Community Forums > General Chat
war in iraq
manunited4eva22:
John Stewart's job is to sound funny, and he does a good job of it. His job is not to report the news a serious by any means. Now for some reason if someone in a debate was being a smartass and acting like I was supposed to take that attitude as sreious facts, would I want too? Would you want too?
Ocarina Blue:
Quote
That is true, but is the UN a Pacifist? I believe it is not. It either athorises action, or completely ignores it. You very own examples prove that. The UN was built to be the world police. It's primary mission included preventing another world war and to settle new or continuing conflicts. Thankfully it has keeped another World War from erupting, but has failed to even address the second point with any true resolve.
--- End quote ---
Aside from the issue of the sanctions in Iraq, which could be easily fixed without war, there was no conflict.
Quote
The US after taking control, tried to get the sanctions lifted immediatly only to be stone walled by France and Russia. Why?
--- End quote ---
I don't know why, I am not a representitive of France or Russia at all. The USA could have tried to lift the sanctions without invading anyway.
Quote
Tibet happened 50 years ago when China and US relations were at an all-time-low. Even if the UN authorised war to kick China out, who would go in? Not the US, not Britian. Why? No will to do so and authorising action against China at the time would have caused world war 3. But even now nothing is done. The UN has ignored pleas from the leaders of Tibet. Why? It is the price of world peace. Until some one thinks of a way around this problem, the status quo on this issue stays.
--- End quote ---
Good point, I was wrong there.
Quote
Both been Civil Wars is outside of UN power interms of authorising miltary action, but does allow sending in of peace keepers. It is clearly a UN matter. The US and allies has not intention or right or obligation to do anything about it until they are attacked themselfs.
--- End quote ---
Here is where I failed to point out my statement. Instead of an attack on the USA, this more an attack on how much the UN and world care about other countries. If the USA govenment really cared about the people in Iraq, would they not at least raise the issue of these countries within the UN?
Quote
The differences is that those foregin intrests ask asked for the US's help and China before the Communist moved in was like France, always invaded.
--- End quote ---
But no country could afford to upset the USA in a refusal. The huge capitalist corparations of the USA do the same things economicly (eg McDonalds) anyway, and I forgot to add about the USA taking chunks of Mexaco a while ago. Also, now is alot different to 300 years ago. It was practised by many countries, and was generaly accepted by the people of those countries then, but few people would stand for something like that now. China managed to get around this through profuse use of propaganda, but that cannot be done so easily now due to the existance of so many international information sources (Television, the internet etc). So naturaly, large countries use their influence to somethin like the same effect.
Matrix:
I'm still quite upset at this war for happening. It was done for all the wrong reasons. Not a word of how "We put this evil bastard in power, so maybe should fix our mistake." Instead, we get this manufactored threat of "weapons of mass destruction." Have they even found any of these weapons yet? If stuff like that is so important, then North Korea should be taken out. We know they have nukes, so arn't they the biggest threat? Oh, wait, they're damn poor, and have nothing of value.
Also, anyone who doesn't think oil plays a factor, needs to have their head exaimined. The oil wells were the first thing the US forces ran off to save.
*sigh*
Oh well. What's done is done. I'm going to keep a very close eye on how the US "rebuilds" Iraq, though. We all should. I'm worried Iraq will go the way of Afganistan.
oohhboy:
Quote
Aside from the issue of the sanctions in Iraq, which could be easily fixed without war, there was no conflict.
--- End quote ---
I am confused by thsi statment, can you clearify?
Quote
I don't know why, I am not a representitive of France or Russia at all. The USA could have tried to lift the sanctions without invading anyway.
--- End quote ---
The sanctions were there to prevent Saddam from getting WMDs. But the U.S. needs them lifted so they can bring in technologies that were formerly banned under the UN sanctions so they can rebuild Iraq. The reason for invading Iraq was not to lift the sanctions, but to remove Saddam from power. With Saddam gone, continuing sanctions are not neededas it is hindering the rebuilding effort. Also it frees up the oil in Iraq so that it can be sold freely on the open market to rebuild Iraq. But I blieve the immedite lifting of sanctions may threaten France and Russias oil contracts even more than now.
Quote
Here is where I failed to point out my statement. Instead of an attack on the USA, this more an attack on how much the UN and world care about other countries. If the USA govenment really cared about the people in Iraq, would they not at least raise the issue of these countries within the UN?
--- End quote ---
The US did so agressively for 6 months before the war because there was political will to do so, even if is wasn't directly related to U.S. agenda. Clinton was happy with the Status quo so nothing happened. Again the price of peace. Clinton had undirectly given up on the Iraqi civilians so that he did not have to go to war. I has already shown that Saddam was not willing to step down, even with the threat of war, so any other measures would have been hopeless.
Quote
But no country could afford to upset the USA in a refusal. The huge capitalist corparations of the USA do the same things economicly (eg McDonalds) anyway, and I forgot to add about the USA taking chunks of Mexaco a while ago. Also, now is alot different to 300 years ago. It was practised by many countries, and was generaly accepted by the people of those countries then, but few people would stand for something like that now. China managed to get around this through profuse use of propaganda, but that cannot be done so easily now due to the existance of so many international information sources (Television, the internet etc). So naturaly, large countries use their influence to somethin like the same effect.
--- End quote ---
Going back to the original statment, Saudi Arabia had requested a U,S, presence to deter attak on them from Iraq especially after the first Gulf War. As for economicaly challenging China to release Tibet, it would be economic suicide. China is the U.S. largest maker of all the stuff that the U.S. themself could not produce econoically at thier current wage rate. Labour is dirt cheap in China. The U.S has lots of money to hire that labour. but cutting them off would hurt the US just as much as it would hurt China. It would be impossible for the U.S. to maintian thier current life style. No american is willing to give up thier living standards over Tibet. Basicly they are econoimcaly interdependant on each other now. you could go to Mexico, but then they don't have the amount of industrialisation that China has. Simply no matter how you go about it, the cost to victory is so high that it would turn to defeat.
Quote
I'm still quite upset at this war for happening. It was done for all the wrong reasons. Not a word of how "We put this evil bastard in power, so maybe should fix our mistake." Instead, we get this manufactored threat of "weapons of mass destruction." Have they even found any of these weapons yet? If stuff like that is so important, then North Korea should be taken out. We know they have nukes, so arn't they the biggest threat? Oh, wait, they're damn poor, and have nothing of value.
--- End quote ---
North Korea is a totally new level of threat to any country. Lets say that US has already got all the units they need to move in. What happens if N.K. was to nuke Bejin? China would quickly blame the U.S. for letting it happen and to the chinese, it would look like the U.S. had dropped the nuke themselfs. Quickly everything headeds off to WW3. The first time the U.S. went in they had UN approval. But before victory could be claimed, China moved in with 2 million troops, restablishing the stalemate which has now lead to the formation of th DMZ you see today. Russia had supported N.K, but only in equipment, not troops. If the UN forces were to continue fighting the chinese, if victory was to be had, the price was too high. casulties on both sides would have numbered in a million in total, if it ever ended.
nolimit19:
i ahve been studying a lot about the psychology of war. i have taken a couple classes and its interesting to look at past wars and the effects after it. i think whats done is done, but i dont think we should have anymore wars that are unprovoked. i dont have mush faith in the future of things anyways. i think that bush shouldnt get reelected....the thing was that clinton should have invaded when they first broke the resolutions....but the bush invasion looks ill timed. but overall, the people in iraq have only to gain from the war. i think that the us needs to get out asap. i mean they will help set up a new government, but they need to stay out of involvement as much as possible.
"Also, anyone who doesn't think oil plays a factor, needs to have their head exaimined. The oil wells were the first thing the US forces ran off to save."
also this is not as true as everyone says....america gets most of its oil domestically, and the oil that it does import is mostly from the western hemisphere(canada, mexico, and venezuela). the u.s. gets about 20 percent of its *imported* oil from the middle east. the whole thing that the war in iraq was about oil is blown out of proportion.....look at the first gulf war....guess how much oil the us got from kuwait before and after the war....none that i am aware of. i read an article in the la times a couple weeks ago, and according to that article niether iraq or kuwait have never shipped oil to the us on a regualr basis. the reason they secured the oil fields is because it was americas war. the us takes it upon themselves to fix up the country that they destroy in the wars. so sooner or later hte us would have either had to: a) put out the fires......or b) secure the oil fields before they were set ablaze. i am by no means a huge bush supporter or a pro war fanatic, but i think stating that the war was about oil is somewhat misleading....not to mention i dont see how a war in iraq had any effect on how much oil cost. i really hope bush is not re-elected, and i never thought i would say it, but i am almost to the point where i wish *god forgive me* gore was elected.....*runs in shame*