Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02-12-2010, 06:03 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
Oh...this was about Halabja?? you think it takes the United States THIRTY YEARS to decide to make ammends...what did they do Nathan? discuss in congress for three decades whether that gassing was an act of Genocide or not??

pull the other leg! If they cared about what happened in 1988 they would have acted in 1988!!
Ummmm, did you forget your history lessons? We did attack Saddam Hussein in 1990. Not 30 years after the event, only 2 years after, but we made the mistake of pulling out of the country too soon before we had killed Saddam.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-12-2010, 06:06 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
The thing that said he was a threat to the world, was the United Nations, because he wouldnt comply with international law.

So him breaking International Law, makes him a threat to the world...but YOU breaking International Law doesnt matter Ask yourself why Saddam was tried by his own people...and not in any proper independant court...not even your own.

See when you break the law, to punish a law breaker...you dont gain anything in a moral sense. Your no fool. I know you understand what I mean.

btw...I also know you hate the UN...but always neglect to keep in mind who was a big part of setting it up and WHY they set it up. To answer....it was The United States of America, to stop any Country from acting in a Unilateral way.

Tell me how Iraq matches up with that ideology Nathan?
Well, I don't agree with everything the US does and forming the UN is pretty high up on the list of our greatest mistakes.

Giving non-democratic nations run by dictators, with no concept of human rights, the same equal voice as democratic free nations is the stupidest thing we could have ever done.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-12-2010, 06:17 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,594
Default

I don't have a problem with them taking Saddam and his two evil spawns out. I wish they could have gotten Bin Laden first because I think that would have been more effective in the long run on many more levels.

I understand now why Bush Sr. did not take him out at the time it would have seemed perfect to do so. It wasn't just a matter of taking Saddam out. They obviously thought about the domino effect that action would have on that part of the world and on us.

I just question the order in which things were done and how much thought was given to what was going to happen AFTER we took Saddam out and what that would mean for us militarily long-term.

And now there's Iran (not to mention that little nut in North Korea).
__________________

Last edited by Bonnie; 02-12-2010 at 06:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-12-2010, 06:24 PM
TexasRN's Avatar
TexasRN TexasRN is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texan living in NC
Posts: 4,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
My question is WHY Iraq, and WHY at that time. You act as if Saddam had just done something increadibly mean...He had been doing things like gassing his people for MORE THEN THIRTY YEARS...did it not matter to you in 1988?? Evidently not.

Whilst we are on the subject...how many dictators do you think are in the world? there are many...who do damage to their own and others...but I dont see you rushing to help them all.

And Finally...you didnt go to war on the premise of Regieme Change due to Tyrany. You went to war on the premise of Regieme Change due to accusations of the supposed ability to do EXACTLY what I stated above.

So you tell me Amy...on the basis of what you have read...is the following true or not.

Saddam had Weapons of Mass Distruction either biological or Nuclear, that he could arm, launch, and extend as far as Continental America itself, within an hour of deciding he wished to attack.

If the answer is NO...then the whole reason for going to war was completely and utterly WRONG.

Further more...had you been taking notice of the Iraq Enquiry, you would have known that Bush and Blair met about Regieme Change in Iraq more then a year before invading. probably before UN Inspectors were even looking for weapons...and our Armed Forces were ordered to support yours, we were pledged more then a year before the invasion, to actively support you, the prime minster did that without consulting parliament, or his own Cabinet, without informing the Ministry of Defence...infact, they were the last to know, that they were going to be forced to help...no wonder they were so unprepared...apparently too much pre-planning would have drawn too much attention....if this was innocent, then why hide your light under a bushell for a year whilst you make secret pacts against other countries?? I thought the United States disliked Dictators?? what about Tony Blair...did it not cross their minds as bizzare that he made this decision completely on his own?? So much for democrasy....the ends do not justify the means. Tony Blair had no right to make any comment, let alone committment...do you want me to post what those who have spoken under oath have said transpired between Bush and Blair...because it sounds absolutely sordid...secret little meetings...its shameful Amy, SHAMEFUL
Dave, I may just smack you upside your head for defending Saddam's right to have a nuclear program. Do you really think it's ok? Really? I can't help if you don't like that your government doesn't ask YOUR permission to do what needs to be done. I don't feel that I need to know every detail of our secret intelligence. I know Saddam was a threat to our safety. Therefore, he needed to be taken out.

I do believe Saddam had weapons he could use to harm Americans. So the answer to your huge question is YES. So there. Chemical, nuclear, biological weapons can be used by people, they don't all require launching. This is a topic that I will fight you over, Dave. You know there are times that your attitude against the American govt makes me angry and this is one of them.


~Amy
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-12-2010, 06:33 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Well, I don't agree with everything the US does and forming the UN is pretty high up on the list of our greatest mistakes.

Giving non-democratic nations run by dictators, with no concept of human rights, the same equal voice as democratic free nations is the stupidest thing we could have ever done.
People who are not given a "voice" feel powerless and in turn usually resort to foolhardy actions. At least this way, they can't use the excuse of being "left out", and if/when they do break the rules, it's easier for the rest to band together (w/o looking like the big bad bullies) to bring them in line.....at least that's how it should work.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-12-2010, 06:34 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Ummmm, did you forget your history lessons? We did attack Saddam Hussein in 1990. Not 30 years after the event, only 2 years after, but we made the mistake of pulling out of the country too soon before we had killed Saddam.
ohh...I forgot about that
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-12-2010, 06:41 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Well, I don't agree with everything the US does and forming the UN is pretty high up on the list of our greatest mistakes.

Giving non-democratic nations run by dictators, with no concept of human rights, the same equal voice as democratic free nations is the stupidest thing we could have ever done.
they dont have an equal voice.

Thats why there is something called a "Security Council" the major powers, and the major allies of the Second World War have jurisdiction OVER those dictators. The United Nations is more about representation, then equality.

The United States has a Seat on the Security Council, its the leading super-power of the day, and although they came in late to the war, they did smush the Japanese

The United Kingdom has a Seat on the Security Council, it was the part of Europe that led the attacks against the Germans

France has a Seat on the Security Council...mainly I think in honour of le Resistance...because I dont see any other good reason for them to have a seat do you

But then you have the issues...see during the 1940s the Americans and the British were on the same side as other countries which we now...have reservations about.

The Peoples Republic of China has a seat as the allied force in the Pacific

Russia has a seat also.

Then there are various other security type councils where some states are allowed the voice for a few months on a rotational basis but those dont matter...because only the permanent members of the Security Council have the International Veto...thats what you got from France.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-12-2010, 06:50 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
People who are not given a "voice" feel powerless and in turn usually resort to foolhardy actions. At least this way, they can't use the excuse of being "left out", and if/when they do break the rules, it's easier for the rest to band together (w/o looking like the big bad bullies) to bring them in line.....at least that's how it should work.
indeed. Its not a perfect system...because the one thing it cant do properly is enforce.

Thats why the United Nations is a think tank rather then a Government...it can make laws...but if someone breaks it...like Iraq...all it can do really is lay afew sanctions in terms of trade...and if someone like The U.S breaks it...all it can really do is give them a verbal bollocking...it cant stop anyone from doing anything...its more like a world opinion poll on matters beyond a single countries jurisdiction...it is also a way for fractions to work in a manner other states cant condemn them for...like...supposing the UN had voted yes to the war...then those who voted no...couldnt condemn the US because the majority of the world supported them.

People get at France because they vetoed...but they vetoed because of the British, not because of the Americans...and neither the Americans nor the British violated their own set of laws. They could argue that the UN never got the chance to vote, ego, the jury was just permanently out...the UN neither said yes nor no, ergo it abstained.

but if France had not have vetoed...the world would either have said no, which wouldnt have stopped the powers that be anyway..OR worse...Either Russia or China would have used their veto...I mean...noone likes france anyway...so we just tut and shake our heads at them...but if Russia or China had vetoed the US...then it would look like a Cold War style slight...and Russia certainly WOULD have done so because they were getting pissy about the U.S plans to expand Starwars...even though it had nowt to do with them or their land at all...they would have done it just to show they really were going to be anti-american for the hell of it.

Like I said...it was a Mistake by Bush...but I believe his only Foreign Policy mistake...and at least it had a good outcome...with the occasions of his terms of office, I think people should cut him some slack personally
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-12-2010, 06:54 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,594
Default

9/11 was a legitimate cause to take action against those who harmed us. I do think Saddam was a threat (any loose cannon is); I just don't know if he was that immediate a threat to divert from going all out to get Bin Laden first.

I do think Bush used it as an opportunity for us to get a toe-hold in that part of the world. It would give us access to a region where we obviously have interest due to the oil, but also give us a reason to set up a base of military operations, again for obvious reasons. What better way to keep an eye on your enemies than to be in their backyard.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-12-2010, 06:58 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasRN View Post
Dave, I may just smack you upside your head for defending Saddam's right to have a nuclear program. Do you really think it's ok? Really? I can't help if you don't like that your government doesn't ask YOUR permission to do what needs to be done. I don't feel that I need to know every detail of our secret intelligence. I know Saddam was a threat to our safety. Therefore, he needed to be taken out.

I do believe Saddam had weapons he could use to harm Americans. So the answer to your huge question is YES. So there. Chemical, nuclear, biological weapons can be used by people, they don't all require launching. This is a topic that I will fight you over, Dave. You know there are times that your attitude against the American govt makes me angry and this is one of them.


~Amy
Well...I think its dangerous for any state to tell another state what it can and can not do within its own boarders...its called State Soverignty...You wouldnt take kindly if some other country told your country what you could and could not do on your land.

The US has no jurisdiction outside of its own boarders...except in a realm or territory....Noone stopped you creating Nuclear weapons...its a difficult subject, and one I would go about in a different way.

No, I do not think that Iran should be allowed to create Nuclear Bombs...but within their own boarder they do have lawful jurisdiction...so if I was a Government fearful of Iran...I would use old fashioned methods....I might do what Israel does...not declaire war...but simply take out the nuclear institutions as they are developing. Dropping a bomb on one low manned facility probably wont lead to direct warfare on a huge scale.

Or I would support State Sponcered Assasinations. I would simply fund a secret service opp to ensure regime change takes place Salvador Allende style (Your Government used to do that to stop the spread of Communism getting to close) you dont even need to endanger your own troops...there will be millitant wings in Iran that would do it for you if funded and supported...if they fail it just looks like a coup...if they are successful you have a homegrown allied force...who will be your friends...you dont then need to worry about them with nukes do you

Do you understand what I am saying
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.