LuTze Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 Would you say the no fly zones have achieved their purpose, whether officially sanctioned by the UN or not? Quite possibly. Does the ends justify the means? Almost certainly yes. Note i'm not trying to say these zones are a bad thing , they helped to protect people from Saddam. They are still of questionable legaity, at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Deslaar I fail to see how attacking anti-aircraft sites is protecting kurds....I don't think kurds can fly. We attack anti-aircraft sites because they open fire. And Iraqii planes can fly and bomb them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 17, 2003 Author Share Posted March 17, 2003 I fail to see how attacking anti-aircraft sites is protecting kurds....I don't think kurds can fly. I think we are allowed to attack missle installations if we are fired on, as long as we're not inside certain zones. So in essence, while we were patrolling, we were fired on, so we could destroy the installations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 So you ARE suggesting a US colony? "Thats why America will rebuild the country under a Iraq central government (which is already highly evolved)." Originally posted by greg1917 Well coming from britain i think im in a slightly better position to judge the benefits and disadvantages of imperialism than you. WHY? are you a professor? Originally posted by greg1917 if you think America will play the role of the benevolent motherland, showering the iraqi people in love and flowers then thats bullcrap because if theres one thing the 20th century showed its that empires can decay just as fast as theyre built. and where do you stop? Never said U.S. would shower them with flowers. I said make the Iraq people happy. Don't know what makes you happy, but for some people, it is not much. Allow then freedoms of speech for one. Empire do fall quickly today. Look at sports. '85 Bears was a sad example. Originally posted by greg1917 why dont u invade libya because you dont like the leader and russia because your scared of its decaying nuclear arsenal? It's called working together. Arguements like this are said because intellegant one's can not be thought of. Originally posted by greg1917 Were you living in a sack during the past 12 years? look at whats happened since the first gulf war. have u ever considered america perhaps changing its foreign policy to one that doesnt discriminate against 3rd world countries, that doesnt arm israel and and doesnt enrage the middle east? No, it would be easier to drive over them and rule them with an iron fist. i see your logic. Attack and REBUILD. Iraq was had no plans of REBUILDING. Janpan seems happy. Not much American influance other then music and dress style. Islamic groups go to Africa, give people weapons and start blood religous conflicts. Never said America would rule with a Iron Fist. The U.S. is not the bringer of pain to the Middle East through out the years. Leaders of countires have done more to hurt the region the the U.S. If your going to put words in my mouth like "So you ARE suggesting", then I can't waste my time repeating what I say. How about saying something like: Americas first intrests are itself and it's $$$closest allies$$$. Once America is done raping Iraq's golden land, hopefully there will be some left for the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deslaar Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone We attack anti-aircraft sites because they open fire. And Iraqii planes can fly and bomb them. I doubt that's true but how do explain the targets that can't fire back eg. surface-to-surface sites? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&ncid=564&e=9&u=/nm/20030302/ts_nm/iraq_usa_zones_dc_2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Radar sites that help other sites attack for one. Now it's obvious that we're really extended the targets, but facilities supporting facilities that are attack us are fair game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 And it is true, Iraq freely admits to it; they innitiate combat because they don't recognize the no-fly zones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Deslaar About the No Fly Zone (NO DIRECT QUOTE) Containing Saddam to his boarders. So he does not decide to take his army to neighboring countries. I don't hear too much complaint about the war coming from countries that know what a threat Saddam is (Iran, and other neighboring countries). Unless, they don't want retaliation once a war does start. Saddam desperately attacking a countries so he feels like he did something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 and take over production in Iraq Who better to control the oil then the number one oil consumers? Rebuilding then leaving isnt the same as seizing control of oil supplies. A free market would be America dropping its protectionist economics policies, as well as the EU, and engaging in fair world trade. however much the US rebuilds iraq, existing foreign policy will continue to be the reason for hatred. israeli imperialism also plays a part to. The US isnt the bringer of pain in the middle east? your right there actually, europe has to share some blame to. Britain has a terrible imperial history in iraq which it certainly isnt proud of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 New poll on the front page, everyone go vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by PogoC7 P.S. To Say3. America is not the only bringer of pain to the Middle East in the past. Right? True, however they're the only country with an arrogant enough administration to continue that folly into the present. Originally posted by PogoC7 Containing Saddam to his boarders. So he does not decide to take his army to neighboring countries. The no-fly zone covers nearly 2/3 of Iraq. That's not containment, that's keeping the country down on its knees. Stop embarrassing yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ The no-fly zone covers nearly 2/3 of Iraq. That's not containment, that's keeping the country down on its knees. 2/3rds of Iraq are people Saddam wouldn't mind killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Presumably the inferrence being that that's why your planes patrol there, because you're so nice and helpful. So are these people in the 2/3 of Iraq Saddam wouldn't mind kiling the same ones who operate and maintain the surface-air missiles you say you're attacking? The NFZ covers 2/3 of Iraq geographically. Suggesting that this coincides exactly with the land area in which the (randomly chosen figure of) 2/3 of Iraqis Saddam wants to kill are currently living is really skirting the edge of reality a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 British planes fly in these zones well, and it costs several million pounds a day to maintain. and we cant stump up the same cost per YEAR for a decent fire sevice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 British planes fly in these zones well, and it costs several million pounds a day to maintain. and we cant stump up the same cost per YEAR for a decent fire sevice... I know this thread has become a monster and it's a lot to read, but if you check you'll see the difference is we know our planes shouldn't be there, much less bombing things. This is a completely different thread in itself but we actually do stump up the money for a decent fire service - the union is driving its members to make unreasonable, even greedy, demands. You don't go into a job knowing exactly what the pay package is and then start whining because it's not enough, particularly when that job has a 10% success rate for applicants and extremely competitive training. They earn a lot more than I do yet somehow I've never let anyone burn to death in protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 From the site above.. Nov 8, 20002, the UN unanimously approves resolution 1441 demanding that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional accounting of weapons of mass destruction and to allow inspectors to verify. 20002? Man, this is going to drag on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 If the French have anything to do with it. (see poll option number two) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by blike question or two Assuming we go to war (big assumption eh), if Iraq uses chemical/biological weapons against our troops, will you say that we were right? I could be wrong, but it seems like a lot of people against war believe that saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction. If we go to war, and he uses them, will this change your mind about the war? What if Al Quaeda is found to be directly connected to iraq somehow, will this change your mind? The reason Bush is pushing for our involvement with Iraq is national security. If either of the two aforementioned scenarios are found to be true, were we right in invading Iraq? High ranking defectors from Iraq have already stated that Saddam will use biological/chemical weapons against our soldiers, so I wouldn't be too suprised if they do have some stashed away.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone If the French have anything to do with it. (see poll option number two) "In recent days France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed at no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of President Chirac." Robin Cook. It`s a pretty good resignation speech. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,916359,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matzi Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 [...] We do not express the same impatience with the persis tent refusal of Israel to comply. What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops to action in Iraq. (Cooks Speech mentioned by radical edward[...] I share that suspicion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 1441 called for serious consequences if they didn't comply. War is a serious consequence, and they have not complied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted March 18, 2003 Author Share Posted March 18, 2003 What did you guys think of bush's speech last night? How many watched it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Well I'd hope everyone who voted on the poll watched it :/ He's absolutely right, the time for diplomacy is long over. If Iraq wanted a peaceful resolution of the conflict, they would have showed evidence of disarming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone 1441 called for serious consequences if they didn't comply. War is a serious consequence, and they have not complied. There is no They in Iraq, it's a dictatorship. Hussain has not complied, it's got nothing to do with Iraq as a country. The population has no say in the arbitrary decisions of the west to drop bombs on them. Bush Snr is hated in Iraq with a passion that exceeds the fear of Hussain. Bush Snr took away the one thing that oppressed people have to hold onto, he took away their hope. The US encouraged an uprising of the people at the end of the last war, to take back their country. When they did rise up and move against Hussain, the US decided that they were no longer interested and left them to face Hussains forces who slaughtered 30 thousand of them. So now, Bush Jnr wants to do it again? Against international law? The one country that the Iraqi people don't trust, wants to "liberate" them again? Oh, well that's just peachy, roll right in their boys and get stuck in. Obviously it's a well thought out plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 'They' refers to Saddam, his sons, and their inner circle. They all influence policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now