The war is now a success for the administration

talk
21

No, see things have changed. The difference from prior terrorism acts is that a permanent member of the UN security council has been attacked. The lucky few countries that got into the UN Security Council haven’t had to deal with the large scale terrorism that those unlucky majority on the outside faced. So, for the better part of the past 50 years, major or tough issues that do not affect the 5 vetoing powers was largely ignored.

The UN is not just an organization that exists only during world peace. The UN has the capacity to enforce peace, but when that does not work, it also has a design to take forceful action. Letting UN resolutions go unenforced shows that the UN was largely oblivious to its responsibilities in this world. It isn’t supposed to be a campfire meeting with free food and group stories. While terrorism did exist, the UN simply tried to dance around the problem of terrorism and dictators without bothering to work on the cure - removing them. The sanctions are almost useless for they usually affect the poor and middle classes much more than they do the leadership. The building of palaces in Iraq did not slow down after the enacting of sanctions.

About the quote - I used the oil picture as an example. Hitler’s army was intent on exterminating all the Jews and non-conformists in whichever country he invaded. The US is, for the large part, exterminating terrorists. We also spend billions of our own money to rebuild the country for the betterment of its citizens.

While the rhetoric may have been similar, the actions between the Nazis in the 30s/40s is vastly different from that of the current wars on terrorism. I misunderstood your quote - I thought it was a bridge between the Nazis and the current war. Didn’t realize you were talking about the existence of terrorism.

Cheers!
Kirupa C:-)

22

Wow, so much to catch up on! Grrrr. Ya thank you Kirupa, I will make sure to save my messages in notepad.

First off, Phil, I know there are many problems with the UN, but my point is the US acting above the UN doesn’t help the UN at all. And the US does run the UN, because if the US doesn’t take part then the UN will fail, that is why the US was allowed to have huge debts to the UN for so long, everyone was afraid to put the pressure on them incase they just left the UN.

As for Kirupa… I’ll start at the begining.
Gaining peace does take a while, but it would be faster if the US had some other help. For example Afghanistan is relatively calm (in comparrison with Iraq) and there are Canadian peacekeepers there. I think if you ask the Iraqi people they want peace as soon as possible, and by refusing the help of others the US is delaying peace. As for resolution 1441, I read it last night along with all the resolutions reffered to in it, I could find nothing stating that force would be used. All the resolutions seemed to contain was talk about distribution of funds and medicine etc. And it seems to me that you are calling Canada cowardly for not wanting to go in to this war… but I ask you to look at history. Canada has sent over our feeble (yet still capable of dieing) army to help the US on every occasion teh US has asked for our help, excluding this most recent war. I think that says alot about how little proof the US had for going in, because if they had any we would’ve been there with you.

You keep speaking of gain. You say only the US and UK should gain from this war, well fine! So be it, what would Canada gain by sending peacekeeprs? It’s not like that would help our economy, it’s not like the peacekeepers will be buying up land and making investments in Iraqi oil. This is not about economic gain, it is about helping the Iraqi people. How would our peacekeepers trying to stop religious warfare be an economic gain to Canada? You also call American capitalism fair!! How dare you! Even I, a firm believer in capitalism can see that the current system of capitalism we have in the US and Canada is anything but fair. Is it fair that a single mom makes minimu wage and can’t pay her rent while Bill Gates gets richer and richer? Please that is not fair.

And you speak of armchair generals. I think you have this wrong, Canada does not agree with the war now, nor did we at the begining. We are not thinking “how can we get our name in the records as being part of this great war” we are thinking “how can we help the people of Iraq?” The war happened, there is nothing we can do to change that, but we can help the Iraqis since they are in this situation.

As for Kyoto, I think your argument is irresponsible. Why should anyone sign the land mines treaty, I mean the US didn’t so why should anyone else? That is not the way the world works. Plus one of the major reasons India, Sri Lanka, countries like that have such high levels of pollution is because they have all our second hand stuff. Ask anyone who is from one of these countries, everyone drives cars from the 70’s or older. So if you use logic you would see that if we in the west put tougher laws on automobile emissions - as we would have to if we signed Kyoto - then eventually our fuel efficient cars would end up in India, and thus their levels of pollution would go down.

I do understand that not everything happens right away, but things can happen faster the more people are helping out.

I do not find it difficult to believe that some Iraqi family named their kid after George Bush Jr, I do however find it pretty irrelevant when 80 people died in a bombing the same day. And aslo if yo are going to report on something like that atleast give more details, who was this family? For all i know they are extremely ignorant and living in a part of the country that has seen little if no fighting. With out that info it just becomes a story meant to make the US feel better about the war, it is like going out and stuffing yourself at a buffet and then feeling better about your self because you drink a diet cola. I do love getting both sides of the argument, that is my point, I don’t see many American news agencies giving both sides equal time.

Ya, Canada was isolationist too, most of the world was after the first world war… but the start of the second world war was enough to pull most of those countries out of their isolated state.

“Again, the US always goes to the private sector. If you even barely understand the US economic structure, you should understand that the government does NOT own any oil service industries. Not all countries have to be socialistic with state-controlled medias, etc. after all.”
-That sounded almost like an insult, lol. I do barely understand the US economic structure, but I am not an economist, and I doubt you are either. And was that a hint in there? No Canada is not socialist either. Our government doesn’t control our media, infact, I’d say the US government controls their media more! Fox is extremely republican, and there are only a few big media companies in the states…

Rebuilding refineries is one thing, getting special rights and privilages to the distribution of the oil is another thing.

It’s good to have a Russian on my side, I’ve always loved the Russians, such loveable people. (Assuming of course RussianBeer Is Russian).

So Kirupa do you suggest that the only way to get rid of terrorism is to topple the government of every country in the middle east? Surely the US wouldn’t invade their good friends the Saudis, despite how many terrorist originate there.

HAHAHAH providing goodwill was it? More like “we’ll help you beat those bloody russkies.”

Kirupa you mention the lack of UN intervention throughout this last century with regards to terrorism. How about US intervention? Where was the goodwill then? The “operation India freedom?” The truth is most countries don’t care unless it’s happening to them, and that is definatly the case with the US.

Why should it be different for the US than a remote country in Asia? Is the US more important? And I’m pretty sure the argument about 9/11 leading up to invading Iraq is fallacious. Exactly how is Iraq tied in with 9/11? Bush never clearly showed the world that connection, and I think that is a big reason why he had so little support. I mean everyone supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the point is if you got the proof the world will act, if you don’t, the world aint gonna play that game.

I credit you Kirupa for using saying a “thoughtful response” sucks to be deleted, I’m glad you consider my responses as having thought put into them.

What about Russia? Russia is a permanent member and they have been suffering terrorist attacks for a while now. And what does it say about the world when bad situations are ignored unless they affect the 5 veto-power nations?

While the US is not Nazi Germany the point remains that who is classified as a terrorist is subjective. Hitler believed that the Jews were terrorists of sorts, the US believes that Iraqis are terrorists?? No, some Iraqis? Who knows, but obviously not everyone sees why they believe that.

Done finally!

23
  1. Yeah, the situtation in Afghanistan is improving, but it’s been more than a year since the military action there ended. I am not sure, but if you look at Afghanistan a few months after military action ended, there was a good bit of bloodshed on both sides.

Also, Iraq is a more urban environment with plenty of hiding places with reasonably equipped miltary equipment. Afghanistan is largely desert with a few cities scattered amidst the rubble.

  1. No, I’m not calling any single country cowardly. I just find that the general tolerance for a dictator that has thumbed his nose at the UN for so long kinda ridiculous.

  2. Of course, there would be no financial gain in sending peacekeepers. The move about keeping other countries out of the war is largely symbolic. For if the US, UK, and Portugal (forgot about them earlier) bring about peace in a short while, it is designed to undermine the authority of other countries aka the UN Security Council. I do not necessarily agree with that, but I don’t disagree with that either. As Phil mentioned earlier, we started it, we should finish it. We don’t need help - sending in Canadian/French/German peacekeepers isn’t going to stop the Saddam loyalists from continuing to fire. That will only lead to insults of the US arm twisting other countries to join in.

  3. Yeah, I’m not sure why the US, China, Russia, Iraq (hehe), etc. haven’t agree to sign the land mines treaty (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/mines990301.html). From that article, the reason the US is refusing is that the mines from North Korea have to be removed as well. If the treaty were made more lenient to have them removed from non-war zones, I guess the countries who dissent may agree. I don’t know much about landmines, so I don’t know. But this shows problems within the UN again - inability to reach a consensus and deal with issues. I think regardless of what happens, the few countries that DO agree should take an effort to remove them. Leading by example is a great way to get the sheep (the dissenters) to follow in tune.

4b. I don’t think imported cars and such are the problems of pollution in Asia. The problem is having about 2.4 billion living in an area about the combined size of the US and Mexico. Also, there are plenty of businesses willing to relocate to the shores of India and China because of the lax pollution controls. Those countries, at the expense of the people, feel comfortable in allowing that.

  1. The problem in Iraq has nothing to do with a shortage of troops. The situation is still quite volatile. The more people there are, the more targets the Iraqis simply have. There are about 150,000+ troops from the US there, and that’s for a country that really isn’t very large geographically.

  2. I wouldn’t be surprised if we economically take out the Saudis next. Once the US gets a strong foothold in Iraq and ensures a reasonable oil supply for its emergency/immediate needs for itself and the allies, you can undermine Saudi Arabia by selling oil cheaply to other countries. I don’t personally find the Saudi leadership to care about anything besides its own wealth. I don’t think they like the US much either, but they need money from us and others. In the future we no longer find ourselves (even Canada :goatee) slaves to the Saudi regime.

  3. I’m not saying what the US did in its non-involvement with various problems around the world was good. After all, it’s our shaky foreign policy over the years that got us in trouble with Afghanistan and Iraq. Right now we are courting Pakistan which is largely believed to harbor terrorists as well. We seem to defuse a bomb while accidentally setting of another one. That still doesn’t mean we shouldn’t defuse problems along the way.

7b. The UN should either do something or tell the countries to solve any problems within themselves. On many occassions the UN simply places embargoes and sanctions on countries because they are “squabbling”, but the UN fails to resolve the source of the problem.

  1. Russia is different because they haven’t asked for any help. If they were to ask or put a vote in the UN, who knows how it would go?

  2. The US chose voluntarily to go on its own in Iraq with help from the UK and other countries. If the US wants help, it will request it. Of course, I do not believe the US will request help because it has the resources to see it through till the end…I hope :slight_smile:

24

If the US wants help, it will request it. Of course, I do not believe the US will request help because it has the resources to see it through till the end…I hope

http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh03041103.html

US requested help a while already in Iraq.

  1. UN did igonore alot of dictators, but US has put alot of dicators to power!

  2. I want to understand you view on why ‘We should finish what we start’ Because the US/Uk soldeir in Iraq DO want help, they dont want to be cannon fodder. Or the only cannon fodder. International force, I feel will make a diffrence. When the US only occupies Iraq, it looks to Iraqis like a regular occupation by a enemy force, when an International force is there, it looks more like a international agreement to rebuild Iraq. It shows more that the US is not there to have the country for itself but to rebuild it.

  3. The reason China, Russia didnt sign it is the mine treaty, alot of its its because the USA dosent sign it either. Agreements are made between countries, and when the leader of the world refuses to sign it, well, the leader is not acting like the leader.

  4. Let me guess this Kirupa… You would support another war on the Saudi-Arabia? What ,we forgot to invade them before Iraq, so we will go invade them now. Or do you suggest we send their country in to chaos economicaly, and turn the country in to civil war bloodshed?

  5. About terrorism in Russia… US only recognized them as terrorists after September 11. Before that, US was not supportive at all of Russian efforts. And UN would never send in troops there to be killed, and neither will the US.

  6. About the Hitler Quote, yes I did use it to mention the existance of terrorism, but now that you mention it, there is a bridge between that and the current war…

Germany Fought to spread Nationalism
US Fights to spread Democracy

Germany used Pre-emptive warfare
US uses Pre-emptive warfare

Germany ignored the League of Nations
US ignored the United Nation

Let me make this clear US now ** is not Nazi Germany!**
There are just alot of similarities, but there are very, very diffrent, when a german soldeir died, the Whermacht razed a village to the ground and killed women and children.

Some confilicts are just too dirty to get involved, while helping India and pakistan to track down terroists is good, but you cant do much else, Its a situation where no one is really right. There is no clear line of whats right and wrong getting involved is something that UN will never get out.

BUT I do agree about then number of troops in Iraq, we dont need more, we need diffrent, specialized troops… we need to change popular onpinion we need to covince the people.

25

Kirupa, don’t you feel we’re making process? Lol, I don’t think we really disagree that much on most things, I took a rather far left stance on this argument at the begining, but I tend to go with whatever stance will keep the debate going longest…

  1. Yes, it has been a while since fighting stopped in Afghanistan, but there are also people from lots of different countries there doing what they are best at. Basically I just think it would be better for the Iraqis if the US accepted offers for help. I will stay with Canada as my examples as I know Canada best, but we take pride in our peacekeeping missions, and we enjoy doing them, and with all our experience we have to have one of the best peacekeeping squads in the world. So if you put the best of each working in Iraq, then things will happen faster.

  2. OK, but there are many things wrong with the world, many things that no one does anything about, I’m not sure that using force will solve them, especially in this case. Everytime the US is seen as “invading” a country (especially without it’s allies) it just causes lots and lots of hate in the Middle East.

  3. We have slightly varying opinions on this matter. I understand that Canada wasn’t there at the start, and I can somewhat see the reason for not wanting to let any “late joiners” in. But I think that is selfish, it shouldn’t be about who agreed with who when, who started what, because this is not about the US and UK (or Portugal) this is about Iraq. We didn’t agree at first how to deal with the situation, but we agree at this point that peace is needed, and we want that to happen as quick as possible. Let’s use a similie for this situation: Say the US decided to build a tower, and they asked for Canada to help them, but we did not agree on the design (say Canada thought it was unsafe) so we refused to help. So then the US builds it alone, and then one day it’s falling down… really slowly, but no one can get out… Canada would want to help the US if it could to save these people… lol, good similie no?

  4. Ya, I guess that is probably why the US won’t sign… but the flaw of the UN is then more so that the world can’t agree, not so much anything to do with the UN just that countries can’t agree with each other at all. You said “Leading by example is a great way to get the sheep (the dissenters) to follow in tune.” So doesn’t that mean the US should sign Kyoto and lead by example?

4b. Trust me, cars are a problem. Think about it, the leading cause of pollution in North America is our emmissions (I am pretty sure of that, but I guess I could be wrong)… so imagine how much worse it is in those countries where the cars are less efficient. Yes it is densely populated, but most of the people don’t have many ways to pollute, (besides littering) they are too poor.

  1. I refer to above, the more specialized the troops (ie, best at what they do) the faster the problem will be solved.

  2. That is a possibility, we’ll see if you’re right. Did you know that Canada has more oil than Saudi Arabia, it’s just that it is in… what are they called, the tar sands? or something like that. So it is harder to extract.

  3. True enough, the US is in a tough situation as super power.

7b. The source of the problem is hard to solve, as the US has found out many times in their history.

  1. I think Russia wanted help with Chechnya (sp).

  2. The US does have the power to decide, but should they have the right? I think that what is most needed by the Iraqi people is a moral boost, showing that other countries are willing to send whatever they can would do that, I think.

Edit: RB posted while I was writing mine. He makes some good points, I look forward to hearing Kirupa’s responses. And RB, it’s pretty neat that you and me both mentioned the specialized part with out knowing the other person was doing it!

26

Yes it is neat, specialized troops are the answer… ex. Special Forces like green berres could do the trick in SOME places…
oh Yes, I am Russian, I also got my Canadian citezenship a few years ago… Russian-Tuknuk…

27

The UN is extremly outdated, BUT its an extremly useful organization. It should be overhauled like the French Lawyer oraginization suggested for it to be more effective. Its the only order that gives smaller countries a voice, without the UN the strongest countries will rule all the smaller ones, and give them no authority.

Phil, US did not win the Korean War, it was a draw…
and Korean war resulted in a draw because UN was there, remeber alot of UN forces where there, from Australia, New Zeland and Canada, And if not for all those countries the outcome would have been diffrent.

Lets not forget the Canadians held the western Flank of the Chinese offensive alone for 48 hours, outnumbered 56 to 1. I dont think its right to give USA all the credit.

Also:

To the Victors goes the Spoils

That does not apply here, it does not apply in a war of Liberation

Remember the undeclared war is not over. No one has declared a victory or an end to the war. The occupation is the hardest part. Its easy for us to say its our war, everyone keep out. But for the troops doing the dieing its not the same thing, they want to survive and go home, not die for the glory of the war. I dont think they want to get killed so US gets a bigger chunk of the spot light.
But remeber US already asked for help, now its up to the international community.

28

Do you live in Russia or Canada or neither?

29

RB:

  1. That letter was dated around April 11th. Too many things have changed, and the swiftness of the toppling of the regime changed that. I also do not think any countries volunteered then. Guess they had their chance.

  2. I am going to guess the regular Iraqi is not going to care who is in their borders as long as the effects of Saddam are gone. The Saddam loyalists are not going to lay down their arms because a multi-national army comes in.

  3. That’s the problem; other countries should learn to think and act independently. The US does not have numerous mine fields in its backyard, so the US has no incentive to pay $1000+ per mine when almost all of its money will be going to other countries. Let Russia and China take care of themselves, and if they want help, they can request it from those countries that agreed to sign it.

  4. We don’t have to send a single troop to undermine Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia will collapse on itself once the oil bubble bursts with the flooding of the world markets with oil from Iraq. Iraq just helped speed up the inevitable.

  5. The UN should do either show total apathy to an issue or help solve the problem 100%. The half-way dialogue of sending envoys, threatening the use of sanctions, and rhetoric only prolongs conflicts for far longer than needed.

Leone:

  1. If the letter RB posted did exist (which I am certain it did), why didn’t other countries volunteer. If there was a window of opportunity to send in help, I think most countries missed it.

  2. The middle east hates the US because of our ability to go against every one of their beliefs and still manage to live a comfortable life. Our support of Israel doesn’t make friends there either. Religions and a overly anti-US media do not help at all.

  3. When the tower starts falling, and the US is unable to prevent that, sure - other countries should be given a chance to fix it. The tower’s foundation is being layed, and the main construction hasn’t even started. How can something that doesn’t yet exist fall? :slight_smile:

  4. To take a spin on what you said, why don’t the other countries enforce the Kyoto protocol. If other countries are able to reduce their emissions and pollution, the voters and special interest groups in the US will pressure our gov’t to support the protocol also.

4b. I don’t really think emissions from automobiles are the largest problem in the North American area. Most cars are very efficient and not as polluting as they once used to be. The main causes of pollutions are industries allowing smoke and other impediments go into the atmosphere. Coal power plants, forest fires, etc. help cause that. For example, if you are on the highway between the US/Canada/Niagara Falls and you look toward the Buffalo, NY area, you will see numerous smokestacks covering up the sky. (at least that’s how it looked a few years ago when I went to Canada)

No, I do not believe cars are the major cause in the 3rd world countries. The problem facing most of the Asian countries is the use of firewood for open-fires.

  1. I think the US has sent several groups of special troops. It isn’t just artillery there after all.

  2. Yeah - the US has a lot of oil in the Arctic Refuge but all the nature conservationists think that if we get oil from there, the animals would all die. Sure…(another thread in Ordered about drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge)

  3. :bu:

  4. As RB said - UN (which includes the US) troops would not have been sent there.

The victors are the Iraqis, and to them the spoils will go. Until they have the means of handling the economy themselves, the money the gov’t makes via taxes/tariffs on oil and related works will go back into rebuilding the Iraq infrastructure.

Cheers!
Kirupa :beam:

30

Kirupa, its not the way you think.
US is not saying “Oh, today we feel like letting other countries help, because we are so nice today.”

NO, they are seeking help! The need help!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2964102.stm

http://www.iraq.net/erica/news-e/archives/00001467.htm
http://www.azstarnet.com/star/Fri/30822IUN-Iraq.html
http://www.adn.com/24hour/iraq/story/975618p-6838984c.html

I am going to guess the regular Iraqi is not going to care who is in their borders as long as the effects of Saddam are gone. The Saddam loyalists are not going to lay down their arms because a multi-national army comes in.

I agree and disagree, while yes they dont want Saddam to come back, they do care who ‘occupies’ them.

Picture this: During the war, US-UK gains alot of opposition from other most of the world, not only crazy fundamentalist countries. But WESTERN contries, and powerful countries. The world holds the BIGGEST anti-war demonstration EVER. Most of the world is saying this is a illigal-war, a war for oil(true or not). So what does the average Iraq can be thinking “Hey, maybe they are right, we are getting just conquored, Defending my land is maybe the right thing to do.”

Remeber, Pride runs deep in Iraq, just because you are removing Saddam, we are still invading. By a show of multi-national force, we show them that this is a worldly decision, there to help you. Not just to occupy them.

That’s the problem; other countries should learn to think and act independently

No, I completle disagree, this is why we need a better UN. But act indepedently… no.

If they do, what stops India from acting independently and wage a pre-emptive war on Pakistan? What stop N. Korea to wage a pre-emptive war on S.korea. Countries have conflict of intrest, and thats why a international order like the UN is needed. But, I agree UN needs an overhaul. But needs to remain.

31

Oh man, RB you stole my thunder as I was reading the posts you posted. I have a quote from the Globe And Mail (one of Canada’s largest newspapers) it says: “Washington wants troops from more countries involved, facing a steadily increasing death toll and a bill that the chairman of the U.S. Senate foreign-relations commitee estimated yesterday (Aug 31st) at $30-Billion(US) over the next five years.”

It seems that Washington has realized that the Iraqis are not taking to kindly to what appears to be a U.S. domination or their country. It is just causing more hatred towards the U.S. and therefore more terrorism.

The UN does need revamping (as RB said), but for Phil to say that it has caused wars that wouldn’t have happened otherwise is ludicris. The UN was against this war, yet it happened, the UN has been against war many times. And to say “look at all the wars in the past 50 years” is stupid, there have always been tons of wars, just that there was less coverage. Most of these regions have been fighting for centuries.

Regardless of what creates the most pollution (I find it hard to believe that wood fires causes more pollution than cars) I know as a fact that the leading creater of CFCs in North America is car air conditioners. So if the cars we have now end up in India (imagine how often they would use the airconditioning) then their ozone layer would start being depleted alot more rapidly.

About Saudi Arabia, the U.S. will only invade Saudi Arabia because the king is about to die, and after he does the government will most likely be taken by fundamentalists, and therefore the U.S. would loose the oil from Saudi Arabia, and also because they now have the Iraqi oil. SO this war could be seen as a war to free the U.S. of dependancy on Saudi Arabia’s oil.

“If you all phelt so strongly about doing this thing in Iraq as a community, there was ample time phor all of you to have jumped on board; But you didn’t, and now YOU want the spoils?”
-Phil, you still don’t get it. Other countries did not want to join in the war because they did not feel that was the best course to help the Iraqi people, by bombing them… So why would we jump on board to support something we didn’t agree with? At this point it is totally different, because the Iraqi people need help, and we feel the way to help them is to make sure they have power, and peace… and that is what we want to do… Spoils? You have clearly admited that this war was about oil.

Yes there is such thing as genuine decency… Even the U.S. has done it at times (The Marshall plan). I’m not sure but I don’t think Canada gained any “spoils” from our peacekeeping mission in Somalia.

32

BTW, I am a Russian Tuknuk, livin in hawaii! :beam:

Kirupa and Phile; What spoils or chances where you guys talking about? The chance to get troops shot , the reward of engaging in Guerrila warfare or is it the chance the blow billions of dollars to rebuild a country? Is that what all the other countries are missing out on?

Well, if the States dont have enough Guerrilla war fun in Iraq, we might get them an invitation to fight in Chechneya, if we feel like it. :sure:

33

I was being sarcastic Phil…

And if u really want to know, the same reason the south was not allowed to break away from the Union, during the American Civil war.

:wink: hell yeah, this argument is bringing out alot of good ideas…

34

Acctulay Phil , there are slaves in chechneya,

AT LEAST 1,000 SLAVES IN CHECHNYA
Five hostages, released during the May celebrations through the efforts of Alexander Lebed’s peacemaking mission, had been forced to work in Chechnya, according to mission consultant Dmitry Buchnev. Buchnev claims that Chechens are actively using captive Russians as slaves.

Buchnev: Until recently, official statistics estimated the number of slaves in Chechnya at about 400. The data revealed by former prisoners who were kept in the mountain areas of the republic introduces some serious corrections into the figure. In fact, there must be at least a thousand slaves in Chechnya.
WPS monitoring source

More stuff:
http://conradroy.boom.ru/english/library/articles/article_2.htm

35

So Phil, I am assuming then that you think the Palestinians should have independance?

It seems that the US has ended our main argument for us, it was fun while it lasted, I hope to join in many more debates on the kirupa forums…

36

*Originally posted by RussianBeer *
Kirupa and Phile; What spoils or chances where you guys talking about? The chance to get troops shot , the reward of engaging in Guerrila warfare or is it the chance the blow billions of dollars to rebuild a country? Is that what all the other countries are missing out on?

Well it isn’t going to be easy, but maybe a chance at helping rebuild a country with a vast economic and strategic potential.

I checked out the 4 links you provided. The first one called for a meeting that never will/has existed. My guess is that it was a Senator interested in getting news coverage. The second link was from Jan 2003 - before the war. 3rd link wouldn’t work, and the 4th link is as the spokesperson stated “largely speculation” over the sending of troops. There needs to be a definite NO or a definite YES - there seems to be a lot of dancing back and forth on all sides involved in this.

In the end it comes down what the field commanders on the ground want. The US for the most part gives its field commanders and generals greater autonomy than it has in the past, so the defense department needs to go along with any plan that is approved. The President with very little limits of power controls a good chunk of all foreign relations and military issues after all.

37

huah Lepiano? I want the Palestininans to have independance…
I dont see what you mean…
I didnt even hear the guys rebutle.

38

Kirupa, for crying out loud:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=US+seeks+help+in+Iraq
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=US+needs+help+in+Iraq
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=help+wanted+in+iraq&spell=1
*here pick your poison *

Its been obvious that the soldeirs want out, the generals want international force, and the administration is seeking any kind of help.

39

I checked out the 4 links you provided. The first one called for a meeting that never will/has existed. My guess is that it was a Senator interested in getting news coverage. The second link was from Jan 2003 - before the war. 3rd link wouldn’t work, and the 4th link is as the spokesperson stated “largely speculation” over the sending of troops. Different corners

You have to be blind to think the US don’t need more reinforcements - it’s just they can’t swallow their pride, and won’t go back to the UN they ignored. (lemme make this clear, for me, the US is not a participating member of the UN as it ‘overlooks’ it as being a committee of small - unprofitable countries).

A key to rebuilding iraq, more than sending troops, would be to send some medication and most of ALL give the iraqis some jobs.

During the depression hoover made some constructions, sometimes not totally useful and other times that screwed the environment (hoover ****) however it gave unemployed people some money and most of all SOMETHING to do, something to look for, to participate in the well being of the country.

My point of view is that the extremist that are killing US troops are actually supported by the local population; maybe not actively but at least they don’t seem to be against that sort of guerrila warfare - because, as RB and Lepiano said; it does look like an occupation force, not a freedom force (US flags floating in baghdad - that’s what I feared)… Give them a job - something to do, something to participate in, and they’ll eventually look to extremist are people who are hijacking their own country, and I don’t think extremists will go on with as much ‘courage’ (i hate to use this word in such situation, but can find any other one) once their own people are against them…

As for the UN - at least someone is trying to bring people to talk together.

Oh and, kirupa made a point that made me smile :

For if the US, UK, and Portugal (forgot about them earlier) bring about peace in a short while, it is designed to undermine the authority of other countries aka the UN Security Council.

UK and portugal joined because their leaders liked bush-Sampaio could not afford to lose trade with the US (and they couldn’t possiby undermine the UN since portugal is a small member and does not have a great economy). The UK on the other hand was a great blow because blair agreed to bush when almost the whole population was against war.

40

RB, I meant Phil, I was asking him if he supports Palestinian independance, since he supports Chechneyan independance… I’m just wondering.