The reason for Iraq

#26
#26
(therealUT @ Jul 1 said:
Didn't see anything in there about my allegiance to the UN smoke.
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter that is what you really signed up for, sorry for your luck.
 
#27
#27
Ok then Smoke, why is it that in the 50+ years of the UN, that American troops have never fought under a UN command?

Yet, we have fought under a NATO command?
 
#28
#28
when you sign up to fight for the good ole USA, your also signing up to fight for the police actions within the UN. they are one in the same. he was just talking about iraq violating UN provisions and we had every right to invade. remember iraq expelling the inspectors.
Click to expand...

You are making the argument that when you enlist in the United States Military you are obligated to fight for U.N. police actions also?............interesting.....................Whose interests prevail over the other?

*The U.N. has power over the President in this matter?*
 
#29
#29
yes you fight under american generals, but you are also fighting for the UN resolutions that were passed to make our world a safer place. common UT you know i'm right. this isn't 200 years ago when we just worried about ourselves. now we protect everybody. :bad:
 
#30
#30
Come on OE, you know Smoke never has a handle on what he is talking about. I am surprised he hasn't brought oil up in this discussion and started blaming Exxon for forcing him to buy high priced gas...
 
#31
#31
(OrangeEmpire @ Jul 1 said:
You are making the argument that when you enlist in the United States Military you are obligated to fight for U.N. police actions also?............interesting.....................Whose interests prevail over the other?

*The U.N. has power over the President in this matter?*
Click to expand...

i would like to call it a evil compromise. between the president and other nations. it's a conspiracy :biggrin2:
 
#32
#32
(therealUT @ Jul 1 said:
Come on OE, you know Smoke never has a handle on what he is talking about. I am surprised he hasn't brought oil up in this discussion and started blaming Exxon for forcing him to buy high priced gas...
Click to expand...

live into reality UT.
 
#33
#33
(smokedog#3 @ Jul 1 said:
yes you fight under american generals, but you are also fighting for the UN resolutions that were passed to make our world a safer place. common UT you know i'm right. this isn't 200 years ago when we just worried about ourselves. now we protect everybody. :bad:
Click to expand...

Just because we fight througout the world, does not mean we are fighting under the banner of the UN. Also, the UN resolutions on Iraq were basically imposed by the U.S. Stormin' Norman told the UN council that if they didn't structure the UN resolutions to allow inspectors at all times, then he would take the U.S. forces up into Baghdad.
 
#34
#34
(therealUT @ Jul 1 said:
Just because we fight througout the world, does not mean we are fighting under the banner of the UN. Also, the UN resolutions on Iraq were basically imposed by the U.S. Stormin' Norman told the UN council that if they didn't structure the UN resolutions to allow inspectors at all times, then he would take the U.S. forces up into Baghdad.
Click to expand...

was it not a un resolution. well alrighty then.
 
#35
#35
i would like to call it a evil compromise. between the president and other nations. it's a conspiracy
Click to expand...

Ok, I think I understand your thought now. I was actually worried there for a little bit where you were going.

*Tell me if I am wrong about how I am understanding you.

Basically you are saying, in return for our military power/resources, United Nation countries give us a free pass in the world economically and such. For example, we, the United States need oil, so the U.N. does not directly condemn the U.S. for invading Iraq because in the end the United Nations will get a cut of the oil production?

Am I way off, or am I close?

 
#36
#36
(OrangeEmpire @ Jul 1 said:
Ok, I think I understand your thought now. I was actually worried there for a little bit where you were going.

*Tell me if I am wrong about how I am understanding you.

Basically you are saying, in return for our military power/resources, United Nation countries give us a free pass in the world economically and such. For example, we, the United States need oil, so the U.N. does not directly condemn the U.S. for invading Iraq because in the end the United Nations will get a cut of the oil production?

Am I way off, or am I close?
Click to expand...

well that used to be the case till this war. the only thing W has done is unite the middle eastern countries against us. so what you are saying orange is that W doesn't compromise, tell me why haven't we attacked iran yet. it won't happen unless russia and china get something out of it. they won't have it after the mess we have created now. not really more military power either, more economical, like new buisness in the unitedstates,etc. it is the un way.
 
#39
#39
well that used to be the case till this war. the only thing W has done is unite the middle eastern countries against us. so what you are saying orange is that W doesn't compromise, tell me why haven't we attacked iran yet. it won't happen unless russia and china get something out of it. they won't have it after the mess we have created now. not really more military power either, more economical, like new buisness in the unitedstates,etc. it is the un way.
Click to expand...

If we are going to take it to this level, I will argue that the sole reasons for attacking Afghanistan and Iraq were to establish military bases for the eventual invasion of Iran.

Good or bad strategy? Iraq is just a pawn in the world game of WMD.
 
#40
#40
(OrangeEmpire @ Jul 1 said:
If we are going to take it to this level, I will argue that the sole reasons for attacking Afghanistan and Iraq were to establish military bases for the eventual invasion of Iran.

Good or bad strategy? Iraq is just a pawn in the world game of WMD.
Click to expand...

i can't argue with afghanistan, i think that was a good move and i don't remember to many people questioning that. iraq still makes no sense to me and it never will. if you were right atleast it would make some sort of sense or if we were taking there oil it would make some kind of sense. i don't think that is what is happened though. i also think we will never set foot into iran, russia and china won't allow it. they are to big for W to mess around with especially with his country divided against him.
 
#41
#41
i can't argue with afghanistan, i think that was a good move and i don't remember to many people questioning that. iraq still makes no sense to me and it never will. if you were right atleast it would make some sort of sense or if we were taking there oil it would make some kind of sense. i don't think that is what is happened though. i also think we will never set foot into iran, russia and china won't allow it. they are to big for W to mess around with especially with his country divided against him.
Click to expand...

Russia has always been a first class military and a third world country. Now with their massive population decreases over the past several years I would say Russia is not a threat to our economic/military interests.

China is hard to deal with. China for all intensive purposes is a capitalistic society. I know what you are thinking but at least give it some thought.

China will be a major player in world events but I believe our confratation with them will occur 20 years from now and World War III will start in the Straits of Taiwan.

Now back to Iraq, lets just say we knew we wanted to go after Iran and not Iraq. How better than use the excuse of WMD's/Terrorists,Oil away from the U.N. by invading Iraq and making it a permanent military base in the Middle East?

What other course of action can we take against Iran? We will now have two strategic countries which to invade Iran militarily.

The Military Industrial Complex at its finest!
 
#42
#42
(OrangeEmpire @ Jul 1 said:
Russia has always been a first class military and a third world country. Now with their massive population decreases over the past several years I would say Russia is not a threat to our economic/military interests.

China is hard to deal with. China for all intensive purposes is a capitalistic society. I know what you are thinking but at least give it some thought.

China will be a major player in world events but I believe our confratation with them will occur 20 years from now and World War III will start in the Straits of Taiwan.

Now back to Iraq, lets just say we knew we wanted to go after Iran and not Iraq. How better than use the excuse of WMD's/Terrorists,Oil away from the U.N. by invading Iraq and making it a permanent military base in the Middle East?

What other course of action can we take against Iran? We will now have two strategic countries which to invade Iran militarily.

The Military Industrial Complex at its finest!
Click to expand...

would be a logical concept except for one thing. most of the people in the USA are against W. they pretty much know he didn't tell them the truth about going into iraq and they won't follow him. plus he cost us 2,500 american lives. i think everybody will agree if we attack iran it will be 5 times that. the american people won't follow him. if that is the case he's a bigger idiot than i ever dreamed of, because he's fighting a lost cause.
 
#43
#43
would be a logical concept except for one thing. most of the people in the USA are against W. they pretty much know he didn't tell them the truth about going into iraq and they won't follow him. plus he cost us 2,500 american lives. i think everybody will agree if we attack iran it will be 5 times that. the american people won't follow him. if that is the case he's a bigger idiot than i ever dreamed of, because he's fighting a lost cause.
Click to expand...

Come on, lets keep going with this. Under the Military Industrial Complex what is 2,500 lives? We lost that many soldier in an hour during our Civil War.

So we lose 15,000 lives invading Iran, think about the economic possibilities......

War is essentially a racket. Business interests have commercially benefited from warfare. Take World War I, where industrialists whose operations were subsidised by public funding were able to generate substantial profits essentially from mass human suffering.

:dunno: :question:
 
#44
#44
(OrangeEmpire @ Jul 1 said:
Come on, lets keep going with this. Under the Military Industrial Complex what is 2,500 lives? We lost that many soldier in an hour during our Civil War.

So we lose 15,000 lives invading Iran, think about the economic possibilities......

War is essentially a racket. Business interests have commercially benefited from warfare. Take World War I, where industrialists whose operations were subsidised by public funding were able to generate substantial profits essentially from mass human suffering.

:dunno: :question:
Click to expand...

i'll agree with the buisness concept. that is the reason unless china gets a big chunk nothing will happen. i also think W knows he has no shot with his own people refusing to stand behind him. when i look at W that is all i see a greedy worthless pile that is in it for himself and his friends and nobody else. i honestly believe he does not have our best interest. most of america agrees.
 
#45
#45
honestly believe he does not have our best interest. most of america agrees.
Click to expand...

Just to be obnoxious..................Just the city people............eheheheheh :dance2:

Electoral_map_2_-_2004_US_election.jpg
 
#46
#46
(smokedog#3 @ Jul 1 said:
well that used to be the case till this war. the only thing W has done is unite the middle eastern countries against us. so what you are saying orange is that W doesn't compromise, tell me why haven't we attacked iran yet. it won't happen unless russia and china get something out of it. they won't have it after the mess we have created now. not really more military power either, more economical, like new buisness in the unitedstates,etc. it is the un way.
Click to expand...

What middle eastern countries are united against us that weren't already against us prior to March 2003?

By pure population and landmass, more Arabs are our allies than not. Also, Iran is in southwest Asia, so they don't really count as being against us. They are also Persian and not Arab. And, they have intended to rid the world of the U.S. since the late 1970s...
 
#50
#50
It's sort of hard to have an opinion about geography. The term Middle East really gets overused.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top