UN allowed the invasion to occur.ruisleipa wrote:
proof for your first point please. Why was it OK that despite the UN asserted Iraq didn't have WMD the US essentially unilaterally decided to invade?lowing wrote:
The US was prepared to go to Baghdad, however the compliance of the UN resolution by Iraq deemed it to be not a necessary action.
excuse the big wikipedia quote but its easiest:
By March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks. The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence. Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress, President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War, despite multiple dissenting opinions and questions of integrity about the underlying intelligence. Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted. President Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq, while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".
Does the Congo have an established government worth fighting for? No. Does Kuwait? Yes. Is the Congo economically important to the world? No. Is Kuwait? Yes.ruisleipa wrote:
thanks I know what wikipedia is. whats your point? it WAS for oil yeah, OK I admit maybe that wasn't the only reason but it was definitely a big reason? Do you agree that no-one would give a rats ass if Congo was invaded (actually they have oil there so maybe...and diamonds n shit too).JohnG@lt wrote:
Were you living under a rock in 1991?ruisleipa wrote:
Hahahahah oh lowing you are full of it - such an expert on everything yeah? How old do you think I am? What difference does it make? Of course we need oil, I know that. So you now admit that the reason the US went to Kuwait and Iraq WAS to secure oil??? Newsflash!
Here, read up on some history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You want to argue about the reason for the action, but not against the action itself?ruisleipa wrote:
no of course not, but can't you see the hypocrisy here? a) if the US REALLY wanted to remove Saddam for 'human rights' reasons or whatever they should've done it after they 'liberated' Kuwait (which, as I'm sure you know, is pretty fuckin far from a freedom loving democratic state so THAT wasn't the reason for going in). b) seems to me the whole WMD thing was just a shitty excuse to invade Iraq cos they missed their best opportunity year earlier. c) if Kuwait DIDN'T have lots of nice oil to make money for big businesses mainly in the US no way would the 'coalition' have gone in. What, say Zaire invades the Congo, can you imagine the US getting pissed and invading? Fuck no!!!
If you look at it from those terms:
Either you are saying...no one should have done anything when Iraq invaded.
Or
You want the US involved everywhere, even if there are no US interests in the region in question.
well the UN could hardly invade the US could it? The US does wtf it wants whenever it wants.M.O.A.B wrote:
UN allowed the invasion to occur.
well that is a matter of opinion. Personally I don't think the Kuwait constitutional monarchy is worth f-all.JohnG@lt wrote:
Does the Congo have an established government worth fighting for? No. Does Kuwait? Yes.
Is this because you come from a country that offers nothing to the world except Nokia phones and saunas? Are you afraid that if your country is invaded no one will bother to help?ruisleipa wrote:
well that is a matter of opinion. Personally I don't think the Kuwait constitutional monarchy is worth f-all.JohnG@lt wrote:
Does the Congo have an established government worth fighting for? No. Does Kuwait? Yes.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
And then...what's your opinion of Congo?ruisleipa wrote:
well that is a matter of opinion. Personally I don't think the Kuwait constitutional monarchy is worth f-all.JohnG@lt wrote:
Does the Congo have an established government worth fighting for? No. Does Kuwait? Yes.
And what of all other UN members? What of the countries that assisted in the invasion of Iraq or post-invasion operations and services? They didn't have to join in.ruisleipa wrote:
well the UN could hardly invade the US could it? The US does wtf it wants whenever it wants.M.O.A.B wrote:
UN allowed the invasion to occur.
LOL and the US gives the world weapons and international terrorism. Nice! sorry, and Big Macs. Oh, and thanks for coming to our rescue in WWII...not.JohnG@lt wrote:
Is this because you come from a country that offers nothing to the world except Nokia phones and saunas? Are you afraid that if your country is invaded no one will bother to help?ruisleipa wrote:
well that is a matter of opinion. Personally I don't think the Kuwait constitutional monarchy is worth f-all.JohnG@lt wrote:
Does the Congo have an established government worth fighting for? No. Does Kuwait? Yes.
I knew that was what it was about. Good job siding with the Nazi's btw.ruisleipa wrote:
LOL and the US gives the world weapons and international terrorism. Nice! sorry, and Big Macs. Oh, and thanks for coming to our rescue in WWII...not.JohnG@lt wrote:
Is this because you come from a country that offers nothing to the world except Nokia phones and saunas? Are you afraid that if your country is invaded no one will bother to help?ruisleipa wrote:
well that is a matter of opinion. Personally I don't think the Kuwait constitutional monarchy is worth f-all.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
JohnG@lt wrote:
I knew that was what it was about. Good job siding with the Nazi's btw.ruisleipa wrote:
LOL and the US gives the world weapons and international terrorism. Nice! sorry, and Big Macs. Oh, and thanks for coming to our rescue in WWII...not.JohnG@lt wrote:
Is this because you come from a country that offers nothing to the world except Nokia phones and saunas? Are you afraid that if your country is invaded no one will bother to help?
wiki wrote:
During the Continuation War (1941-1944) Finland was co-belligerent with Nazi Germany, and dependent on food, fuel and armament shipments from Germany. The country did, however, retain a democratic form of government. During the war Germany and Finland were united by a common enemy, the Soviet Union, yet Finland kept its army outside the German command structure despite numerous attempts to tie them more tightly together.
Fins and Jerry's uniform sure does look a like.
Yeh they actually sided with ze Germans. Well I think you should thank America for not making Finland Russia's bitch.
I don't know enough that much about Congo tbh but I reckon the civilians there are just as important as the people in Kuwait. Don't you?Pug wrote:
And then...what's your opinion of Congo?ruisleipa wrote:
well that is a matter of opinion. Personally I don't think the Kuwait constitutional monarchy is worth f-all.JohnG@lt wrote:
Does the Congo have an established government worth fighting for? No. Does Kuwait? Yes.
You mean in 2003? Spain, Australia, the UK, Denmark, Poland and the 'Kurdish Democratic Party'. No, they didn't and shouldn't have imo. I don't know but my gut feeling would be that a lot of the countries which participated POST-invasion did so due to US economic pressure. Let's not forget many more countries (like, most of the world) was against the invasion - not that that ever stopped the US from doing anything). Unfortunately I can't be arsed to find any evidence so I'll admit that's just a guess. Sorry but I'm trying to defend myself against rabid maniacs on three threads at the mo.M.O.A.B. wrote:
And what of all other UN members? What of the countries that assisted in the invasion of Iraq or post-invasion operations and services? They didn't have to join in.
well that deserves a screw you, frankly. Your lovely Soviet allies tried to invade us. No-one else would help us except Germany so what should we do? Become a communist satellite state like Estonia, Latvia etc? No thanks, we kept our freedom - something you yanks should appreciate since you love it so much. Please read up on your WWII history before you bother making stupid ignorant comments. Come on galt I expect more from you.JohnG@lt wrote:
I knew that was what it was about. Good job siding with the Nazi's btw.
FYI we kicked the Nazis out after the continuation war and they burned half of Lapland leaving, so we weren't exacly best buddies.
Cybargs - I don't think Finland has to thank America for fuck all in WWII tbh. The communist Soviet Union were sure happy to get all that USA equipment though so way to go you...er... Stalinist lapdogs???
You sound like a Karelian.ruisleipa wrote:
well that deserves a screw you, frankly. Your lovely Soviet allies tried to invade us. No-one else would help us except Germany so what should we do? Become a communist satellite state like Estonia, Latvia etc? No thanks, we kept our freedom - something you yanks should appreciate since you love it so much. Please read up on your WWII history before you bother making stupid ignorant comments. Come on galt I expect more from you.JohnG@lt wrote:
I knew that was what it was about. Good job siding with the Nazi's btw.
FYI we kicked the Nazis out after the continuation war and they burned half of Lapland leaving, so we weren't exacly best buddies.
Cybargs - I don't think Finland has to thank America for fuck all in WWII tbh. The communist Soviet Union were sure happy to get all that USA equipment though so way to go you...er... Stalinist lapdogs???
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
we went to Kuwait because Kuwait asked for assistance in dealing with Iraq. Yes the US has interest in the worlds oil supply, in fact a VESTED interest.ruisleipa wrote:
Hahahahah oh lowing you are full of it - such an expert on everything yeah? How old do you think I am? What difference does it make? Of course we need oil, I know that. So you now admit that the reason the US went to Kuwait and Iraq WAS to secure oil??? Newsflash!lowing wrote:
The US was prepared to go to Baghdad, however the compliance of the UN resolution by Iraq deemed it to be not a necessary action.
If you are going to bitch about securing oil fields, then I suggest when you get old enough to drive, you don't, by doing so would make you a hypocrite. Can't bitch about flowing oil, while you are pumping it in your car.
As far as your age I can only go by what you post, and as such I am guessing an emotional 15 year old.
Which country wouldn't be interested in the world's oil supply? Only one's who cry can't have any influence at all.lowing wrote:
we went to Kuwait because Kuwait asked for assistance in dealing with Iraq. Yes the US has interest in the worlds oil supply, in fact a VESTED interest.ruisleipa wrote:
Hahahahah oh lowing you are full of it - such an expert on everything yeah? How old do you think I am? What difference does it make? Of course we need oil, I know that. So you now admit that the reason the US went to Kuwait and Iraq WAS to secure oil??? Newsflash!lowing wrote:
The US was prepared to go to Baghdad, however the compliance of the UN resolution by Iraq deemed it to be not a necessary action.
If you are going to bitch about securing oil fields, then I suggest when you get old enough to drive, you don't, by doing so would make you a hypocrite. Can't bitch about flowing oil, while you are pumping it in your car.
As far as your age I can only go by what you post, and as such I am guessing an emotional 15 year old.
lol fail.lowing wrote:
As far as your age I can only go by what you post, and as such I am guessing an emotional 15 year old.
WMD's was not the issue in 91 the Kuwaiti invasion of Iraq was. Iraq pulled out of Kuwait and surrendered to all exposure of its weapons programs. So the war machine stopped. After his non-compliance over the following decade, the US war machined fired up again to force compliance, after the UN spent that decade pussy-footing around and threatening action only to never follow through on its threats.ruisleipa wrote:
proof for your first point please. Why was it OK that despite the UN asserted Iraq didn't have WMD the US essentially unilaterally decided to invade?lowing wrote:
The US was prepared to go to Baghdad, however the compliance of the UN resolution by Iraq deemed it to be not a necessary action.
excuse the big wikipedia quote but its easiest:
By March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks. The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence. Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress, President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War, despite multiple dissenting opinions and questions of integrity about the underlying intelligence. Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted. President Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq, while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".
lmao like you'd know what a karelian sounds like! Or even what that has to do with anything at all.JohnG@lt wrote:
You sound like a Karelian.
No, I know nothing about how they were forced out of their homes after half of Karelia was ceded to the USSR after the Continuation War or how the Fins accepted them into their homes with open arms until they could get on their feet or how Fins made a monumental effort to integrate them into the rest of Finnish society. Yep, I'm ignorant.ruisleipa wrote:
lmao like you'd know what a karelian sounds like! Or even what that has to do with anything at all.JohnG@lt wrote:
You sound like a Karelian.
haista vittu
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-07 12:34:00)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
an emotional 35 year old? Actually I was giving you an excuse, but if you are older than 15 then I am afraid you are simply pathetic.ruisleipa wrote:
lol fail.lowing wrote:
As far as your age I can only go by what you post, and as such I am guessing an emotional 15 year old.
Finns with two 'n's please thx.
..and wtf does the karelian thing have to do with this thread?
anyway it's been fun arguing with you all on three threads at the same time but I'm gonna give my head a rest and go have a wank or something.
..and wtf does the karelian thing have to do with this thread?
anyway it's been fun arguing with you all on three threads at the same time but I'm gonna give my head a rest and go have a wank or something.
oh ok one last.
Well done galt someone taught you to swear in Finnish. big man. (or did you google translate it?)
lowing lol I STILL couldn't give a rats ass what you think about anything at all really, least of all me.
Night night loverboys.
Well done galt someone taught you to swear in Finnish. big man. (or did you google translate it?)
lowing lol I STILL couldn't give a rats ass what you think about anything at all really, least of all me.
Night night loverboys.
Would never guess by your posts.ruisleipa wrote:
oh ok one last.
Well done galt someone taught you to swear in Finnish. big man. (or did you google translate it?)
lowing lol I STILL couldn't give a rats ass what you think about anything at all really, least of all me.
Night night loverboys.
I played a MUD based out of the Helsinki Institute of Technology named BATMUD when I was a teenager. They taught me all the finnish swear words I would ever needruisleipa wrote:
oh ok one last.
Well done galt someone taught you to swear in Finnish. big man. (or did you google translate it?)
lowing lol I STILL couldn't give a rats ass what you think about anything at all really, least of all me.
Night night loverboys.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat