Hey, so be it, better that, than be in the same position that were in at the beginning of both world wars.Turquoise wrote:
I agree that we have a history of humanitarian aid, but we're slowly becoming less humanitarian and more militaristic.lowing wrote:
US history is full of examples of humanitarian efforts, please stop acting like the US would rather war than anything else.
Is there not a happy medium?
That would be a question for the fuckin radical Islamic terrorists in the world wouldn't it? The very existence of the USA means we are a tolerant nation...... and has already met the world on "medium" ground.Turquoise wrote:
Is there not a happy medium?
I disagree... invading Iraq was definitely leaning in the aggressive direction to say the least...
Been through that, Turquoise, resuming hostilities was the fault of Iraq. They were bound by the peace treaty that they agreed to, once that was broken for 10 years, there was every reason to resume the war.Turquoise wrote:
I disagree... invading Iraq was definitely leaning in the aggressive direction to say the least...
Breaking the peace treaty was the hostile, "agressive" act, NOT the consequences for their action.
Well, doesn't it seem odd to you that most of the world was against enforcing the treaty?lowing wrote:
Been through that, Turquoise, resuming hostilities was the fault of Iraq. They were bound by the peace treaty that they agreed to, once that was broken for 10 years, there was every reason to resume the war.Turquoise wrote:
I disagree... invading Iraq was definitely leaning in the aggressive direction to say the least...
Breaking the peace treaty was the hostile, "agressive" act, NOT the consequences for their action.
The coalition resumed hostilites on their own for their own national security reasons. We do not need UN permission to tend to our own security. The US waited for a decade for the UN to do something, they did not. Read the resolutions, the UN beleived Iraq was a "GRAVE" threat to world peace.Turquoise wrote:
Well, doesn't it seem odd to you that most of the world was against enforcing the treaty?lowing wrote:
Been through that, Turquoise, resuming hostilities was the fault of Iraq. They were bound by the peace treaty that they agreed to, once that was broken for 10 years, there was every reason to resume the war.Turquoise wrote:
I disagree... invading Iraq was definitely leaning in the aggressive direction to say the least...
Breaking the peace treaty was the hostile, "agressive" act, NOT the consequences for their action.
"On November 8, 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences". The resolution passed with a 15 to 0 vote, supported by Russia, China and France, and Arab countries like Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein agreed to honor it."
Its not up to US to step in if they think "we waited to long for UN and the rest of the world to do something", hence the nickname: world police. You don't decide for everyone else. Sure I can see your point in homeland security, but we all have to work together to ensure our security and freedom
Now who removed what?
i'm confused
America already looks bad to the rest of the world tho...d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
The war is on, the only thing (Smart) we can do is finish what we started. Thats my opinion, we pull now, we look bad to the world.
THe US didn't decide for the rest of the world...The US decided for itself and its own security. The US does not need UN approval for that......Maybe the real question is why did the UN drags its feet for a decade, instead of actually enforcing their own threats?Sacula wrote:
Its not up to US to step in if they think "we waited to long for UN and the rest of the world to do something", hence the nickname: world police. You don't decide for everyone else. Sure I can see your point in homeland security, but we all have to work together to ensure our security and freedom
THe US didn't decide for the world....How many troops has a country lost in Iraq that didn't want a part of the action there??Sacula wrote:
Its not up to US to step in if they think "we waited to long for UN and the rest of the world to do something", hence the nickname: world police. You don't decide for everyone else. Sure I can see your point in homeland security, but we all have to work together to ensure our security and freedom
The US decided for itself and its own interests. It does not need UN approval for that.
Maybe the real question should be: Why did the the UN drag its feet and do nothing for 10 years, instead of follow through with its threats and enforce their own resolutions?
Last edited by lowing (2006-11-08 16:52:05)