To Americans and the rest of the world...

[GePap]

The Iraq crisis of 2002-03 has only the most shallow, minimal similarities to the crisis of 1937-45. Comparisons are cheap, and as Q-cubed shows, usually based on mostly incorrect assumptions about similarities.

I find it amazing that so many decide to justify their actions based solely on the actions of others..does that not show a lack of personal responsibility?

Its like a man holding s bloody knife standing over the person who's throat he has just cut, yelling to the oncoming police "I am not guilty.. the guy behind me, who just massacred 20 people with a chainsaw, thats the guilty one!". The crimes of other never make you innocent.

People, like states, must take responsibility for their actions, because they, and no one else, made the decisions to act. No decisions is ever placed upon one..you always have choices, always. The question is how and why you justify the ones you made.

[Velociryx]

Couple of points that don't get talked about much, but ought to be brought to light:

1) No nation needs to get the permission of any other nation to use its military. Russia isn't standing in line at the UN to get permission to grind the Chechins (SP) to dust, China isn't waiting for UN approval to smother Tibet, and France isn't skulking outside the UNSC waiting for a green light in the Ivory Coast....UNSC approval for US action in Iraq is a courtesy...*not* a necessity.

2) We're not exactly rushing headlong into war, here. Counting from Saddam's material breech of UN Resolution 694(?), some 3,000 days have passed...more time than the USA was involved in combat in WWI, WWII, and Korea combined. That's got to set a record for being the slowest "headlong rushes to war" I have ever seen.

3) The USA does *not* make a habit of charging off with guns blazing for the least little offense.

If it did, we would have invaded someone when the Cole got a big hole blown in it, or when our Marine Barracks got blown to bits, or when two of our African embassies were destroyed.

Did we?

Nope.

But we're trigger happy cowboys.

I see.

-=Vel=-
(could it be that we're just less likely to take $hit than Euros? If so, that's prolly not a bad thing!)

[RGBVideo]

Chechins (SP)

Not an independent state.

Tibet

Wasn't. And it wasn't UN member at the time.
( I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing, hint me here if I'm completely off-track)

Ivory Coast

France is helping the current goverment against rebels.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Velociryx
If it did, we would have invaded someone when the Cole got a big hole blown in it

Who? Yemen? WTF were you in Yemen for?

Don't park yer vehicles in bad neighbourhoods.

You want to be israel's buddy, you take all the sh*t
that goes with the job.

[Sandman]

I usually consider it bad taste to resurrect a dying thread to continue a personal debate, but since it's been resurrected by somebody else...

1.) The Us military is committed to attacking military targets and minimalizing the impact on the civilian population.

What about dual-use facilities like bridges and power plants? Furthermore, the 'shock and awe' cruise missile blitz is clearly intended to intimidate the Iraqi population as a whole. Effective intimidation requires that civilians be killed.

2.) The Us is already stockpiling food and relief material to minimize the impact on the civilian population

Enough food for 22 million people? Or enough food so that it looks like the US cares?

3.) By no estimate or projection that I have seen would any sizable part of the population become casualties, but just in case the US is stockpiling medical supplies and organizing Doctors and Nurses to help minimize the impact to the Civilian population.

The UN is estimating between 100000 and 500000. Again, enough medical supplies to have an effect or enough to look good?

4.) Enforcement of UN resolutions are not "naked aggression" under any definition I know of.

The resolution is far too vague to give a casus belli. Furthermore, this US administration is filled with people who despise the UN. Have they suddenly had a change of heart?

5.) Iraqi infrastructure will not only be rebuilt but will be improved as the country gets to enjoy the fruit of their oil revenue instead of it being pumped into presidential palaces, swiss bank accounts, financing of terrorism, and WMD

How many state-owned Iraqi companies will be set up? How many juicy contracts will be dished out to Western corporations without competitive tender? How much of the Iraqi oil will go towards paying for the occupation?

6.) Depleted Uranium is just that...depleted.

And incredibly toxic. And it never goes away.

7.) The Iraqi army is out classed. When they surrender we will cloth them, feed them, give them shelter, and access to a variety of services from religious to relief.

It is impossible to surrender to missiles, planes and helicopters.

1.) Saddam comes clean now. Not tommorrow and not in parts.

Whatever Saddam does he will be accused of playing games. Logically, there is nothing whatsoever he can do.

[PLATO]

You want to be israel's buddy, you take all the sh*t

Sad, but true.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Russia isn't standing in line at the UN to get permission to grind the Chechins (SP) to dust, China isn't waiting for UN approval to smother Tibet,...

Bad examples throughout. No one needs permission to defend his own territory. Are you now suggesting Mid-East is American territory?

With such an attitude, no wonder they are trying to level your architecture.

[Velociryx]

Comrade, I couldn't agree more. Every nation has the right to defend themselves, their own territory, and their own interests.

It's in YOUR best interest for America to keep paying for Saddam's continued "containment" and so it's no surprise you're not in a big hurry to see that change.

That's not in our best interest though, and it's our money, and our boys on the line....not yours.

Now, kindly step aside....

-=Vel=-

[puglover]

PrinceBimz: Very good. Excellent point.

[gunkulator]

It's in YOUR best interest for America to keep paying for Saddam's continued "containment" and so it's no surprise you're not in a big hurry to see that change

You are correct. The Euros who for years chided the US for propping up tinpot dictators now find themselves at the opposite end of their own criticism. All of sudden when its THEIR interests at stake then, well, maybe ol' Saddam's not such a bad guy afterall. Here ya go Mr. Hussein, let's help you build some more chemical plants...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by gunkulator
It's in YOUR best interest for America to keep paying for Saddam's continued "containment" and so it's no surprise you're not in a big hurry to see that change

You are correct. The Euros who for years chided the US for propping up tinpot dictators now find themselves at the opposite end of their own criticism. All of sudden when its THEIR interests at stake then, well, maybe ol' Saddam's not such a bad guy afterall. Here ya go Mr. Hussein, let's help you build some more chemical plants...

Even if you can make that comparison hold you seem to be forgetting that unlike many of the US' tinpot dictators, the Europeans didn't put Saddam in power by overthrowing a democratically elected government first.

[gunkulator]

the Europeans didn't put Saddam in power

Oh, so that makes it OK then? Besides the post-Cold War world is a different place now. Shall I dredge up all the colonial gov'ts that Europe has installed?

[Dauphin]

You should focus on the important part of the sentence.

by overthrowing a democratically elected government first



Doesn't make it right, but we are making comparisons, not absolutes, no?.

[SlowwHand]

Re: To Americans and the rest of the world...

Originally posted by PrinceBimz
Go back to Pearl Harbor...read a book or watch a movie. Remember, back then the US were attempting negociations with Japan. The book or movie will show you the rest. I take it many already know what happened but sometimes I think they forget. If you are one of those who forgot, go back and read or watch.

"The US are the bad guys?"

Now go back just a little to the recent 9/11. Where were you during that day? What were you doing? How did you feel when you found out what had happened?Have you lost any loved ones in that attack?

"The US are the bad guys??"

Now why did they do it? What were they trying to proove by killing thousands of innocent people? I mean we are talking about airliners loaded with men, women and children citizens. We are talking about buildings where thousands of citizens work everyday. A landmark, a major city. Now look at all of the children left without parents. Or wives without husbands.

"The US are the bad guys???"

So why don't the terrorists target military facilities like the US attempts to do (and does fairly well) in last Gulf War? They had preferred to attack unarmed civilians on airliners. Do the terrorist care about human life?

"Now tell me, are the US still bad guys????"

They come on our land and kill thousands of our innocent unarmed people. Then they say we should not attack. We are the ones who need to negociate? Well you know what? We are going to attack. So next time, before claiming the US are evil and we are the bad guys, read this again. At last lets gets some support here!

Bravo! Bravo! Encore!

[Velociryx]

Among the biggest tactical mistakes of the modern era have been these:

* Germany's decision to make use of unrestricted sub warfare

* Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor

* Russia's refusal to accept economic aid in return for the release of Eastern European nations

All three of these things had one common factor. They all sorely underestimated American resolve.

I can't predict the future, and I'm not a betting man, but if I was, my money would be on the notion that this war is gonna happen.

-=Vel=-