|
Explain to me, why do Iraqis want US out of Iraq? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I think the US should back up to the Kuwaiti line and get the out of Iraq for good. |
way too easy...but if the legitamate government asked us to, we would. |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
Everytime they appoint a new leader he gets shot. They will keep getting shot till the one shooting them is happy with one they "appointed". It's rediculous. Im with smoke though-
They should put the word out and pamplets- Be out of town in 2 weeks. Sorry you'll have to live in the desert for 1-2 weeks but get out of town. Anyone left in the towns gets swept in the "net" of "liberation".
Pack up - Leave
Thanks Bush - Idiot. |
|
|
| DjSway |
| quote: | Originally posted by xKaoSx
Everytime they appoint a new leader he gets shot. They will keep getting shot till the one shooting them is happy with one they "appointed". It's rediculous. Im with smoke though-
They should put the word out and pamplets- Be out of town in 2 weeks. Sorry you'll have to live in the desert for 1-2 weeks but get out of town. Anyone left in the towns gets swept in the "net" of "liberation".
Pack up - Leave
Thanks Bush - Idiot. |
HAHA lol, good one!
Funny how one man can change the life of millions.
No really it would be cool if we could have all of our troops pull out and let them handle their own affair, Irak would become a amusement park for civil warfare, a religious battle ground and a ethnic killing field. :haha: |
|
|
| igottaknow |
 |
|
|
| DjSway |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
|
Heil Bush! Heil Bush! Please let me know where I can sign up for the Gestapo!:toothless |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
I used to be one of those idealists who believed in helping the poor Zimbabweans, Myanmar(Burmese), much of the Middle East and all the other countries with decripit governments but then came Iraq and I realized screw all of that, I became a realist and realized that humanity is too ty to ever give two s about each other, so I joined the club. Take care of America and leave other nations to run their countries the way they deem fit as far as I am concerned.
A classic example of my point is Darfur in the Sudan, why is the U.N. not in there when they know what is going on, heaven forbid America was to send troops, bloody imperialists. Thankfully we will never set foot on that part of Africa again with troops, ehehm Somalia anyone. Meanwhile the U.N. will twiddle their thumbs while Africans are slaughtered in their own country by Arab Militias, that is human reality today. |
What exactly do you think the UN is?!?!
Are you refering to the great country UNia with its huge army?
No!
The UN is merely a collection of states who have agreed to abide by certain rules. It has no army!!!! It is not a sovereign state with an army!!!!
You say America will refuse to send troops to Africa (Sudan) again and then accuse the UN of standing there while everything happens!
America = UN!
For security council action, the US, UK, France, China, Russia all have to agree to it. They can all veto. You say America will refuse...
You have to realise that the UN cannot do anything on its own - it is no supranational entity like the EU. It can only act when it has actors (states) to do the work for it. Unfortunately, the only armies capable of doing anything of worth in the world (ie having the ability/size/strength to succeed) are America (and maybe Russia and China but not sure and dont really think they give two s about places like the Sudan) and if America is not willing to become involved in action, then there is no one else who can! And then America has the nerve to blame the UN for standing there and doing nothing!!!! LOL!!!!
THE UNITED NATIONS IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN A MILITARY POWER - IT HAS NO ARMY!!!!!!!!!
(This is why, I am lead to believe, that the EU is constructing its own military capability, altho they would most likely be as reluctant as the US on most conflicts) |
|
|
| Massive84 |
My guess george hoped that this "mission" would succeed, and everyone in Iraq would love and embrace USA.
Because lets face this, how many nations are Pro USA in the middle east? not many, if Bush succeeded i think iraq woulda turn Pro USA and that would look very good for the upcoming elections.
But IMO Bush ed it up, to many people dieng from both sides, there is no end really, the WMD arn't found, + i have not even 1 clue what will happen with Saddam now, i havn't seen anything about him since he got captured.
And Smokeape
Give Iraq a proper army and will see who will dress up as a woman :rolleyes: |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
I used to be one of those idealists who believed in helping the poor Zimbabweans, Myanmar(Burmese), much of the Middle East and all the other countries with decripit governments but then came Iraq and I realized screw all of that, I became a realist and realized that humanity is too ty to ever give two s about each other, so I joined the club. |
Well, then something good *did* come out of the Iraq war ;) |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjSway
Too bad the election isn't until November. :rolleyes:
I'm against the US being in Iraq, maybe Afghanistan since that osama was hiding there. But Iraq? What's next EuroDisney? |
You could always impeach him :D But since it's too close to the election in November it's not really worth it :( |
|
|
| Mister_Michel |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
What exactly do you think the UN is?!?!
Are you refering to the great country UNia with its huge army?
No!
The UN is merely a collection of states who have agreed to abide by certain rules. It has no army!!!! It is not a sovereign state with an army!!!!
You say America will refuse to send troops to Africa (Sudan) again and then accuse the UN of standing there while everything happens!
America = UN!
For security council action, the US, UK, France, China, Russia all have to agree to it. They can all veto. You say America will refuse...
You have to realise that the UN cannot do anything on its own - it is no supranational entity like the EU. It can only act when it has actors (states) to do the work for it. Unfortunately, the only armies capable of doing anything of worth in the world (ie having the ability/size/strength to succeed) are America (and maybe Russia and China but not sure and dont really think they give two s about places like the Sudan) and if America is not willing to become involved in action, then there is no one else who can! And then America has the nerve to blame the UN for standing there and doing nothing!!!! LOL!!!!
THE UNITED NATIONS IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN A MILITARY POWER - IT HAS NO ARMY!!!!!!!!!
(This is why, I am lead to believe, that the EU is constructing its own military capability, altho they would most likely be as reluctant as the US on most conflicts) |
Well actually Guy Verhofstad started about 2 years ago with the proposal to create a European military force, I believe that proposal is now in further stages but I'm not sure. |
|
|
| rupert |
| quote: | | A classic example of my point is Darfur in the Sudan, why is the U.N. not in there when they know what is going on, heaven forbid America was to send troops, bloody imperialists. Thankfully we will never set foot on that part of Africa again with troops, ehehm Somalia anyone. Meanwhile the U.N. will twiddle their thumbs while Africans are slaughtered in their own country by Arab Militias, that is human reality today. |
How very trite. The UNHCR is providing aid to the refugees of Darfur even as we speak.
The UN is required under the Charter to respect state sovereignty so it is only in rare circumstances that it can go into a country without the consent of the government of that state. And as was pointed out before the UN has no army and zero capacity to act unilaterally.
Despite its weakness and structural inefficiencies the UN and its institutions are the best hope that the weak have. But even the limited amount of good the UN does is too much for your government. To quote one of US administration officials after the Iraq war. "I hope when Iraq falls so does the UN". The UN has been starved of funds by the USA for years because the right wingers, (there are no moderates running the USA) see it as an independant power against US hegemony.
As for Iraq, I think the Iraqi sentiment can be summed up as "thanks for getting rid of Saddam, now off" But that isnt going to happen. The USA is there to stay. Chalmers Johnson an eminent US historian of the old school; a real conservative has noted that the US is building 14 bases in Iraq. The USA wants to stabilize the situation so it can reduce the troop numbers but there is no intention of pulling out entirely.
The only way the USA is going to leave is because the Iraqis are going to force the USA to leave. It takes shear unimaginable stupidity of the highest calibre to erode the good will which should exist in Iraq right now towards the USA. Saddam and his cronies were largely despised by the vast majority of the population and yet now there are daily attacks against the US and its puppets. No Iraqi respects the US imposed stooges in power now and no Iraqi expects anything will change with the handover. A large segment of the population or at least those that count, the guys with guns and bombs view them rightly as US puppets.
The USA never learns any lessons. It will lose the Iraq war with the US pulling out its embassy staff in helicopters just like in Saigon. Far from stabilizing the Middle East, the Iraq war wont protect american oil interests and it wont protect Israel. The parallels between US action in Fallujah and Israeli action in the West Bank are plainly obvious to any arab. So when the Iraqis kick out the americans they are going to start to plan on helping their brothers in Palestine. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
What exactly do you think the UN is?!?!
Are you refering to the great country UNia with its huge army?
No!
The UN is merely a collection of states who have agreed to abide by certain rules. It has no army!!!! It is not a sovereign state with an army!!!!
You say America will refuse to send troops to Africa (Sudan) again and then accuse the UN of standing there while everything happens!
America = UN!
For security council action, the US, UK, France, China, Russia all have to agree to it. They can all veto. You say America will refuse...
You have to realise that the UN cannot do anything on its own - it is no supranational entity like the EU. It can only act when it has actors (states) to do the work for it. Unfortunately, the only armies capable of doing anything of worth in the world (ie having the ability/size/strength to succeed) are America (and maybe Russia and China but not sure and dont really think they give two s about places like the Sudan) and if America is not willing to become involved in action, then there is no one else who can! And then America has the nerve to blame the UN for standing there and doing nothing!!!! LOL!!!!
THE UNITED NATIONS IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN A MILITARY POWER - IT HAS NO ARMY!!!!!!!!!
(This is why, I am lead to believe, that the EU is constructing its own military capability, altho they would most likely be as reluctant as the US on most conflicts) |
You fail to understand my sentiments I know what the U.N. is and was referencing the fact that the world will sit by watch the events unfold in Sudan and offer up the usual speeches. This is not about America vis a vis the U.N. but the member states coming together to take concrete action to stop these Arab militias. Naturally of course this will not happen promptly, because as you yourself mention the likes of Russia, and China would do nothing to help anyway.
America should not help, because we are imperialists who need to stay out of the business of other countries and not tell people what to do in their countries, sounds familiar. So other U.N member states should then solve the problems in Sudan, where are they, George, LOL :rolleyes: The U.S. got involved in Haiti and Aristide had the audacity to claim he was kidnapped by American forces and taken out of Haiti by force, do you doubt his claims, I wonder. What you hear in my commentary is an American who is simply disgusted with people who criticize America for acting and for not acting as well, many sit on the sidelines and watch while criticizing America at every opportunity. I therefore don't give a damn anymore and only have an interest in helping America domestically. I use to be a forward thinker but no longer in today's world and that was the essence of my post. |
|
|
|
|
