[Jr_Bullit]

Rhino....

Why exactly was it the US' right to invade another sovereign nation and cut down their leader which the US had previously supported for years?

What? Ohhh, nuclear bombs you say...well where are they? Where's the threat to the US? What exactly was Iraq holding over our heads that gave us the right to march over them, and remove their leader? What about their supposed harbouring of terrorists? We don't go after European nations and insist they release to us their refugees even if we have an issue with who may reside within their borders...

And if we want to go after Iraq for above stated reason, well then why not North Korea? And if you think our diplomatic talks have no merit, no value, and are absolutely worthless, why then do you think we're not now in fights with nations like N.K. who have proven loud and clear that they have nuclear weapons, and are supplying other nations with things like Uranium. Nations we know quite clearly definitely don't have the love on for the US. You think maybe our diplomats might actually have some success some of the time with people who definitely don't like us or want to hear from us?

Now...Saddam was no great guy, he actually was kind of a bastard...but, what gives us the right to determine who gets to rule other countries? Shouldn't that be the nation's decision?

(yes I know, there are always other influences in the over throw of a government, but for chrissakes, this wasn't exactly a failure of diplomacy, we abandoned diplomatic endeavors to achieve our own ill-gotten ends).

The UN quite clearly has a mandate that says it will not involve itself unwanted and without merit in the affairs of other sovereign nations, unless the people of that sovereign nation appeal to the UN for help.

The UN body voted that it did not feel there was merit or value in attacking Iraq, that the evidence provided by the US was not good enough to attack a sovereign nation. IT did not show enough cause for such action, so the US thumbed it's nose at the UN and went ahead. Any nation has that ability, the US because of it's size and power definitely does, but it's not doing itself any faovours by behaving in a manner contrary to the agreed upon codes of conduct for nations of our size, wealth, power and influence.

Patience often wins one the most allies.

 

[Just Lookin'...]

the fallacy here is the thinking that the UN failed in Iraq, but that the US Invasion succeeded.

that assumes a recognizable objective that has been attained.

are we saying we invaded Iraq because Saddam was a bastard?

then why don't we attack North Korea? Why didn't we do the same with Cambodia? Why aren't we getting ready to take over China?

oh, wait, Cambodia is too much like Viet Nam and we had our asses handed to us there, and the public will never support any attack of any kind in Southeast Asia. Plus, we suck at jungle guerrilla warfare: planes/helos and tanks don't work there.

and China? uh, can't invade a country with 1.6 billion people. it's just too big.

North Korea? no way! they actually have demonstrated a posession of operational Nukular WOMD! they'll kill the shyt out of us.

i know! let's invade iraq! it's nearest neighbors, who hate us, actually hate them even more! plus, it's got a weak military (we proved that before)

now, since there actually were NO WOMD in Iraq, how did the UN weapons inspectors FAIL TO FIND THEM?

you seem to think diplomacy is a quagmire of failure when it can be demonstrated that nothing else that's REASONABLE is possible.

that it fails to yield desired results is certainly true in many situations. that's too bad.

invading a country on mythical assumptions that are later PROVED to be untenable is NOT reasonable.

to use Iraq as a basis for your opinion is, frankly, embarrassing.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Rhino....
Why exactly was it the US' right to invade another sovereign nation and cut down their leader which the US had previously supported for years?

The UN whent in an removed himfrom teh country HE invaded. They left him in power under certain conditions to avoid any more blood shed.

What? Ohhh, nuclear bombs you say...well where are they? Where's the threat to the US? What exactly was Iraq holding over our heads that gave us the right to march over them, and remove their leader? What about their supposed harbouring of terrorists? We don't go after European nations and insist they release to us their refugees even if we have an issue with who may reside within their borders...

Saddam refusing the resolutions that allowed him to stay in power is why Saddam was removed. Only poeple can't understand that. Saddam knew what he could do legally and he found out he could do more because the UN could only impose sanctions and wave from afar.

And if we want to go after Iraq for above stated reason, well then why not North Korea? And if you think our diplomatic talks have no merit, no value, and are absolutely worthless, why then do you think we're not now in fights with nations like N.K. who have proven loud and clear that they have nuclear weapons, and are supplying other nations with things like Uranium. Nations we know quite clearly definitely don't have the love on for the US. You think maybe our diplomats might actually have some success some of the time with people who definitely don't like us or want to hear from us?

NK didn't invade a country recently and after being removed agree to stipulations to stay in power....did they? Talking is still an option...never should stop. Iraq WAS warranted Saddam made sure of that. The rest of teh world is stuck on WMD (more than just nuclear vepons*Mr Sulu from Star Trek*)
The question is: Where is the mutha F'n UN?!?! That is there job...right? I ask you, "where is the mutha F'n UN?" In the futre hopefully the UN will succeed....BUT if they don't. Then what....we wave at them from afar and talk bad about them? Or does teh UN call upon the US to be the enforcer? To hell with that. Why should we? No onein the world thinks we are up to any good....I say let NK nuke all of Asia and eastern Europe (no offense to Monkeys out there ) I say let teh UN talk for a decade or two until NK can turn the whole world into a nice sheet of glass.

Now...Saddam was no great guy, he actually was kind of a bastard...but, what gives us the right to determine who gets to rule other countries? Shouldn't that be the nation's decision?

(yes I know, there are always other influences in the over throw of a government, but for chrissakes, this wasn't exactly a failure of diplomacy, we abandoned diplomatic endeavors to achieve our /bown ill-gotten ends).

Our own ill-gotten ends? I like how were are exactly benefitting from this.

Get this straight SADDAM REFUSING TO OPPERATE TO THE RESOLUTIONS SET FORTH BY THE UN gave teh UN the riight to remove Saddam. THe US did not make the wake up one day and say ...."hey screw the UN and lets take Saddam out for no reason." Saddam by not following the rules laid down to keep himin power (for over a decade!) neccesatated teh UN remove him...wich they failed to do in exchange for his cooperation. Well The UN stalled out over the Decade and had no intention of enforcing their resolutions. Hiding and stopping inspections was just enough catalyst for the US to push for removing Saddam...the UN still sits on their hands. Is that an act of a governing body? No. It is the acts of a PD forum

The UN quite clearly has a mandate that says it will not involve itself unwanted and without merit in the affairs of other sovereign nations, unless the people of that sovereign nation appeal to the UN for help.

The UN body voted that it did not feel there was merit or value in attacking Iraq, that the evidence provided by the US was not good enough to attack a sovereign nation. IT did not show enough cause for such action, so the US thumbed it's nose at the UN and went ahead. Any nation has that ability, the US because of it's size and power definitely does, but it's not doing itself any faovours by behaving in a manner contrary to the agreed upon codes of conduct for nations of our size, wealth, power and influence.

Then the UN has no right asking Saddam to comply with anything .......only suggest, lightly. The UN would not remove Saddam when he let them know he couldn't care less about any resolutions he might have agreed to. They were invloved over a decade ago WHEN SADDAM INVADED THE SOVERIEGN NATION OF KUWAIT. The US did what the UN Couldn't because they were powerless to do anything about it....unless a decade isn't enough patience.

Patience often wins one the most allies.

Please rething that statement and apply it to Saddam. Saddam did not become allies with the UN because they were patient. HE was forced into an agreement so he could stay in power....which he didn't follow so he thengave up his right to stay in power.

 

[N8 v2.0]

The UN did utterly fail in Iraq... remember the "Oil for Food" scheme that kept Saddam in power and flush with cash..?

The US invasion of Iraq did fact exceed.

It is now up to the natives to figure out how to make the most of the great opportunity afforded them by the US and its allies.

 

[Just Lookin'...]

are you suggesting that the UN requested the USA to remove Saddam from power?

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Rhino...after reading your post, I'm horribly, utterly confused....

Where did you get the understanding that the UN ever supported US action, much less dicated US action in Iraq? The members of the UN voted against any action there, the US went in anyways for it's own purposes....

Got some linkys for us to click on to understand how you came to this understanding of current affairs?

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Modify the analogy to make Bush holding a gun to my head and the swap being to Kerry. Bush I know what he is capable of.....Kerry just says he will do it better than Bush. Kill me better? Is he a better shot? He might put the gun down...but then I would kick him in the nads and stomp on him for even having a gun to my head.

F for not answering the question and modifying it so you can say the same old chit.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
are you suggesting that the UN requested the USA to remove Saddam from power?

OK are you know playing dumb? No the UN couldn't/wouldn't do what they had to do...remove Saddam.

They failed with respect to Iraq. The US, failing at it or not, is keeping the UN part of the bargain. Think about that for awhile.

Just because they choose to sit on their hands still after a decade is not a shining moment for the UN. They, by allowing Saddam to stay in power under conditions laid out in the resoultions agreed to by Saddam, took responsibility for upholding the enforcement of the agreement. Saddam did not comply and the UN was confused on what to do. What would it take for the UN to act?

All HAT no cattle.

 

[Just Lookin'...]

so vigilantism is okay?

at no point was the USA ever responsible for the ouster Saddam.

so, across town a bastard is beating up his wife. the cops don't get the guy to stop.

so it's okay, morally and lawfully, for you to drive across town and beat the crap out of the guy.

during which you burn down his house and accidentally kill one of his kids and the family's dog.

what the heck happened to you, rhino? you used to make more sense than that.

then, to justify your moral rectitude and superior position, you further humiliate and torture the guy.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Rhino...after reading your post, I'm horribly, utterly confused....

Where did you get the understanding that the UN ever supported US action, much less dicated US action in Iraq? The members of the UN voted against any action there, the US went in anyways for it's own purposes....

Got some linkys for us to click on to understand how you came to this understanding of current affairs?

Never supported it.........but they were the ones that should have doen it. They didn't.

Their vote says they aren't willing to enforce resolutions made in valid by Saddam not complying. Nothing more.

You need to step back to the issue at hand.. Saddam in power. Why? UN allowed him to stay under conditions.
Why conditions? Saddam invaded the country of Kuwait and the UN forces (majority of it the US) pushed him back an short of a blood bath we thought a reslution to have Saddam play nice was a better alternative (chock one up for the diplomats...that was a good deal. If he would comply)

With regard to Saddam and the UN that is what I am talking about. I am having a harder time breaking it down for you guys.

Saddam invaded Kuwait
UN pushed him back
allowed Saddam to stay in power
Resolutions outlined what he needed to do to stay in power
Saddam did not comply
UN does little if anything effective over a decade
Saddam really starts into noncompliance with weapons inspectors
Red lights go off
UN does little but talk. (wich they should but their efforts with the resolution tells them Saddam now needs to go)
UN does nothing and US is getting mad at seemingly ignoring Saddams brash acts
US begs for UN to uphold the resolutions that aloowed Saddam in power
UN does not.
US after beating a drum abot Saddam is up to something (wich everyone beleived he was)
Us goes in and it turns ugly. (big suprise right?)
UN denounces US for going in when the UN wouldn't/couldn't

Now how much real power does the UN have? They are their to band togeather if a threat arises...yet Saddam was a threat and showed to be again.

Not finding weapons after the fact does not negate what a dumbass Saddam was for playing games with a country who was on their toes for any new threats after 9/11. 9/11 was not the reason we went into Iraq......again. 9/11 is NOT the reason we went into Iraq......

Saddam is.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
so vigilantism is okay?

at no point was the USA ever responsible for the ouster Saddam.

so, across town a bastard is beating up his wife. the cops don't get the guy to stop.

so it's okay, morally and lawfully, for you to drive across town and beat the crap out of the guy.

during which you burn down his house and accidentally kill one of his kids and the family's dog.

what the heck happened to you, rhino? you used to make more sense than that.

then, to justify your moral rectitude and superior position, you further humiliate and torture the guy.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
so vigilantism is okay?

at no point was the USA ever responsible for the ouster Saddam.

so, across town a bastard is beating up his wife. the cops don't get the guy to stop.

so it's okay, morally and lawfully, for you to drive across town and beat the crap out of the guy.

during which you burn down his house and accidentally kill one of his kids and the family's dog.

what the heck happened to you, rhino? you used to make more sense than that.

then, to justify your moral rectitude and superior position, you further humiliate and torture the guy.

When the cops refuse to go out there for a decade and just ticket him on the street (which mind you he never pays anyways because the cops are not an authority to him)

It is OK for me to go in there to remove him from the house. After a year of threating and trying to get the cops out there to help. If he goes out kicking and screaming and kicks his kids and wife on the way out thta is unfortunate. But the wife and kids will be better off without an abusive manin the house.

I still need to hear all of your justifications for the UN's lack of action.

What is their role, realistically.

When will the UN act in the capacity that they were designed to? Global Policeman.

Is a decade not long enough to wait for a tyrant to get in line....diplomatic attempts never end but at what point is a tyrant no longer listening?

Did the UN do their job?

Did they enforce their own reslotions from the UN organized removal of Saddam from Kuwait?

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
When the cops refuse to go out there for a decade and just ticket him on the street (which mind you he never pays anyways because the cops are not an authority to him)

It is OK for me to go in there to remove him from the house. After a year of threating and trying to get the cops out there to help. If he goes out kicking and screaming and kicks his kids and wife on the way out thta is unfortunate. But the wife and kids will be better off without an abusive manin the house.

I still need to hear all of your justifications for the UN's lack of action.

What is their role, realistically.

When will the UN act in the capacity that they were designed to? Global Policeman.

Is a decade not long enough to wait for a tyrant to get in line....diplomatic attempts never end but at what point is a tyrant no longer listening?

Did the UN do their job?

Did they enforce their own reslotions from the UN organized removal of Saddam from Kuwait?

So you think the UN is the police force for the international world?

The UN is a peaceful organization made up of nations from around the world. Yes it does have a military force that can be enacted to create further peace. Saddam posed no threat to anyone but his own nation. It is not the UN's job to go in and tell another sovereign nation how to run themselves unless the citizens of the nation go before the UN and request their assistance in the deposing of their government.

If it is agreed to by the members of the UN, then its military forces can be used to prevent things like a holocaust of a certain culture, or type of people, and it can be used to prevent a war between nations. If anything, it should have been used against us when we invaded Iraq to achieve our own goals.

It is also not the US' job to judge another sovereign nation and depose their leader because WE disapprove of how they run their own nation. No single sovereign nation has that right over any other sovereign nation.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
When the cops refuse to go...

wow, I can't believe you made JL's analogy work.

The only thing worse than an evil man is a good man who does nothing.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
So you think the UN is the police force for the international world?

The UN is a peaceful organization made up of nations from around the world. Yes it does have a military force that can be enacted to create further peace. Saddam posed no threat to anyone but his own nation. It is not the UN's job to go in and tell another sovereign nation how to run themselves unless the citizens of the nation go before the UN and request their assistance in the deposing of their government.

If it is agreed to by the members of the UN, then its military forces can be used to prevent things like a holocaust of a certain culture, or type of people, and it can be used to prevent a war between nations. If anything, it should have been used against us when we invaded Iraq to achieve our own goals.

It is also not the US' job to judge another sovereign nation and depose their leader because WE disapprove of how they run their own nation. No single sovereign nation has that right over any other sovereign nation.

Man are you confused on Saddam. WHen he invade Kuwait and was pushed out he gave up running his country...or would have. THe UN made sure of that. Resolutions outlined what Saddam needed to do to stay in power. Saddam did not keep his end of the bargain. He esentially said "hey UN see I don't accept this offer.....oh you are already out? sorry. If you want come and get me."

The UN's inaction enforced Saddams narcosis. He was to powerfull for the UN to challenge to take out of power.

Bare minimum the UN should have headed the US force to remove Saddam. but alas a DECADE later after mucho diplomacy they couldn't.

We did not judge Saddam.... as hell at you right now. Saddam did not come thru with his end of teh bargain he agreed to....so he had to be removed.

Why do you think the UN had no responsibilty with Saddam and how long this stretched out? Where is that critical thinking towards teh UN and their behavior?

To not act is better than acting I guess.......well that is exactly what the UN did for more than a decade. Way to go UN! Your inaction helped creat teh monster that is Iraq today. Yet you were not willing to help clean up your mess.

Rhino

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Saddam posed no threat to anyone but his own nation.

Earth to Major Jr_B, this is ground control... you're floating in a most peculiar way... stop with the 'shrooms.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by LordOpie
wow, I can't believe you made JL's analogy work.

The only thing worse than an evil man is a good man who does nothing.

It is NOT a gift, and I wouldn't expect any other pearls of wisdom from me today. Comeone everyone lighten up and have a great weekend. I am out of here at 3pm PST.

WooHoo!

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
If he goes out kicking and screaming and kicks his kids and wife on the way out thta is unfortunate. But the wife and kids will be better off without an abusive manin the house.

See your missing it here.

You swung a massive left hook at him and missed, accidentally punching his wife and breaking her jaw... then you body slammed him but werent lookin to see that you were throwing him down ontop of his 3 year old kid (who now has a broken neck)... then finally you throw him into the wall, hit a support beam and the house comes down on you and his family killing most of his family... you make it out though with a broken leg, but its all good, you were trying to help.

Now 15 years from later, a man comes knocking on your door and shoots you in the face... I guess you didnt notice that his 10 year old son was watching your good deeds from the window and mistook your good intentions for the acts of a brutal tyrant.

[addition made after rhino's post DOH!]

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
See your missing it here.

You swung a massive left hook at him and missed, accidentally punching his wife and breaking her jaw... then you body slammed him but werent lookin to see that you were throwing him down ontop of his 3 year old kid (who now has a broken neck)... then finally you throw him into the wall, hit a support beam and the house comes down on you and his family killing his family... you make it out though with a broken leg, but its all good, you were trying to help.

Or you might be over dramatic with your example? The fact that bad things could happen shouldn't negate me from trying. A Lot of things went wrong for me to screw up that bad. In reality the dog runs out the door the wife grabs teh kids and hobbles out while I toss teh abusive father to to the cops as the house colapses. Houses can be rebuilt. Abusive fathers should not be allowed to countinue beating their families.

Does that mean going into it I shouldn't try? You are missing the point. A family was being beat to a pulp and I seemed to be the only one that could/would do something.

After all I taught Rambo everything he knows. Though I like your visualization....I am developing bruises as we speak.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
I guess you didnt notice that his 10 year old son was watching your good deeds from the window and mistook your good intentions for the acts of a brutal tyrant.

so you're saying that we should kill everyone in Iraq who doesn't agree with us? Ok, I'll buy that.

btw, this seriously convoluted analogy left out the part where the guy is beating up on his neighbors too.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Now 15 years from later, a man comes knocking on your door and shoots you in the face... I guess you didnt notice that his 10 year old son was watching your good deeds from the window and mistook your good intentions for the acts of a brutal tyrant.

Good one. You added that one after I quoted you....I didn't ignore it.

True, that kid is screwed up in teh head from a decade of abuse. Hopefully with time and rebuilding of the house and care that he can see the removale of his father as ultimately a good thing and his children won't have to go through what he did.

 

[Just Lookin'...]

so both loopie and rhino support vigilantism.

okay. fine. just making sure.

so, big guys, who's next?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
so both loopie and rhino support vigilanism.

okay. fine. just making sure.

so, big guys, who's next?

And you support a police force that does nothing but threaten and not act.

Are also OK with abuses being played out when the abuser can't be reasoned with.

The US upheld teh UN's responsibility to remove Saddam. That is not a vigilanty type act to me. Means Boss Hog is to busy eating ribs to care that Daisy Duke is getting rear ended by Uncle Jesse. The Duke boys to the resuce!

*Lightening the mood here folks*

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
so both loopie and rhino support vigilanism.

okay. fine. just making sure.

so, big guys, who's next?

nope, I don't support vigilantism... I'd just call Manimal and have him kick some ass.

You're just pissed cuz you're point was a flacid as the UN's power :devil:

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Good one. You added that one after I quoted you....I didn't ignore it.

True, that kid is screwed up in teh head from a decade of abuse. Hopefully with time and rebuilding of the house and care that he can see the removale of his father as ultimately a good thing and his children won't have to go through what he did.

Yeah sorry it needed a pinch of garlic... I hadn't noticed your reply.

 

[golgiaparatus]

Originally posted by LordOpie
so you're saying that we should kill everyone in Iraq who doesn't agree with us? Ok, I'll buy that.

btw, this seriously convoluted analogy left out the part where the guy is beating up on his neighbors too.

Your saying that you are a misquoting sucka-chump-ass-fool... Ok I'll buy that

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by golgiaparatus
Yeah sorry it needed a pinch of garlic... I had'nt noticed your reply.

NO I liked the addition. I just didn't want you to think I snipped it because it was tooooooo good.

Yours and my analagy's are just about as realistic. Trueth is it falls somewhere inbetween, don't ya think? Kind of like this war.

It isn't pretty. It was something that had to be done. The abusive father made sure of that. The family gets hurt (it isn't a Sat morning cartoon special) but he couldn't be left to abuse them any longer. A decade of threats didn't make him stop. He was beyond talking into being good. The cops wouldn't protect the family or nieghbors fromhis abusive ways (implied or not)

Sorry. I know I should keep up the extreme right mentality you expect from me...but in reality I am disgustedby the UN reaming us a new one and not using any lube. I can clearly see where they did not keep Saddam in check. They were not effective. That is not a crime but it is a reality.

When will the UN fess up to failling with Iraq? Never becuase diplomacy never ends (wich it shouldn't) but that doesn't mean diplomacy always works (like with Saddam)

Oh well 10-15 more minutes!