|
its official....no WMDs in Iraq (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| VERTiG0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
a bunch of stuff |
Is it just me, or does that second quote in your sig, Cyrus King, suggest that you support terrorism against the US?
Because if so, you are a sick, sick man.
If not, then :D |
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Time didnt help Vietnam. :eek: |
and as a further extension China is not exactly democratic now is it? Yet they are still somehow contributing towards the global economy right? Just because something is non democratic does not mean it's the devil and will destabilize the entire world. |
|
|
| Xavier Moriarty |
| quote: | Originally posted by Endlesswave
and as a further extension China is not exactly democratic now is it? Yet they are still somehow contributing towards the global economy right? Just because something is non democratic does not mean it's the devil and will destabilize the entire world. |
exactly |
|
|
| Endlesswave |
| quote: | Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty
exactly |
:) |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
It's called politics my friend.
Bush explained the ~real~ reason (regional stability) to the leaders when he was trying to get support (France/Russia didn't care because they were already ignoring the embargos on oil sales and knew that a US-based stability in Iraq would cause them to loose business [$] and thus they drumed up non-support to keep their oil contracts).
Unfortunately most of the world (people in the world) don't think "big" enough to understand what solid, rooted stability in Iraq (mid-east) means. If they did, this "no WMD" news wouldn't be news to begin with, because people would have already extrapolated what an Iraq without Sadam, with a democratic gov't, means to economic stability.
WMD was a part of many reasons to get a democratic stable country in the mid-east. Was it the only reason? No. What it the most important reason? No. But it was the reason that most of the world would easily digest and understand. |
I'd agree with that...I guess I should have been a bit more clear in what I meant.
you're right...the "eradication of WMD" was the most easily digestable motive to feed everyone...dumb, smart, whatever, it's pretty hard to oppose taking dangerous weapons away from a bad man ;)
it's quite naive of anyone to think that the U.S. gov't is THAT stupid and incompetent that everyone in it truly thought that these weapons existed, but then couldn't find them. This isn't some schmuck private detective...it's a country that pours billions every year into knowing what's going on all over the world.
I guess it all comes down to the same point...who is the U.S. to unilaterally decide upon when, where, what methods will be used to implement their own idea of regional stability.
While we rely on the U.S. to police the world, to a great extent...that is NOT carte blanche to do as they please. There HAS to be some form of global decision making force and the closest thing we have now is the U.N., no? That the U.S. gov't was SO bent on staying their course that U.N. approval would merely have been icing on the cake is what truly disturbs me. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
this is all unacceptable .. where is DigiNut ??
|
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
What regional stability? More terrorist ranks signed up to fight the "big satan" fromt he west, iraq is in shambles, Israel is on high alert and possibly the worst thing with respect to stability is the fact that the Mullahs in iran probably have more influence on the majority shiite population in iraq then saddam loyalists do!
OK USA!!!!!:rolleyes: |
Iraq is in shambles?
Who the hell do you think is over there helping to rebuild?? :rolleyes:
And if you read ANY Iraqi blogs at all, you'd know that it's only certain small areas full of lost loyalists that are causing the ruckus (which of course liberal minded media will amplify and magnify in a heartbeat)
For the majority, the Iraqis are very glad Saddam and his draconian dictatorship is gone... |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
While we rely on the U.S. to police the world, to a great extent...that is NOT carte blanche to do as they please. There HAS to be some form of global decision making force and the closest thing we have now is the U.N., no? That the U.S. gov't was SO bent on staying their course that U.N. approval would merely have been icing on the cake is what truly disturbs me. |
Considering the state that U.N. is in at the moment, they're lucky to have any credibility with anybody at all... |
|
|
| Vivid Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by starsearcher
WAR IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS! ;) |
those who own businessess in the US dont get weapon contracts. They dont get rebuilding contracts afterwards. they dont get cheap labour for their companies. THEY ARE CHEAP LABOUR! |
|
|
| Xavier Moriarty |
| quote: | | For the majority, the Iraqis are very glad Saddam and his draconian dictatorship is gone... |
well we dont know that for sure, tv tells us that.
if that's true then how come there is bombings and killings everyday??
do not belive everything thas has been fed to us on tv |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Xavier Moriarty
well we dont know that for sure, tv tells us that.
if that's true then how come there is bombings and killings everyday??
do not belive everything thas has been fed to us on tv |
Actually the Iraqi blogs tell me that.
I don't watch TV News unless it's something earth shattering...
So you're right....do not believe everything thas has been fed to us on tv ;) |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
I guess it all comes down to the same point...who is the U.S. to unilaterally decide upon when, where, what methods will be used to implement their own idea of regional stability. |
I suspect you'd have the opposite argument if world leaders did nothing and oil prices shot up to $100 / barrel due to some unforeseen event and the world's economy collapsed (with it's resultant problems). (Probably a statement like this: "Why didn't a country of leadership unilaterally decide to go into the region an ensure that the world's energy supply, to which we are all so dependent on, was stabilized and out of reach of such interfering actions...")
Being a leader is difficult - it sometimes involves making unpopular decisions, it sometimes involves making decisions that do not always have a clear outcome.
Being a world leader also involves having a clear and absolute conviction as to what must be done for the global good - at times taking risks and sacrifices that one would normally not be comfortable taking (similar leadership to what was shown in the two previous world wars and many other times throughout history). |
|
|
|
|
