IRAN, IRAK and the US position.

I didn't say I like Saddam. But there are lots of dictators, even worst in the world, and many of them are USA allies. And the famous WMDs that he was reproached to have were WMD that the western countries had given him during the 1981-1988 war... Irak has never had weapons manufactures.
So what makes the difference between the Irak of Saddam and the actual Pakistan?

Why is one of them your ally and the other one your ennemy? Why was Saddam your ally when you were helping him to attack Iran and then your ennemy when he attacked Koweït?

Who gives the USA to decide of the future of any country in the world?
Why does it seems like if America is playing chess on teh world map since 50 years?
 
rotc boy said:
another thing, its IRAQ (with a "q")
sorry, that was ticking me off
Click to expand...

and another thing, you need to cool your anti-American jets, Im sure there are some very nice anti-America forums you could find on the internet somewhere....
 
but u got to know, Saddam only kill spearatists, then US press accuse saddam is so inhumane to "test" its weapons. in fact separtists never fare well in ANY country.

right, russia bomb the hell out of chenchya, then US says nothing. why? russia is strong and its not US interest to mess with. why dun the press say russia is "testing" its weapons on chenchya?

intresting thing is, saddam was abusing human rights anyway in the 80s, US didnt say a thing because its pro-US and in US self interest. if US want to remove dictators and bring democracy, it could of done it in 80s which was easier anyway.

US aimply dun want anyone to have nukes then to make an excuse saying it will go to the hands of terrorists, and also seek more oil. that's why they are threatening Iran.

neway, i hope i dun offend anyone, that's my view. seems like ppl are getting abit over the top here.
 
So what you are saying is that we should of left Sadaam in power so he could continue to rape and pilage as he sees fit, only to continue to ignore UN policies and erradicating whole races? In that case, crap, we should have let Hitler have France, the rest of Europe, the Middle East, Asia. Dang, what were we thinking? Obviously devouting spoils for personal-use is o.k. by your standards, so why is it that the rest of Iran is not taking advantage of nice freedoms such as that?

And in response to my new friend in Hong Kong, the U.S. in the 80's was waiting for the UN to get off their lazy rear ends and be stern with unlyal members like Iraq, Iran, etc. (atleast then), for this is not the first time Iraq or Iran has dubbed UN policy unfit for their time, while the UN sits there like bumps on logs, waiting for their turn to be attacked. Life is tough and it takes stern men to get through it on top, and the UN has very few.
 
I'm always facing the same problem: if anyone attacks your government policy, you will systematically conclude that the guy is anti-american.

Explain me why I am speakin with you in your own language if I am anti-American? ... could you do the same in the French?

Sorry to disappoint you broth, I'm not anti-American. I really worry about your government foreign policy's decisions, and I'm not the only one. But it seems I'm loosing my time.
Lots of you seem to follow a simple logic equation that is:
1) America is the best country in the world and it has full rights over the rest of the countries.
2) Its powerful army gives America the capability of doing so.
3) Some countries are to be eradicated and it's America's mission.
4) Bush is God's hand and America's saver.
5) If anyone doesn't accept these rules, he may be an ennemy of America.

6)... that's pathetic.
 
CO5060.20 said:
So what you are saying is that we should of left Sadaam in power so he could continue to rape and pilage as he sees fit, only to continue to ignore UN policies and erradicating whole races? In that case, crap, we should have let Hitler have France, the rest of Europe, the Middle East, Asia. Dang, what were we thinking? Obviously devouting spoils for personal-use is o.k. by your standards, so why is it that the rest of Iran is not taking advantage of nice freedoms such as that?
Click to expand...

the point is, iraq is in a big chaos, much much worse than when saddam was in place. in fact iraq was a weathy country before 1991 but due to the embargo it caused alll that.

saddam in power only harsh against separatists. hitler and france was a different thing. the situation is more like russia and chenchya.

i am sure US would send its forces to Taxes if that province claim to be mexico.
 
Once again Iranian, you make false or unsupported claims. That is not helping. You need to be precise, give facts because I have zero tolerance for inductive reasoning.

I believe the problem with Iranians is that they follow this simple equation:

1.) The United States is only looking out for #1 (i.e. themselves)
2.) The U.S. is unwilling to compromise
3.) Iranians are always correct
4.) Europe and the Middle East are God's gift to the civilized world
5.) That America goes off of the BS you just outlined
6.) Pathetic.... :9mm:
 
To answer your question Cxxxxx, when the USA attacked Hitler in Europe, it had been asked by General de Gaulle, by Churchill and European people were waiting your help. It's not the same today when american armies go and attack any country of their choice...

I don't say you had to let Saddam. I say : remember who helped him to become Iraq's leader some years before... who gave him all the weapons he had in 1990... who helped the Talibans to grow (against the Communists) in Afghanistan... and then who claims to dream about democracy in the world?

One day you help a dictator because he promises to give you the exclusivity of some oil contracts and the day after you beat him because he is a dictator... okay... great game... but what about all the civilians then? What about all the broken lifes? Yes... they will be refugees in the USA if they have a big brain... is that your plans for the world?
 
THE IRANIAN said:
I'm always facing the same problem: if anyone attacks your government policy, you will systematically conclude that the guy is anti-american.

Explain me why I am speakin with you in your own language if I am anti-American? ... could you do the same in the French?

Sorry to disappoint you broth, I'm not anti-American. I really worry about your government foreign policy's decisions, and I'm not the only one. But it seems I'm loosing my time.
Lots of you seem to follow a simple logic equation that is:
1) America is the best country in the world and it has full rights over the rest of the countries.
2) Its powerful army gives America the capability of doing so.
3) Some countries are to be eradicated and it's America's mission.
4) Bush is God's hand and America's saver.
5) If anyone doesn't accept these rules, he may be an ennemy of America.

6)... that's pathetic.
Click to expand...

i kind of know what u mean. US does claim alot of power over other weaker states and to issue "order" to countries in europe, south korea and isreal.

i do not know why the muslims in the middle east is called terrorist by US, that's just a big ass generalisation. that will drag alot of ppl who are not invloved and cause them to fight against US.

well u got to know, each country just brain wash its ppl, due to media and education, they teach the ppl's perception in favour of the country's action, that's how a democratic countries works, otherwise it just aint going to work too well.

all news are bias, try to read both sides of the news (which u did), i read about a muder in iraq, fox news news it says its a terrorist who killed it, but in the arab news, it said its killed due to personal issues. intresting isnt it?

also not to mention, US gov have a degree of control over media in war issues, likes hiding losses during the war (as it has done so in WW2, korean war and the vietnam) i dun see why they wont do it now.
 
I find that it is interesting that through social conditioning you all tend to use the U.S. as your point of reference. Are you implying that morale means nothing to your countries? Are you implying that your countries do not do such things? I do find that hard to believe... It seems to me that you all are shutting down any possibility that the US may not be this big bad war mungerer as you have been taught to believe. Your countries teach you this, I know, I have been to France, Russia, Austria, Germany, and England. I see the BS they tell you all about us. At the same time, I am not denying that our liberal media does the same thing, if not worse. Do not try and hide the fact that your own countries do the same stuff, I am not hiding the fact that our liberals do the same crap, day in and day out.
 
After his defeat in the gulf war, Saddam signed a peace agreement to give up all his WMDs, and let weapons inspectors verify his compliance.

Saddam violated 18 UN mandates, and by 1998, denied weapons inspectors access into Iraq. Four years later, the US presses the UN to pass resolution 1441, and they did. Saddam defied 1441, the UN still did not confront Saddam. The US and Great Britian, along with a coalition of responsible nations, held the bathist regime accountable.

Primary UN members, like Germany, France, Russia, and China stayed out of the Iraq war and critizised the US for doing so. This is probably because Saddam indirectly had these nations on a payroll, via the program called "Oil for Food".

Today the US and coalition strive to bring peace and a stable democratic government amongst guarilla war, waged by local militias and foreign terrorist. Yet even still, the UN or the EU give little aid to Iraq.
 
I did not say that Iranians are always correct or that I love the Europe's decisions (but Europe accepts to follow the UN, not the USA). I fight for democracy in Iran. But I don't really think that attacking a country is a solution. It may be very good for the american armament industry, but it won't be very good for Iran's economy... And I don't think its' America's business to go and fight in any country... you've done lots of mistakes and you still do some (in Africa for example where the USA support some dictators).
Europe has made its own mistakes and they also want the democracy over the world (democracy as not invented in the USA you know). But Europe is slowly understanding after the 2nd world war that fighting was teh idiot's attitude and developped its diplomacy. See as you were all scared when the twin towers falled... you never had a real war on your lands since your independance war... maye you'll need something like this to understand what war means... and then change your minds...
 
CO5060.20 said:
I find that it is interesting that through social conditioning you all tend to use the U.S. as your point of reference. Are you implying that morale means nothing to your countries? Are you implying that your countries do not do such things? I do find that hard to believe... It seems to me that you all are shutting down any possibility that the US may not be this big bad war mungerer as you have been taught to believe. Your countries teach you this, I know, I have been to France, Russia, Austria, Germany, and England. I see the BS they tell you all about us. At the same time, I am not denying that our liberal media does the same thing, if not worse. Do not try and hide the fact that your own countries do the same stuff, I am not hiding the fact that our liberals do the same crap, day in and day out.
Click to expand...

the point is, US is not working for moral, its for self interest. politics is all about that.
 
Chocobo_Blitzer said:
After his defeat in the gulf war, Saddam signed a peace agreement to give up all his WMDs, and let weapons inspectors verify his compliance.

Saddam violated 18 UN mandates, and by 1998, denied weapons inspectors access into Iraq. Four years later, the US presses the UN to pass resolution 1441, and they did. Saddam defied 1441, the UN still did not confront Saddam. The US and Great Britian, along with a coalition of responsible nations, held the bathist regime accountable.

Primary UN members, like Germany, France, Russia, and China stayed out of the Iraq war and critizised the US for doing so. This is probably because Saddam indirectly had these nations on a payroll, via the program called "Oil for Food".

Today the US and coalition strive to bring peace and a stable democratic government amongst guarilla war, waged by local militias and foreign terrorist. Yet even still, the UN or the EU give little aid to Iraq.
Click to expand...

then, how many US has violated UN rule?
 
Chocobo_Blitzer: which democratic government in irak are you speakin about?
Ayatollah Sistani ???? .... :shock: ... is that the great democratic man you expected for Iraq? .... congratulations.... lol
 
CO5060.20 said:
Ha, I'll put money on the fact that we have violated less then Iraq, Iran, France, England, Japan, and yes, even China...
Click to expand...

France? r u sure? do u think france have invaded more country in teh 20th and 21 century after the UN formed?

US are gd at escaping rules by saying the cause is for human rights.
 
Yes, Ginger you're right to ask that... how many UN rules were forgotten by USA ChocoBlitzer??? .... in fact if France, Russia and Germany haven't followed the USA, it was because the USA did not wait for the UN council decision... they attacked Iraq because tehy had decided to do so. What's the UN? The democracy over the world. What did teh USA do? They disobeyd the UN. So... maybe one day China will attck the USA and say "ya know, they attacked many countries with no authorization of the international community, they are terrorists... " .. That would be funny, heh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top