Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Mojotronica, Mar 24, 2003.
Koffi Anan is like a bike...any stupid can handle with it.
I support no US military involvement in any of the choices listed.
You must be joking about Colombia; it's a US puppet state, for heavens sake.
Your trolling is getting old and their are other countries which are invovled in the action so are they conquers too? Anyways do you really think Iraq is doing well? They are losing far more troops than the Coalition forces.
I would support fighting on the side of Israel if they were attacked(by a substantial military force and I doubt anyone other country would help them other than the U.S.). Other then that no more military action is needed after Iraq, especially not Checnya(Russian double standard).
North Korea is not going to be attacked by the U.S. There is a most a 1.5% of that happening.
I have read that post of Curt's you quoted 3 times now. How on earth can you say that was a troll?
Popular American opion did expect this to be like a video game on set on easy. I think the current reactions of people there prove this
No organization or government has direct power. Laws must be upheld by the members or citizens (e.g. police), not leaders or committees that make the laws. President Calvin Coolidge had no "real" control over Al Capone, for example - it was up to police and ordinary citizens to control him (they didn't). Kofi Annan has no power over the US, a Member State of the UN - its up to other Member States to control the US, or any other country.
Sure, the UN is powerless, but it still has total overriding authority.
What's going on in Kenya? AFAIK, they recently got rid of their corrupt government, and have replaced it with a democratically elected promising looking new government.
Did you get it mixed up with Zimbabwe? Now that's a country which would benefit from some kind of international intervention.
The Iraqis ARE being a cakewalk. The US army advnaced within artillery range of Iraq's capital within 5 days of fighting and with the least ammount of losses to enemy fire in the history of modern warfare. It's supposed to be a war, which means people from both sides are going to get killed, but the fact the Iraqis are putting up token resistance doesn't mean in the whole scheme of things they are not a worthy adversary.
War, as any other violent conflict, will result in people getting killed. Lossess are horrible regardless of how small they may be, but from a military point of view, the American-British coalition in Iraq is advancing insanely fast for insanely low prices.
I wan't trolling, chum.
So stop whining.
Notice how the word conquest is in quotes, or is that too subtle for you?
It's my country that is the major ally in this fight, so when the Israeli army chooses to help out, then you can cast judgements.
The Israeli army has their own problems to worry about.
Total overriding authority on what? The U.N has no power to do anything if a nation decides not to listen to them, the U.N itself cannot do anything. The U.N, in my opinion, is nothing but a big debate forum. A seperate country could force the other country to listen to the U.N., but not the U.N itself. If you mean, it has world opinion behind it, how do you embargo China, the U.S, U.K,Russia,etc. And you surely can't invade them.
CurtSibling, the only reason the Israeli army is out of this war is because the Americans and the British government asked us to stay out. I'm not casting judgements, merely statement facts.
As far as armed conflicts go, this one is pretty light on the casulaty side.
I am not contesting that fact.
Well, it depends, obviously.
Cuba rules? Just can't get enough of being imprisoned and beaten, eh?
With respect to the question, I don't think we need to committ any of our forces to any of those countries at this time.
I support none.
Although this current war is not going badly it hasn't exactly gone to plan.The Iraqi's are firing back for a start.
In the event of hostility against Israel they are well capable of taking care of any troubles on their own.
It's only taken a week for people to become uneasy about events in Iraq.I'am of the opinion that public support would wane quickly in a long haul scenario.
North Korea is not a pushover nation.An invasion there would precipitate a bloodbath not seen since WW2.
As for the others i dont see the need.
Iran, N Korea, Lybia, Cuba. Palestinians are a problem Israel can handle militarily, and I don't see how a bigger military force will help against their terrorists. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and I wouldn't support a war that could evolve using nukes. As to the rest of the countries - I don't know of any significant links to terrorism (which ofcource doesn't mean there aren't known ones - I know very little about most of them )
However, I would generally support most actions to replace a dictatorship with a democracy, not necessarily military means. I also encourage the US to put pressure on allied dictatorships and monarchies to give parlaments a bigger role and to slow democraticize them.
Two words: National Sovereignty
Even if I was willing to give that up to another power, it would not be the UN. Have you read their charter? You have human rights only if it does not interfere with the goals of the UN. At least the US constituion states you have them regardless of what the US wants to do.
If there is further military action after this conflict then i see it more in the way of special forces targetting known terror groups.
Putting pressure on European countries in regard to what is essentially their way of life is dangerous and will not do much for support in any future conflict.
Europe is a can of worms best left closed.
Interesting. It seems you don't want to surrender it to the UN, I have no complaints with that.
Would you prefer to surrender it to another nation that decides you are criminal?
Separate names with a comma.