Withdraw of Spanish troops in Iraq - Page 5




 
--
Boots
 
April 29th, 2004  
panzer
 
 
Yes I have heard of Liberia.........

Question for you is Africa only made up of Liberia and Somalia.

There are many other countries with that could use help besides the US throwing more money at the problem. It does not help matters at all.
April 29th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
There are many other countries with that could use help besides the US throwing more money at the problem. It does not help matters at all.
This very attitude is why the US is damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't. No matter what, someone will always complain. "Too involved." "Not involved enough." Blah, blah. Everyone is so gung-ho about sacrficing my and my brothers lives to suit whatever cause the pundits want. Sorry to inform those of you that don't know, but no nation is altruistic, and any one that would be wouldn't be a nation for very long. The interests of the US come first and foremost to her, and it should to her people.
April 29th, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
I'm sorry but given Italy's different time I can't always reply immediately.
I see people like RedNeck or RndrSafe understand what I mean though.
About the comparison I came up with between Nazi Germany, Munich, appeasement, and Spanish 'bowing' to terrorism, yep I was referring to the post Saddam era, which is what is now going on.
Of course every country has a military, but it's gotta be ready to use it in order to defend itself. It means it believes in its own values and loves its sons and daughters. Or else it's just cowardy, or folly.
Sure there has to be some sort of a compromise ( you CAN'T wage war against any country you're concerned by ), but a country cannot stand idly there, when it reasonably thinks it is under threat. That's what I think it was Wolfowitz said: " What would you do if you knew a gang of criminals is planning to kill and rape your wife and daughters ? would you keep asking for permission to your neighbors who do not believe you, or would you just PROTECT your family ?'. That's it.
--
Boots
April 29th, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
and you're so much right Colonel RnderSafe: there's always gonna be whining and complaining about the US, whatsoever it does. It goes there and send troops? oh that's imperialistic, every nations has its own peculiar path to democracy. It stays home and ignores something? Oh see how selfish the US is. There's no way out. There's a saying here: " the idiots' mother's always pregnant ".
April 29th, 2004  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunner13
The problem was that Sadam did not, and was not going to, stay in HIS own backyard. Leaving aside the fact that he was a murderous, money filtching bozo, he also invaded 2 other countries, bombarded others with SCUD missiles and was ready to do it again at any time. A threat to one country can rapidly become a threat to all. Do you think that Nazi Germany would have started WW II if the French or British Governments had stood up to him in 1934?
Thats just speculations though.
And he probebly would have started WW2 even if so. Although thats once again speculations
April 29th, 2004  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
I believe he meant (correct me if I'm wrong, ItalianGuy, I'd hate to put words in your mouth) that a democracy should be willing to use force to defend it's way of life.
By sending their soldiers home, they get a greater defence at "home" then they would if they had those soldiers stationed in Iraq. By doing this they have a greater chance to counteract the terrorist action on their homebase
April 29th, 2004  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck
Ever hear of Liberia?
And Somalia (granted, a certain someone decided it would be best to cut and run there before we accomplished anything, but we did send troops there)?

Be realistic, though, we can only do so much, but at least we are doing what we can (besides military operations, look at the billions we send overseas in foreign aid every year, along with the manpower and resources we expend delivering that aid and providing other assistance to foreign nations). Along with this, the military option (as you can see with all the ya-hoos moaning today) needs more justification than just "we think we should get boots on the ground and help these people" (too many people would rather look the other way than face any chance of being asked to sacrifice anything themselves to help anyone else), so those nations we will enter first will always be those that have the ability to present a direct threat to ourselves as well as their own civilians.
So do other countries in the world aswell
April 29th, 2004  
Pollux
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RnderSafe
Quote:
There are many other countries with that could use help besides the US throwing more money at the problem. It does not help matters at all.
Sorry to inform those of you that don't know, but no nation is altruistic, and any one that would be wouldn't be a nation for very long. The interests of the US come first and foremost to her, and it should to her people.

Sure youre right, but then no other country can be blamed for critisizing the US and for not involving itself into that fight.
April 29th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollux
Sure youre right, but then no other country can be blamed for critisizing the US and for not involving itself into that fight.
If a country criticizes the US, then that country is to blame for the criticism.

As for those states unwilling to assist in the coalition, they had their reasons, flimsy or not and they did what they thought was best or would gain the most profit. I disagreed with many of the EU states reasons for not supporting, but then, I never expected them to in the first place. No reason to "blame" them, or even hate them .. I dislike governments, not countries and their people.

I, personally, am grateful to Spain for sending troops to begin with .. my opinions on her now have nothing to do with pulling out of Iraq. I'm simply saddened and disgusted to see another nation allowing the terrorists a win. Pulling troops out of Iraq and distancing itself from the war isn't the problem, IMO, it's backing down in the face of terror.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexkall
By sending their soldiers home, they get a greater defence at "home" then they would if they had those soldiers stationed in Iraq. By doing this they have a greater chance to counteract the terrorist action on their homebase
Good try, Alex, but they didn't have that many troops there.
April 29th, 2004  
Pollux
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RnderSafe
If a country criticizes the US, then that country is to blame for the criticism.
Why that? Did the US in your absolutely make no faults during the iraq campaign, that could be criticized?
Of course are we talking about governments, i dont want to attack any indiviual here...