Iraq discussion again

[Kuzmich]

Alright, i can see that lots of people here think that UN should have helped US with Iraq. Question to those who do. Why? 911 didnt happen in europe it happened in New York, so why would United Nations submit resources and people to fight your war. Ofcourse you gonna say a lot of crap about nukes, and other shit like that, proove it. Now lets start by stating why did UK help. I personally think that it was just to try and spread some influence over to Asia, but i am sure ORC will tell as a more detailed answer. Go ahead discuss.

 

[mistro5000]

there were no womd in iraq, we went because bush told us it was a good thing to do, and the iraqis are free now, which is good. we are asking the UN to help because plainly, we dont know what we are doing. we know how to kill but not create; we are only 230 years old! the UK helped because everyone has already made allies and noone in thier right mind would croos us because we got womd.

 

[Kuzmich]

what is womd? if it is nukes then a lot of nations have them and 5 nations including US have an ability to nuke any part of this earth. UK,Russia,US,China, and someone else, dont remember who

 

[Kuzmich]

oh yes, Germany

 

[mistro5000]

ah, but we have hundreds

 

[Kuzmich]

So do we, Russian shark class sub carries 250 nukes and we got 3 of those subs and we got many more nukes

 

[mistro5000]

oh. well, we too have subs with many nukes at the ready

 

[bamthedoc]

US and UK forces have found WMD in Iraq. Iraq also had SCUDS and funding of a nuclear arms program. All this stuff has been proven, recently might I add, and will be used as evidence in Saddam Hussien's trial.

The UN should have helped the US for one simple fact:

It was their promise on the line, and the US has defended the UN's word. How can the UN say that their word is their bond when they blatently go against their very word by ignoring a situation that UN WIs tell them is going on. Every WI who said that Ba`athists were hiding WMDs were fired. One was even at a US press conference -- French guy, by the way -- giving his opinion on the whole thing.

I'll tell you another thing, less related to the UN. The US made a promise in 1990 to the Iraqi people. We promised them that we would free them from Saddam Hussien and the Ba`athists. Then what did we do? We left, that's what. We broke our word, and it has always been out bond. We went back to help the Phillipines. We helped the French. We help, well, that's a long list. What did we do in Iraq? We abandoned them in an easy war. WE BROKE OUR WORD!!

There are several reasons the UN should have helped, but I'm not going to go into a debate with people who don't have all the facts as they will continue to argue what they see on TV or in the papers.

 

[itchmahballz]

ok im lost can you repeat that

 

[bamthedoc]

This is repeating it:

Originally posted by bamthedoc
US and UK forces have found WMD in Iraq. Iraq also had SCUDS and funding of a nuclear arms program. All this stuff has been proven, recently might I add, and will be used as evidence in Saddam Hussien's trial.

The UN should have helped the US for one simple fact:

It was their promise on the line, and the US has defended the UN's word. How can the UN say that their word is their bond when they blatently go against their very word by ignoring a situation that UN WIs tell them is going on. Every WI who said that Ba`athists were hiding WMDs were fired. One was even at a US press conference -- French guy, by the way -- giving his opinion on the whole thing.

I'll tell you another thing, less related to the UN. The US made a promise in 1990 to the Iraqi people. We promised them that we would free them from Saddam Hussien and the Ba`athists. Then what did we do? We left, that's what. We broke our word, and it has always been out bond. We went back to help the Phillipines. We helped the French. We help, well, that's a long list. What did we do in Iraq? We abandoned them in an easy war. WE BROKE OUR WORD!!

There are several reasons the UN should have helped, but I'm not going to go into a debate with people who don't have all the facts as they will continue to argue what they see on TV or in the papers.

This is explaining it (which I shouldn't have to do):

1st paragraph:
Saddam Hussien is going on trial. We are using WMDs we have found, SCUDs used and found, plans for nuclear devices and funding toward research, and many other items we have found as evidence against him.

2nd paragraph:
The UN stinks.

3rd paragraph:
UN Weapon's Inspectors (WI) told the UN and the world that Saddam Hussien and the Ba`athists were hiding banned weapons. Upon doing so, the UN fired them so that they could, well, ignore the situation. The UN made a promise to get rid of WMD and improve the situation of citizens in Iraq. They did not keep the promise.

4th paragraph:
The US made a promise to free the Iraqis. McArthur promised the Phillipeans that we would return, and we did. We freed them. We promised the French we would free them (WWII), and we did shortly after entering the war. Because of politics, our promise to the Iraqi people was broken.

5th paragraph:
The UN stinks. You shouldn't believe everything you see on TV or read in newspapers or hear from the media. In fact, don't believe anything they say because they are often biased and/or wrong.

 

[Kuzmich]

Originally posted by mistro5000
oh. well, we too have subs with many nukes at the ready

Dont worry our nukes are us ready as yours, and we you dont have subs like ours, russian shark is the biggest sub on the planet no one else makes those, and our other subs are bigger then yours too, i mean the nuke carriers.

 

[Kuzmich]

Originally posted by Otmorosok
Dont worry our nukes are us ready as yours, and we you dont have subs like ours, russian shark is the biggest sub on the planet no one else makes those, and our other subs are bigger then yours too, i mean the nuke carriers.

Originally posted by bamthedoc
This is repeating it:



This is explaining it (which I shouldn't have to do):

1st paragraph:
Saddam Hussien is going on trial. We are using WMDs we have found, SCUDs used and found, plans for nuclear devices and funding toward research, and many other items we have found as evidence against him.

2nd paragraph:
The UN stinks.

3rd paragraph:
UN Weapon's Inspectors (WI) told the UN and the world that Saddam Hussien and the Ba`athists were hiding banned weapons. Upon doing so, the UN fired them so that they could, well, ignore the situation. The UN made a promise to get rid of WMD and improve the situation of citizens in Iraq. They did not keep the promise.

4th paragraph:
The US made a promise to free the Iraqis. McArthur promised the Phillipeans that we would return, and we did. We freed them. We promised the French we would free them (WWII), and we did shortly after entering the war. Because of politics, our promise to the Iraqi people was broken.

5th paragraph:
The UN stinks. You shouldn't believe everything you see on TV or read in newspapers or hear from the media. In fact, don't believe anything they say because they are often biased and/or wrong.

Then did UN make the promise? Proove it, and give your source on DNW info. Unless you proove your statement it is not a fact, and if it is not a fact then it all comes down to you saying UN should have helped as cause we are american, and that type of bullshit.

 

[bamthedoc]

I'm guessing "DNW" is nuclear weapons... The proof is in military reports that still have a lot of red tape and black highlighter on it. It's still being kept under lock and key so that it cannot be destroyed by Ba`ath loyalists. It was found in Uday's reports, Saddam's mansion (can't remember which or how many), and a several documents. If I can find a link to info, you'll be the first to know.

I never said there were nuclear weapons facilities, only a paper trail of funding and research.

 

[Kuzmich]

Which US could have succesfully put there, to explain why it invaded Iraq for no reason.

 

[bamthedoc]

If you want to believe your fantasy, you can go right ahead. I'll continue to live in reality, however.

 

[mistro5000]

i guess we will never know until they take off teh black highlighters, now will we?
we (the us) could have put the docs there, they may not have. there really isnt much help in speculating and theorizing.

 

[bamthedoc]

Here's something to sink your teath into.

Hussien Saddam, a cousin to Saddam Hussien, was in charge of the nuclear arms program in Iraq. Uday Hussien, eldest son to Saddam Hussien (could easily have the names wrong), got mad about his uncle having more power than himself. Uday eventually got around to getting Hussien bannished to Jordan, and he put himself in a position of power. Uday became the lead man in the nuclear arms program, and he was given the "right arm" of his father. Uday also got Saddam to invite Hussien back, and they Hussien was killed as a traitor for telling the world about the nuclear arms program.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

but i am sure ORC will tell as a more detailed answer. Go ahead discuss.

As I was against the war I would of preferred if we vetoed it but only if stopped america from going. Face it, a lot more people would've of died if Britain didn't assist America. If America was going to go anyway it would've of been pointless to veto it, the more help the better.

what is "womd?

Well, it should be "WMD" but what it means is "Weapons Of Mass Destruction". Not necessarily nukes, just a weapon of some sort with a devastating affect.

It was their promise on the line, and the US has defended the UN's word. How can the UN say that their word is their bond when they blatently go against their very word by ignoring a situation that UN WIs tell them is going on. Every WI who said that Ba`athists were hiding WMDs were fired. One was even at a US press conference -- French guy, by the way -- giving his opinion on the whole thing.

So the whole of the UN made a promise huh would you enlighten me of then particular scenario you're talking about and how the US defended this "word". I'm not being antagonistic I'm just wondering what so I can argue against it. The UN ignored nothing they wanted to find a peaceful solution by giving Saddam more time on the other hand, America made threats and started a war. The cold fact is that Bush (Another word for ****) was going to attack whether Saddam was in rule or not.

US and UK forces have found WMD in Iraq. Iraq also had SCUDS and funding of a nuclear arms program. All this stuff has been proven, recently might I add, and will be used as evidence in Saddam Hussien's trial

Why wouldn’t this be blaring in the news, like everything else has that incriminates Saddam, if this was true the brilliant propaganda would have reached my ears by now.

I'll tell you another thing, less related to the UN. The US made a promise in 1990 to the Iraqi people. We promised them that we would free them from Saddam Hussien and the Ba`athists. Then what did we do? We left, that's what. We broke our word, and it has always been out bond. We went back to help the Phillipines. We helped the French. We help, well, that's a long list. What did we do in Iraq? We abandoned them in an easy war. WE BROKE OUR WORD!!

You’ve broken many promises why should this matter?, the middle east wanted him to stay in the same position but with less power and he has just kept getting more and more power.

There are several reasons the UN should have helped, but I'm not going to go into a debate with people who don't have all the facts as they will continue to argue what they see on TV or in the papers

Don’t be so arrogant! There are many people here who know more than you, And the funny thing is that where you got your information form is most likely media. Anyone can argue against your reasons that are above us all.

The UN stinks. You shouldn't believe everything you see on TV or read in newspapers or hear from the media. In fact, don't believe anything they say because they are often biased and/or wrong

I'd trust the UN with the fate of our planet over the US anyday. Your argument is biased, my argument is biased, there really isn't much that isn't bias. The UN is barely ever wrong, don't say they are often wrong because thier not.

I'm guessing "DNW" is nuclear weapons... The proof is in military reports that still have a lot of red tape and black highlighter on it. It's still being kept under lock and key so that it cannot be destroyed by Ba`ath loyalists. It was found in Uday's reports, Saddam's mansion (can't remember which or how many), and a several documents. If I can find a link to info, you'll be the first to know.

I never said there were nuclear weapons facilities, only a paper trail of funding and research.

When was that breaking the "rules" that was set. Besides lots of countrys are threats that isn't really a good reason.

 

[bamthedoc]

Prioritizing threats and finding which threats are communicatable is one of the first rules of diplomacy. Iraq was not a communicatable threat. We are sitting down at more diplomacy tables now, likely, thanks to the Iraqi war. We have shown the world, especially the threats, that we are willing to take action on our word.

It may be likely that I got my info from the media, but I never stick to one news source. I also rely most heavily on live reports from the people involved rather than "after-the-fact" by news outlets.

FYI: Researching nuclear weapons construction is against UN weapon pacts. Saddam Hussien and the Ba`athists have broken most, if not all, UN pacts, including the food for oil pact. He allowed his people to starve -- if they weren't from Tikrit -- just to build mansions, weapons, and an army. It's the UN that allowed this situation to get so bad in Iraq, among other places, due to purposely ignoring them. The same goes for the Clinton administration, however. Ignorance isn't bliss, it's a bombshell waiting to be dropped. Hitler was ignored as a threat, and then he invaded France.

Don't forget, in order for Saddam Hussien to do what he wanted to do, he's have to, at least, march through part of Russia. He'd also have to decimate several countries along the way -- likely teaming up with terrorist organizations or other anti-non-Muslim country along the way.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Prioritizing threats and finding which threats are communicatable is one of the first rules of diplomacy. Iraq was not a communicatable threat. We are sitting down at more diplomacy tables now, likely, thanks to the Iraqi war. We have shown the world, especially the threats, that we are willing to take action on our word.

Who are you sitting down with? Didn't you kill everyone? or didn't everyone kill themselves jumping at you with bombs strapped to them. You show that you can interfere with things. If you won the vietnam war I bet you're goverment would've of said the same thing.

FYI: Researching nuclear weapons construction is against UN weapon pacts. Saddam Hussien and the Ba`athists have broken most, if not all, UN pacts, including the food for oil pact. He allowed his people to starve -- if they weren't from Tikrit -- just to build mansions, weapons, and an army. It's the UN that allowed this situation to get so bad in Iraq, among other places, due to purposely ignoring them. The same goes for the Clinton administration, however. Ignorance isn't bliss, it's a bombshell waiting to be dropped. Hitler was ignored as a threat, and then he invaded France.

The UN were trying to get a peaceful solution, why would they on purpose ignore this? Don't make silly assumptions. How can you compare saddam to hitler? No one is critising WW2 because the war was an act of retaliation. Since when did America care about the affairs of the middle east, a lot of countrys need sorting out. Why Iraq? Whats worse food for oil or war for oil? Saddam was no where near as powerful as hitler was, he wouldn't enage in a conventional war

Don't forget, in order for Saddam Hussien to do what he wanted to do, he's have to, at least, march through part of Russia. He'd also have to decimate several countries along the way -- likely teaming up with terrorist organizations or other anti-non-Muslim country along the way.

Wow, this is a nice story. Saddam couldn't take russia or even march through it without being anhilated, are you saying that saddam didn't know this? He may of wanted it but dreams like this wouldn't come true whatever happened. The fact is that there were no justification for the war.