ashep5000
Chieftain
so you are a nationalist socialist then huh..........but anyway I know that many latin countries prefer leftist governments even compared to our democrats up here.
navman74 said:Actually he, as I, have been on the ground in the mideast and seen the real story with no need to listen to an uninformed M.Moore, or for that matter news(any) who do all have their own agendas, right or left.
The fact of the matter is that Iraq was in clear violation of several UN provisions, this was never even a question, it was unanimously passed by Security Council, the only question was to allow more time for them, or not. My country grew tired of giving second chances, right or wrong. FYI large companies like the ones you mention, every election, donate huge sums to BOTH candidates..perhaps you should stop listening to propaganda yourself.
Saddam had in fact used WMD already, on his own people, (yes, WMD= chem,bio, and nuclear, not only nuke as so many people wrongly assume)
Saddam also imprisoned and executed countless thousands of his own people, as well as thousands of Kuwaitis when he invaded that country.
Metacomet said:I agree with you but what about North Corea, China, Pakistan and more countries. Why only Irak?
ashep5000 said:Another thing that people convinently forget is that bush can not just declare war on his own like your beloved dictators can. In our country he has to have approval of the senate, and then he can act. And all of the democrats who claim to never have supported this war have nominated a supporter of the war. Kerry was a senator and he voted to give the president the power to declare war. So he must have seen a reason for it then, yet now that democrats don't support the war he claims to be against it for the recognition of the dem. party (like many issues)
navman74 said:As for the intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq, I have spoken with members of the intelligence communities on both sides of the Atlantic. I have seen a trend as well, of the more "PC" minded people in the business, trying to cover tracks now. The true military career intelligence services however, including yours in UK, had no and still have no, doubts as to the justifications for this war. Your Prime Minister Blair has been a true patriot, willing to risk his political fortunes, for a good cause.
ashep5000 said:I have a very low opinion of the UN anyway.......I really don't think that they are worth the effort put into them. Everybody always talks about how bad the US is and how we are building an empire and blah blah blah.......if we were really building an empire trust me you would know.
ashep5000 said:Do you think Iraq is some great prize to fight over.....it costs us more money to supply our troops than what it would be worth as far as taking over the country. Iraq invaded kuwait, which is very rich in oil.....we moved in and stopped iraq and liberated kuwait. If the US was oil-hungry then we would have kept kuwait, especially being already there with an army 13 years prior to invading iraq. We gave iraq a chance when we didn't move in and crush them, and saddam played with us. He lost.
ashep5000 said:I think that if the US was trying to build an empire and take over resources then we would fight our way down to venezuela, taking mexico and every other country along the way. That way oil is right next door and not shipped over seas around the world. It amazes me how people will believe everything they hear or read.
ashep5000 said:People look up to the soviet union and it's harsh government that enslaves it's own people and makes dozens of puppet governments then in turn critize the US while enjoying the protection we provide to NATO. Does anyone here honestly believe that england and france could withstand the Red Army on there own?.
ashep5000 said:the fact of the matter is that the US is a military giant that freedom loving countries need but at the same time despise because it's not their country holding the cards. there are countries in latin america that don't even have a military because they count on the US mil to come in if they are attacked, they don't even bother funding an army. And because we as americans have a respect for democracy we will protect them.
General Kohl said:Check a little more about Kuwait situation, since the so called "Liberation" it sells oil exclusevely to USA under the OPEP prices, that may be because US troops camps there, and about Iraq not being profitable, you need to see it in a more dynamic way, the US Economy has boosted since the invasion, Large Companies has profited over getting cheap oil in Iraq and re-selling it in USA, your stock exchange has boosted, the olny ones who didnt profited in this was the average american, who keeps paying 45 dollars a barrel of oil when Halliburton brings it from Iraq for 4 Dollars the barrel.
I dont believe USA could withstand the Red Army on their own either.
TheDarkPhantom said:Firstly, you cannot be a patriot by ignoring the wishes and protests of the vast majority of your electorate, going against the advice of think tanks, pressure groups and intelligence reports and taking your preferred course of action. That is not patriotic, that is dictatorial. Besides which, while I understand that patriotism is loved in the USA, European country's do not hold it in such an esteemed viewpoint, from experience of how damaging fanatical patriotism can be.
I don't understand your references to 'PC' minded people covering their tracks, but the comments about the intelligence services having no doubts about the war is simply not true. Both your senate commitees and our Parliamentary Select Committes and investigations have revealed that the CIA, NSA and MI6 all made significant cautions against the war, and more importantly, have since conceded that in both the USA and UK the intelligence which was used as a justification for war was false. This is not people 'covering tracks' these are official government hearings and you cannot simply brush away their conclusions. Even if people thought that war was justified at the time, it is clear now that it was not (at least on the grounds of WMD, Security Issues or Terrorism).
I do not deny that Saddam was a tyrranical despot who committed terrible crimes against humanity and ought to be brought to justice. But, in light of precedents set by the wests' actions in the past this is not sufficient to warrant a war which has seen some 9,000 innocent civilian lives lost. I don't deny that Saddam killed many mroe than this in his rule (before someone throws those figures back at me) but, as I say, the west's record has made it abundantly clear that wars are hardly ever declared for humanitarian reasons.
navman74 said:I could envision a day in the near future when at least one of those may come to the front. As for Pakistan and China, not sure what UN resolution they violated..and really as for China, with their veto power, I am quite certain they did not violate any, as no resolution would have passed a vote without being vetoed.
You are right, USA could easily won over Mexico, but not over ALL LATIN AMERICA TOGUETHER, and i truly doubt that the other latin american countries wouldnt help out Mexico in order to protect themselves from further american invasions.ashep5000 said:As far as USA not winning a war against mexico.....come on, does anyone here honestly think that mexico would win??? The US took mexico city over a century ago when we were smaller and they were bigger (military and land), now that they are smaller and we are bigger it would be a cake walk. Everyting is in perfect bombing range of our border bases anyway.
ashep5000 said:BTW-----Kuwait is self-ruled just like Iraq is now, so if any kuwaiti or iraqi company wants to sell oil to the US it is because they are.............FREEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!
Communisto said:ugh, i hate cnn, it's complete blinding rightism is astounding. I watched a comercial about and upcomming doc called 1812: the first invasion. This plainly shows and says (in the commercial) the U.S has been invaded! I got offended by this, as a canadian whos countrymen died fighting the americans in our own lands after THEY invaded CANADA, gar! it makes me soo mad! i just want to smash something!
navman74 said:On the second part regarding the Red Army, from the mid-80s, the US had the ability to stop them cold. This was why they finally backed down in the cold war. Interviews which can easily be found online even with top Soviet era generals and admirals of that time frame will concur with this statement.
ashep5000 said:You people profound me with your ignorance.....CNN a rightist news?!?!?! You've got to be kidding me.....What news do you think is better? Al Jezeera? Watch it some time and see how they report the news. I watch FOXnews because it is actually the only news that I know of that is not leftist. CNN is the worst. And secondly you could take all of south america and put it together and it still would not make a dent in my country's military. We have an extremely modern air force and army. We have the money to research this stuff and buy it because we haven't killed our economy with socialist ideas. If it's so great down south then why is there constant civil war and corruption. Your people are stagnating behind everyone in the world except africa, and you know it. I have worked at SOUTHCOM for the past five years and all of your airforces put together would not take out 1/4 of what is at the boneyard. In case you don't know what that is, the boneyard is the place our aircraft go that no longer are good enough for our airforce. For your airforce it would probably be top of the line. And this is not an exageration, it is the truth.