IRAN, IRAK and the US position. - Page 4




 
--
Boots
 
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE IRANIAN
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.
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.
February 16th, 2005  
CO5060.20
 
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.
February 16th, 2005  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
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.
--
Boots
February 16th, 2005  
THE IRANIAN
 
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...
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CO5060.20
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.
the point is, US is not working for moral, its for self interest. politics is all about that.
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer
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.
then, how many US has violated UN rule?
February 16th, 2005  
THE IRANIAN
 
Chocobo_Blitzer: which democratic government in irak are you speakin about?
Ayatollah Sistani ???? .... ... is that the great democratic man you expected for Iraq? .... congratulations.... lol
February 16th, 2005  
CO5060.20
 
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CO5060.20
Ha, I'll put money on the fact that we have violated less then Iraq, Iran, France, England, Japan, and yes, even China...
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.
February 16th, 2005  
THE IRANIAN
 
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?