Stretched in Iraq, US may return to UN

[Sir Og]

Originally posted by Sava
edit: and say what you will about France and Germany, but they are our allies... if the Russians invaded us, France and Germany would stick with us. They would support us until the end. But most Eastern European countries would betray us in a second. They'd turncoat for the power who they thought would win such a war. It happened during WW2.. the Bulgarians... part of the "coalition of the willing in Iraq" helped the Nazis... and then when the Soviets came... they turncoated again and helped those murdering Stalinist ****s. So don't give me that New Europe BS... they are just pandering to the superpower of the hour. If Saddam Hussein were the leader of a regional superpower, they'd be supporting him.

Would you care to explain how is the Bulgarian cooperation with Nazi Germany worse than for example the French cooperation. Especially considerenig that Bulgaria is one of the two European countries that managed to save their Jewish population while the French were more than ready to deport their Jews.

As for Eastern European countries cooperating with the Soviets... they could do little since in Yalta both Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to leave those countries in the Soviet sphere of influence. [sarcasm]But they probably did this because they allready knew that Eastern Europeans would betray you in a second anyway.[/sarcasm]

As for the whole New Europe BS. I (and 80% of Bulgarians) was against our government joining the silly coalition even on paper, as we actually did.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Serb

WOW. Thanks for the link.
Are you sure that arrogant is proper word in this case?

Hang on...that site was being referened in threads here nearly every day during the first month of the war. Are you telling us you weren't aware of it?

[Ned]

In my opinion, the US will not seek a UN resolution so long as the price is UN control. What I think we will do is build up an Iraqi army to gradually replace US troops - Vietnamization II. I believe the new Centcom commander has annouced the formation of just such a force.

(BTW, What do you suppose the new Iraqi army will use, M16's or AK47's?)

[laurentius]

@ fez! Either you're damn good troll or a real, REAL mess. You just don't have any credibility anymore.

[Serb]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Hang on...that site was being referened in threads here nearly every day during the first month of the war. Are you telling us you weren't aware of it?

I wasn't. Are you sure you are talking about this site? perhaps you mean different site- iraqwar.ru?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, I think the UN would face less resistence in Iraq than the Americans. Not militarily, since that seems to be directed by the Ba'athists, but they'd get more cooperation from the rest of Iraq.

Obviously not only the Ba´athists but also islamistic Groups.
There was a group which confessed that they are behind some of the attacks on US-Soldiers and they said they would also attack Bluehelmets, if the UN would get involved in the country.

Of course it can´t be proven that the words of the islamists are true, but, as there are many weapons in Iraq it isn´t hard to imagine, that the islamistic groups have more than enough weapons to attack the US Troops and have actually done so.


Regarding the Dangers of sending Troops into Iraq I am the same opinion as others i.e. the UN should send Bluehelmets only, if they get real political power in Iraq. Otherwise Bush should use his Coalition of the willing to support his US-Troops

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ned
In my opinion, the US will not seek a UN resolution so long as the price is UN control. What I think we will do is build up an Iraqi army to gradually replace US troops - Vietnamization II. I believe the new Centcom commander has annouced the formation of just such a force.

This won't be a Vietnam 2 as there isn't a large force invading. Or one large enough to constitute this. Only small groups that hard to catch.

(BTW, What do you suppose the new Iraqi army will use, M16's or AK47's?)

I got an odd feeling M16s.. but on the other hand the Iraqi Army will be better off with AKs.

[Serb]

M16 sucks.
Have a nice day.

[Giancarlo]

Oh shut up.

The M-16 is the best rifle out there..

[Serb]

This is the best assault rifle, M-16 is nowhere near.

[BeBMan]

Re: Stretched in Iraq, US may return to UN

"Europeans are the most desirable because they are the most competent."

Good article

[Giancarlo]

That is a piece of ****. The M-16 whoops its @$$.

(M-4 [M-16 shortened])

[Serb]

Old rusty crap. Decades behind AN-94.

[Pekka]

m16 best rifle there is? Man, get your facts straight. It is a good weapon, but certainly not THE best. Or where do you base your feelings on? Experience?

[Giancarlo]

Old rusty crap? The AN-94 has problems with clogging and gets jammed often. How do I know? I fired one. The construction is cheap and crappy.

The M-16 and M-4 need more maintainance but are so much better... they are years ahead of the Russian crap. Only an idiot would say the AN-94 was better..