About finish this thing --- can using DU rounds be justified?
|June 26th, 2005||#1|
| || |
finish this thing --- can using DU rounds be justified? info
just finish my point
if you think U.S can bomb the hell people around and kill civilians "accidentally or reluctantly", and enter other nations' land without UN's authorization, and you call that act of Justice
than I 'd say Iraqi insurgant are freedom fighters who want to kick invaders out of Iraq,
freedom fighters ---- fight against invaders and invaders' cooperators (traitors).
it seems iraqi insurgents can justify their action pretty well
if you people can justify something like DU, which leaves terrible environemtnal conseqences are explosion, to invade other nation (like iraq) without UN authorization,
why cannot terriosts use dirty bombs to fight against invaders
|June 26th, 2005||#2|
| || |
and finish another thing
sorry Perishing, i caused that misunderstanding by saying North korea can probably survive without trading
i was just saying no nation (normal nations, not some mad regime) will cut its trading with the rest of world (North korea is pretty much dying after cutting all normal tradings except accpeting donations) and i was talking to Mr. Rabs, who said U.S will be ok if cutting its trading tie with the rest of the world.
and answer bulldog, by surviving i mean the government won't collapse and the nation does not fall into total chaos, like civil war struggling for power something
|June 26th, 2005||#3|
| || |
Wow not like you're bombthrowing or anything.
You know what, they can do all you have mentioned and many would if they could. It's war. They can chop off the heads of our soldiers, and the Americans can genocide entire villiages and they can dirty bomb New York and the Americans can plaster the middle east with nukes. They can do it, it's war it's war it's war.
|June 26th, 2005||#4|
| || |
they kill americans because they are trying to kick out invaders (U.S goes into there without UN authorization)
and if U.S wants to nuke middle east, they can, but it is still invasion, and it will make U.S' image even worse
|June 26th, 2005||#5|
| || |
But I would say your perspective suffers from delusions caused by fairytales. Anyone who has studied millitary history or even human history will find that very very seldomly do you find situations in which there is one knight in shinig armor good guy and another who is just pure dark nasty evil. In fact, if it wasn't for the holocaust (which wasn't known while the war was underway), even the european portion of WW2 would fall into this catagory. You would have to ask yourself if even genocide is a universally bad thing or if equating genocide with evil is just a matter of your perspective.
The culmination here is to say that if you are trying to find the white hat and the black hat in geopolitics all you are doing is buying a propoganda line. Simply going "look at this perspective and suddenly things seem less certain" is far from intellectual investigation, it stinks of childish ameaturism in the face of such complex and grave topics as life, death, war, and peace.
|June 26th, 2005||#6|
| || |
fancy words solve no problems, you got to talk with facts backed up
U.S' military action in Iraq does not have UN authorization, and thus, it is an invasion
thus Iraqis have the moral grounds to defend themselves against invaders, and kill them.
dont give me the "liberating Iraqis crap", if you truly care about human race's freedom and human rights, why dont you go into China and liberate 1.3 billion people there??
|June 26th, 2005||#7|
| || |
I hate the war in Iraq. It's all for the wrong reasons. Americans have money yet they buy Oil instead of finding alternate resources. I know a country "next door" that has the technology for a better, cleaner, vehicile. I also know that it's cheaper. Why does America still go for oil, when a cheaper resource is in Iceland, just waiting to be harnessed.
SIG SG550-1 Sniper Rifle with Supressor
Beretta M9 with Gemtech Trinity Suppressor
|June 27th, 2005||#9|
| || |
You keep on saying CSmaster that without UN consent it was an invasion. However, correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't it still be an invasion with UN support. You still have foregin nations going into another country, removing the leadership and taking over. It still is an invasion.
"Troops come first, last, and always. Never does your individual needs come before those of your men."
|June 27th, 2005||#10|
| || |
under an UN resolutin , a military action is legal because an UN resolution is ony passed when majority of security council ( the forum of international discussion) agrees with it,
if majority of nations agree on this military action (like in 1991 gulf war, UN authorizes coliation forces to repel Sadam's invasion), this military action is justified and supported by international society.
and could u tell me the example of an UN authorized, reasonless, illogical (like saying there is WMD ,but in fact there is not, or there is connection with terriosts, but in fact not) military action?
as far as I know,
UN authorized coliation forces to go help South korea, go to help Kwait and go stop geonocide in many places in the world