Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future. - Page 4




 
--
Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future.
 
September 8th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
We? How are you part of "we"?
ya sure, you are not worried about the effort of rebuilding is all wasted and U.S troops have to stay in that dangerous area for probably another 2 years.
September 9th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WARmachine88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
We? How are you part of "we"?
ya sure, you are not worried about the effort of rebuilding is all wasted and U.S troops have to stay in that dangerous area for probably another 2 years.
I'd rather they were home safe and warm with their families. But we do what we're ordered to do. If we don't carry the water, who will? We understand that and we are and were soldiers.
September 9th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
Phoenix

The job of the "World Police" should belong to the United Nations. Yes, the present-day UN needs to be improved, I dont deny that, but in theory, the job of ending dictatorships should be a concenous amongst all the worlds nations and not just 1 or 2.

For example, it worked well for the 1st Gulf War.
--
Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future.
September 9th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Phoenix

The job of the "World Police" should belong to the United Nations. Yes, the present-day UN needs to be improved, I dont deny that, but in theory, the job of ending dictatorships should be a concenous amongst all the worlds nations and not just 1 or 2.

For example, it worked well for the 1st Gulf War.
Wrong. Fully wrong. The job of ending dictatorship is not on the UN chart, it can't be a UN mission or responsibility. Peace keeping is, not democratization of the world. Just dotting the i's.
September 9th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
Italian guy

You didnt read the post clearly. The question who 'should' be the world police not who 'is'.

Its very hard to keep the 'peace' when you have dictators running around starting wars. Saddam Hussein in the Gulf, case in point.

Well, if not the UN then who should be. Nobody? That would lead to anarchy.

As an American myself I hope you don't plan on volenteering me. 8)
September 9th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
My bad, I missed the "should" part. Anyways this is my view, it's called neorealism: Anarchy is what rules the world today.
September 9th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
Quote:
Originally Posted by WARmachine88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
We? How are you part of "we"?
ya sure, you are not worried about the effort of rebuilding is all wasted and U.S troops have to stay in that dangerous area for probably another 2 years.
I'd rather they were home safe and warm with their families. But we do what we're ordered to do. If we don't carry the water, who will? We understand that and we are and were soldiers.
That is why everybody admires soldiers and rarely someone likes a politician much.
September 9th, 2005  
Marinerhodes
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Pheonix

I dont weep for Saddam, I just dont think it was worth the price we paid in lives, money, and international respect considering the very little risk he posed to the world. He was boxed in only a threat to his own people, and we are not the Worlds Police Force.

Our attention was better spent elsewhere, like killing Osama. Who I would like to remind everyone here is still at large.

Very little risk he posed to the world? Only after we went in was that risk realized. Big or small is not the point. The UN inspectors nor the rest of the world really knew one way or the other.
September 9th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
He does not have the WMD, that is for sure now.

I am not suring how does the U.S president got the conclusion based on some "slam-dunk" intelligence (in CIA director's own words) that IRaq had WMD, but indeed they were wrong.

Saddam wasn't really a serious threat since 1991 if you look at its economic power and military strength.

but it is a threat to the respect of human rights, no doubt about that.

It is just Bush's ill-prepared post-war strategy pisses me off.
September 9th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WARmachine88
He does not have the WMD, that is for sure now.

I am not suring how does the U.S president got the conclusion based on some "slam-dunk" intelligence (in CIA director's own words) that IRaq had WMD, but indeed they were wrong.

Saddam wasn't really a serious threat since 1991 if you look at its economic power and military strength.

but it is a threat to the respect of human rights, no doubt about that.

It is just Bush's ill-prepared post-war strategy pisses me off.
WarMachine, people forget that Bush's motivations for waging war on Iraq have always been THREE, and three reasons for wanting a military intervention had been clearly stated for months before 3/03.
1. Iraq has WMD
2.Iraq has links with terrorism (which was true, Hamas, for instance, but Al Qaeda too if you read the 9/11 Commission Report)
3.Democracy hence peace. Bush agrees with the neocons that in order for peace to exist democracy has to be exported. He never concealed this aspect, people forget that. So now it's not a post war strategy. It'always been that.