dollar-based oil market was a bluff", ffs, admit it already - the whole adventure had no legitimate basis at all. you went in to destroy saddam who refused to play by your rules, end of story.Shocking wrote:
Oh really now, those weren't empty bluffs you reckon? Did he have a monopoly on oil? No. If he was going to sell his oil for anything other than dollars he would've destroyed his own economy.
Well, you're right in stating that Saddam didn't like to play by the (international) rules, no.Shocking wrote:
Oh really now, those weren't empty bluffs you reckon? Did he have a monopoly on oil? No. If he was going to sell his oil for anything other than dollars he would've destroyed his own economy.
Same shit happened in Libya. Gadaffi yelled he was going to sell his oil for gold, all the foreign investors withdrew from his country, he retracted the statement to get them back in because he wasn't getting enough money anymore.
international rules? lol. there's only one true international rule - might makes right. in that regard, no, saddam wasn't tough enough to impose his rules on anybody, but it had nothing to do with why he got fucked up.Shocking wrote:
Well, you're right in stating that Saddam didn't like to play by the (international) rules, no.
Last edited by Shahter (2012-03-06 01:37:50)
It's highly relevant because it's exactly the same situation. Gadaffi nor Saddam were in a position to 'demand' anything in this regard. If they went on with their plans it'd simply be economic masochism on their part.Shahter wrote:
international rules? lol. there's only one true international rule - might makes right. in that regard, no, saddam wasn't tough enough to impose his rules on anybody, but it had nothing to do with why he got fucked up.
p.s. and would you stop posting, highlighting and whatever else you do there with irrelevant passages. thanks.
What it seems to come down to is that it's wrong if we lead it, but it's ok if Europe leads it.Shocking wrote:
It's highly relevant because it's exactly the same situation. Gadaffi nor Saddam were in a position to 'demand' anything in this regard. If they went on with their plans it'd simply be economic masochism on their part.Shahter wrote:
international rules? lol. there's only one true international rule - might makes right. in that regard, no, saddam wasn't tough enough to impose his rules on anybody, but it had nothing to do with why he got fucked up.
p.s. and would you stop posting, highlighting and whatever else you do there with irrelevant passages. thanks.
Ultimately, might does make right. If someone doesn't play by the rules they need to be enforced. These laws were internationally agreed upon, Iraq was a signatory of the geneva convention and many other such treaties.
Saddam violated a couple hundred of them.
The rules got enforced.
I don't see the problem with that.
Neither invasion had much justification. Both were primarily driven by ulterior motives.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
yeah, iraq war and the air campaign against gaddafi's troops were totally the same
Citizens in Libya were asking for help. Popular uprising, getting battered by heavy equipment. Iraq was relatively stable compared.Turquoise wrote:
Neither invasion had much justification. Both were primarily driven by ulterior motives.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
yeah, iraq war and the air campaign against gaddafi's troops were totally the same
Last edited by Macbeth (2012-03-07 09:42:22)
It wasn't, the whole 'intervention' was a horrible clusterfuck. More than anything it exposed the weakness of European militaries. It's sad that even supposed world players as France and the UK struggled to field the necessary equipment and manpower to tackle a country that was literally in their backyard, in which only 5 million people live, with an insignificant military to boot.FatherTed wrote:
libya was doable for the UK+France,
Yup.AussieReaper wrote:
Same with Syria then Mac? They're just putting down a civil war/rebellion.
I prefer the unification route, it would solve the problem and it's inevitable anyway.Macbeth wrote:
You guys should just pay us to cover your military commitments for you. Seriously. We already do cover you guys in the great geopolitical scheme of things and we need the money. We could then use the money to provide military related jobs to bring down our unemployment. The money you guys save outsourcing to us you can roll back into your social services.
It would be a great system. Too bad it would never happen.
We do :pKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
EU countries should be like the US and stage periodic wars and conflicts just to make sure the logistics an personnel are up to par.