Why terrorism against the US & the West

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Chris 62
According to article 8 of the last Iraq resolution, Iraq shall take NO attacks on allied forces enforcing UN resolutions.

Iraq argues that the No-fly zones aren't part of UN resolutions.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Arrian
For the sake of argument, Chris, speaking of the UN...

If the UN did grow a backbone, what would happen when it moved to enforce resolutions w/regard to Israel? Removal of the settlements, for instance. The existence of the settlements is as much a slap in the face to the UN as Saddam's violations.

-Arrian

First, there is a difference between general assembly resolutions and security council resolutions.

Be that as it may, I favor their removal, as do many Israelis.
There is precedence for this, Israel forcebily removed settlers from Sanai after the treaty with Eygpt, and they would do it again.

The UN is a dead issue, the game has started again, but Saddam and Kofi don't realize Bush has changed the rules.

Expect Iraq to be invaded withen 30 days, tops.

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Arrian

A lot of it has to do with the overall political situation in the Middle East. The Arab nations are despotic, and thus people who would otherwise (under a democratic system) probably be active in political parties are driven underground and become part of more shadowy organizations, perhaps terrorist ones.

-Arrian

I agree with alot of what you are say. The arguments I have heard are that we are keeping alot of the despot regimes in power. Those same regimes that always point the blame at us and that are the root cause of alot of frustrations.

We [the West] should stop supporting the despots full stop IMHO.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Iraq argues that the No-fly zones aren't part of UN resolutions.

And that justifies live fire it what way?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Chris 62
And that justifies live fire it what way?

If the no fly zones aren't apart of UN resolutions then it doesn't qualify as a "material breach" under the terms of the Article 8 of the last UN resolution.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Actually, the Brits and French are virtually alone in taking the blame for shaping the middle east aas it is today.

It's not quite that simple. I reckon it would be hard for the Brits alone to push for the creation of the Israeli homeland though the UN without US help. The siutuation would not be this bad either if the US didn't decide to prop up Israel and petty dictators in the region.

[Chris 62]

The article says that armed forces acting in support of UN resolutions, which is what they are doing.
Ol Saddam,....er,..ah,..."Kofi" says this isn't so, and thus will bring on the war they hoped to stymie.

More fun and games, Bush has refused a private meeting with Germany over the new Nato nations, the fall-out of "Elect us, the USA sucks" that Sheroder pulled is just begining.

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Chris 62
It's the heart of the matter Dan.

9 times out of 10, the starter of this kind of thread fully intends it to be a lengthy condemnation of the United States, as they are of a Leftist or Socialist blend, so to speak, and live in a world where all the worlds problems can be squarely laid at the US door, irreguardless of the facts.

Just wanted to see what ideas were out there. And not believing everything the government spoon feeds you does not make you of a Leftist or Socialist blend or out to condemn the US.

Present an argument and it might be interesting.


Here one to think about, when someone like OBL accusses the West [Chiefly the US] of killing women and children, why not ask the questions when where. Have we done this if no then we can put his words down to rant, but id the answer is yes then we have to start asking ourselves some tough questions. Questions we may not want to hear.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Chris 62
The article says that armed forces acting in support of UN resolutions, which is what they are doing.

Which resolutions are they acting in support of?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Which resolutions are they acting in support of?

According to our UN ambassador, the original one from 1990.

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I think it's obvious the US got it wrong with Saddam, we trusted him once, and now we know better.

But what is surprissing is why all those "humanists" out there, that oppose the removeal of Saddam, don't lift a FINGER to help the people of Iraq, who have suffered under this clown for decades.
I'm sure someone will say the US didn't do anything either, but we have tried to, for over a decade, only to be blocked by our old "friends", the French, and even more unbelivably, the UN!

Actually the US and the UK doubled his credit to buy arms at the same time as he was gasing his own people and the Iranians. Mainly because he was seen as a friend who could punish & keep the Iranians at bay.

It is a sickening amount of hypocracy for countries to talk about attrocities commited by Sadamn when they were complicite in those very same crimes.

Hypocracy!

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Viking Berserk
who is the terrorists?
and why do you call them terrorists?

I don`t know who the terrorists are the only face we have been given is OBL and the info has gone from head of a loose organisation of nutters to direct responsibility. So appart from OBL I don`t know.

They are terrorists because they attack as their primary object civilian targets as policy.

[Arrian]

I agree with alot of what you are say. The arguments I have heard are that we are keeping alot of the despot regimes in power. Those same regimes that always point the blame at us and that are the root cause of alot of frustrations.

We [the West] should stop supporting the despots full stop IMHO.

I happen to agree w/regard to support of despots. I think that is a major mistake we have been making for a long time (the concept of "our sonufa*****").

But there are problems with actively opposing dictatorship as well. Everytime we try it, there are those who step up and argue for something called "engagement." Those who favor engagement argue that the best way to promote democracy is to trade with, provide aid to, and otherwise avoid alienating the subject country. I am not sure of the best path myself, though I have been leaning more and more against the idea of "engagement" as a method of spreading democracy.

-Arrian

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by BlackStone
Actually the US and the UK doubled his credit to buy arms at the same time as he was gasing his own people and the Iranians. Mainly because he was seen as a friend who could punish & keep the Iranians at bay.

Actually, your talking out your backside, he got 99% of all of his weapons from two sources, NEITHER of which is the US or Britain.
Let's give you some hints, one is filled with Cheese eating surrender monkees, the other likes Vodka and oderless gases.

It is a sickening amount of hypocracy for countries to talk about attrocities commited by Sadamn when they were complicite in those very same crimes.

See what I mean?
No matter what the facts, it's always the US's fault.
This is why I don't take you seriously.

Hypocracy!

Yes, you practice it well.

[Chris 62]

Here is a list of the weapon systems used by Iraq, you will note that not a SINGLE US or Brit system is included, only the nations I hinted at:

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraqiarmedforces.cfm

I guess ol Saddam pocketed those "credits", eh?