Re: RE: Who is tired of the war?? Bring on the flames!!
dt3 said:
I don't know why NATO isn't involved. The way I understand it, if one member of NATO is attacked, then all the nations are supposed to help defend it. So if you know why, please share. It's not arrogance to say we are the UN, it's simple numbers. We have the biggest military (with the exception of possibly China) so it is to be expected that we will have to carry the biggest burden. And as I posted earlier, Saddam needed to go. I believe that if something is wrong, and you have the power to fix it, then you should. That's just my personal belief, you don't have to agree. As for not bringing sticks to a gun fight, that seems like a good reason most UN nations are not involved. Bhutan, Lesotho and probably 150 others don't have the capabilities to fight a war outside their own country. Their army is sticks compared to the Republican Guard that used to be in Iraq. Also, Canada was originally over there, right? Why did they leave? Not flaming, I just don't know why they pulled out.
Your absolutly correct about the point that if one NATO country is attacked then all are in the fray, the thing is IRAQ didnt attack a member of NATO, Afaganistan/Osama did thats why we went in there and are still there, 4 canadians were just recently killed there. We never went into Iraq at all, we never saw a connection as to osama and saddam and thier was a proven mutual dislike between them, osama was a religous fundamentalist and saddam a dictator, those 2 dont mix well. Thats essentially why we didnt go and why Britan is the only NATO ally there i believe. As for sticks vs. guns thats almost the entire coalition. 17 countries outta the total of 30 sent 1920 troops, 17 countries with no visable or actual combat or support. Yes you took the brunt of the burden but since it was your war thats the way it had to be, the attack on iraq had NOTHING to do with the war on terrorism, if this was actually a war on terrorism then saudi arabia would have been attacked since most of the 9-11 highjackers were from there, NONE were from iraq. Iraq was what is called a target of opportunity, since GWB had the US masses all riled up and afraid of massive terror attacks he pretty much had a carte blanche to do what he wanted. Saddam wasnt a good guy is any sense of the word but you cannot go around the world enforcing freedom where not invited, Saddam attacked the saudi's, they asked for help it was provided, not just by the US but by the US and MAJOR political and armed support from across the world. And dont forget it was the US that gave saddam most of his WMD to begin with, alot of people in the US forget that, the rest of the world doesnt.
That is also another reason why alot of the world doesnt trust the US, you are the ones that supplied most of these "terrorist" countries with weapons/training/money for whatever reason. The US supported Saddam when Iran was the concieved threat, then Iran vs. Iraq, actually the US was suppoting Iraq up until the first gulf war, even after he gased the kurds, this is why the world is quite cautious when it comes to the US saying this country or that is bad. If you look into it, it was the US that supported the afgani's, osama in particular, when Russia invaded, you didnt go in and fight but you provided money and training to them, then literally left them to die when you figured out russia wasnt that big a threat, another reason why the afgani's really dont trust you, they trust the UN which is why the insugency is next to nothing there, in afganistan its mostly left over warlords that are the problem and thats a small one since the UN is in there.
Saddam was a bad guy and had to be dealt with, NO CONTEST, but if you think about it he did a somewhat good job at controlling his country, just not in a good way. Look at the trouble thier having trying to set up a government with 3 main religous groups all with a mutual hatred viing for control, the majority that was surpressed under saddam probably wants revenge and the one that was in control is afraid and probably pretty upset to have been overthrown.
In this day and age you cant just do what you want when you want and not expect consequences. Osama was the threat not saddam, no matter what spin is put on the reason for the war in Iraq the rest of the world and a good portion of the US knows its BS. It's not that we dont trust Americans we just dont trust US Governmental motives, especially those that have had intimate dealings with them or have studied history, real history not the history portray'd through sound bites. Alot of us still can't figure out how Clinton got impeached for a stain on a dress and GWB got a second term after it was known it was all BS.
I've been in the US many times, i used to live within an hour of the NY boarder and i've watched your news programs, to the rest of us its all right wing BS and propaganda, and fox news seems to be the worst of the bunch, i laugh at what you guys call liberal media, your liberal seems to be out conservatives, i dare you to watch a BBC telecast some time then watch the same news story on CNN then fox news, you wont believe the difference, i did a research paper on this kinda thing, i wish i could find it, its really interesting on the way wording of certain phrases can mean different things.
Example my writting style as seen here, it seems exceedingly aggressive and i know that, i can make it more passive but it looses alot of my reasoning, im not an english major so im not sure why but there ya go.
Anyways since this is getting so much longer than i expected i'll stop here, and as stated dont read this as flaming, i do have alot of respect and admiration for the US, just not your current administration and some of the descisions made in past ones, democratic and republican. Up here we have multiple parties that change from time to time, although the liberals (party name, not nessarily what you call them also discussed in another thread) have been in control for over a decade, i've only voted a like 8 times but i've changed my vote amost every time depending on what the party had done in the past and what the others were saying, little dissapointed with them as late on somethings.
) but, I'm replying to you:
