We weren’t attacked by Iraq.
Psst, that’s a small detail which doesn’t matter.
We weren’t attacked by Iraq.[/quote]
Apparently on Planet Zord it happened the other way around. Iraq attacked the U.S. This is a quote from Grand Master Zord himself yesterday stating that fact:
"My attitude about our – look, I’m into campaigning out there: People want to know, can you win? That’s what they want to know. I mean, there’s – look, there’s some 25 percent or so that want us to get out, shouldn’t have been out there in the first place – and that’s fine. They’re wrong. But you can understand why they feel that way. They just don’t believe in war, and – at any cost. I believe when you get attacked and somebody declares war on you, you fight back. And that’s what we’re doing.
I think we’ve also seen it all before somewhere… Iraq attacked the U.S. in Bizarroworld:
Now that the Taliban has retaken 1/3 of Afghanistan, perhaps the Republicans will adopt new strategies and tell us that “we’ve all won” the war.
If the US attacking Iraq was wrong, can we then admit that after 15 or so UN resolutions against Iraq, that the UN was/is/will always be useless?
I think the Republican version of “success” is a bit skewed. They say Bush was successful in fighting terror (despite the quagmire in Iraq, the resurgent Taliban, etc.) because there have not been any big successful attacks on the U.S. However, they’re so fast to say that the UN sanctions, etc. against Iraq didn’t work despite there, ultimately, being no WMDs.
I am curious MFGR… How do you justify Clinton’s statements, actions, attacks as well as the endless stream of similar comments from his officials and heads of state regarding Iraq. And why would you give their statements a pass but be so endlessly hostile toward Bush?
As to Rascal, haha, 17 UN resolutions with the usual nonsense and he still believes in the UN. Has a bit of difficulty though explaining how and why the US and UK were allowed to act against Serbia with regard to Kosovo in 1999 but could not with regard to Iraq in 2003. Oh well, I guess Fischer is not the only one who has gone off Habermasian Communicative Theory. haha
Welcome to Reality… that place for people who cannot handle drugs…
Looks like Clinton’s policies towards Iraq were far more successful than Bush’s. What’s your beef? Are you sorry that Clinton managed to keep Iraq neatly wrapped up for 8 years while Bush has managed only to get quagmired by a third-rate tinpot dictator’s sandbox?
[quote=“jdsmith”]If the US attacking Iraq was wrong, can we then admit that after 15 or so UN resolutions against Iraq, that the UN was/is/will always be useless?[/quote]No.
I wouldn’t say completely useless but nearly useless. The usefulness of the UN is that it at least gives nations an alternative to going to war when disputes arise.
Nearly useless in that the UN represents the lowest common denominator of the world’s nations and that’s not much, particularly since the United States and Great Britain have abandoned the high moral ground.
All-in-all though I’d say the United Nations should be abandoned in favor of regional organizations such as Nato which are far more efficient collaborative bodies because they’re not paralyzed by the values chasms that make a world body all but worthless.
One of the interesting ironies about the United Nations is that those who complain the loudest about its resolutions being ignored would be the first to resist UN resolutions being consistently enforced.
…and yet it seems so difficult to get a clear answer, even when the question is asked with a genuine heart.
Watched TV, read a magazine, had some fast food, listened to music lately? It’s a fact of life. I am not anti american, I am anti the US led invasion and anti Bush (and not for the political angle), yes. But as you alluded to in another thread, that doesn’t mean I am a wanker. I may very well be a wanker, but not by that reasoning.
Not cut & run. The US has chosen to make a big mess. Not invading was the answer. Lets just see how much more of a mess happens as a direct result of the invasion shall we? What did George W mean when he said “Mission Accomplished?”
Very interesting mindset there. You imply that the US had to invade somewhere. Tell me, what is the stated mission? I keep asking…
My basis is this: Democracy gives anyone the ability to gather for whatever reason. The extremists are using the protection of western political correctness to prepare for their attacks. The most devastating attacks on ‘the free world’ have largely been prepared on the soil of ‘the free world’, not in the middle east. The extremists living in ‘the free world’ have greater access to funds, technology, information than the Iraqi based terrorists the US is attacking.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Truant”]"… but the US feels an irresistable urge to be there, ‘saving’ us all somehow.[/quote]No problem, its what we do. Clean up messes left by those who chose not to take actions to save their keisters. And guess what? We don’t expect a Thank-you card.[/quote] So where’s next?
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Truant”]Iraq is in a worse state with the US invasion than it was before. More deaths, more bloodshed and more uncertainty.[/quote]Says you.[quote=“Truant”] Just like Vietnam.[/quote]Any idea of the number of deaths that occured [b]after 29 May 1975? No? Do you even know what that date signifies?[/quote]You tell me. I was starting school about then, that was pretty significant. Tell me about 29 May 1975, I have an open mind. or is it 29 April 1975?
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“Truant”]Interesting how a country is so quick to ‘rescue’ a middle eastern nation, yet so slow to respond to problems in their own backyard like New Orleans. Why would that be? Priorities I guess.[/quote]You really have no idea of what you are talking about. This post alone qualifies you for a “re-education camp”…uh, its a Viet Nam reference in case you were wondering.
But we don’t do those.[/quote]Nice. What’s the name of that bay starting with G?
I agree. Who is saying this?
Who is cleaning up who’s mess? If the US is so great as you imply, then why do they need the help other nations and certain organisations in Afghanistan and Iraq? Matter of fact is the US creates the mess and then gets others to stand in.
I don’t believe America created the genocide in Europe just a decade ago but they did go in as most of Europe sat idle by and watched. Sorry, I forgot we are pick and choosing our battles now – pun intended 
Did the US create the Taliban in Afghanistan? If anyone is to be blamed it is Russia (former USSR) and Pakistan. No?
As to Iraq… who is there to “help” us?
Finally, North Korea, Darfur, Somalia, Congo, Cote d’Ivoire… You don’t need our call for help to do something about the problems in those places so why don’t you act? Hmmm. Why don’t you ever act?
[quote=“fred smith”]
As to Iraq… who is there to “help” us?[/quote]
the brits for starters,and many other nations who followed blindly like sheeps behind an arrogant,navel gazing,over confident president.
Yes. Thank heavens that one nation is able to see past its “navel.” Australia is another.
So Iraq under Saddam was never a threat. Bush was being a fool to think that Saddam had to be dealt with once and for all? Surely, that is a bit unfair.
I understand how you feel but after the elections in 2007, you will have either Royal or Sarkozy so don’t worry you don’t have too much longer to wait.
Yes. Thank heavens that one nation is able to see past its “navel.” Australia is another.
[/quote]
so why did you omit them in your previous post?
let me guess…
because you,like TC,or many other murkins REALLY think you’re the one,the only, the unmatched zorro’s of planet earth and that without you the whole planet would be ruled by taliban… :loco:
we’re still waiting for the WMDs to magically pop out dubya’s hat…
i know,i know…since those aren’t available, all of you “war appologists” have been keen to point out that saddam’s removal had ended the killing sprees of his generals…
because we all know that those killing sprees FAR outnumbered the deaths created since this useless invasion,don’t we? 
[quote=“fred smith”]
I understand how you feel but after the elections in 2007, you will have either Royal or Sarkozy so don’t worry you don’t have too much longer to wait.[/quote]
a blessing my friend…a bloody blessing 
after news like those:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6095668.stm
i think every frenchs should pray that this sarkozy guy will stick to his words,and clean the cobwebs
I had assumed that you had wanted to focus on really important nations like Germany, France, Canada, Belgium and Andorra.
About as equally effective as your surmising…
So who exactly was it who went in and overthrew the Taliban? Now, we have “peacekeepers” from various nations but hey, still welcome but let’s not pretend that everyone is performing an equally relevant task.
We were wrong. The French (you) were right but was he no threat, none at all? Interesting then to have 17 French-supported binding UN resolutions or don’t those mean anything?
[quote]i know,i know…since those aren’t available, all of you “war appologists” have been keen to point out that Saddam’s removal had ended the killing sprees of his generals…
because we all know that those killing sprees FAR outnumbered the deaths created since this useless invasion,don’t we? [/quote]
Well, if you take Saddam’s wars, his murders, etc. I would estimate that the total would hit 3 million to 4 million including Iranian victims, etc. How then would the 55,000 to 60,000 equate with that? Also, in a way, his forces are still responsible for some of that killing right? Or were you suggesting that the 650,000 claimed by Lancet has credibility? I thought you had problems with exaggerated intelligence but you let this go by without comment? really?
[quote]a blessing my friend…a bloody blessing
after news like those:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/Europe/6095668.stm
i think every frenchs should pray that this sarkozy guy will stick to his words,and clean the cobwebs [/quote]
Regardless, all joking about Chirac aside, and I hate that asswipe de Villepin as well, when the game was over, Chirac was cooperative, very cooperative from the third week after the invasion. Much more sensible than the German approach as adopted by Schroeder and Fischer and in the interim, the French (because of Chirac’s support) have been absolutely sterling allies from Lebanon to Syria to Iran to intelligence to Afghanistan to you name it and THAT is much appreciated. So despite all the French-bashing in America, you will hear nary such comments from me now that the catfight of 2003 is long since firmly behind us. I even routed for the French rugby team (as long as Argentina wasn’t playing) during the Rugby Sevens last year. Surely, that groveling should count for something? haha
I’d think the French would be far more interested that “youths” are burning through the cities…again.
But maybe, it is, howdoyousay…boring? But, how can they hate themselves? 