Why US is right
-
yeah i agree with you, in my many other posts, i always maintain that USA may have and should have a secret agenda, but at least thru this war, there are negatives no doubt but some positives came out.Originally posted by duotiga83:american also have their hidden agenda, exceppt tt for nw is not clear for us to get it -
america is not our know to the old america, they nw seems like undergo in the neo-imperalisation in their own counrty nw aftermath the 9-11.
-
But like I said, if the US had given 1441 time to work, and the inspectors had found REAL evidence of Iraqi non-compliance and presented, would the UNSC been able to vote no?Originally posted by gasband:neither pro war nor anti war..hmm ok...and you agree that Saddam should be taken out? hmm ok...so now USA propose to take out Saddam...but then UN dun agree....then HOW AH? then must wait how long for a solution? It has been YEARS u noe? and u noe that France, Russia and China and all those selfish people with hidden agendas just like the Americans will never AGREE to it..so how to take out SADDAM ah like that?
Russia and China never really agreed to Desert Storm in 1991, yet they never vetoed, nor threaten to veto the UN resolutions against Iraq. Why? Because evidence of Iraqi wrongdoing in Kuwait was so obvious that there was no way they could exercise their veto without looking like total a***oles.
Remember before this war, the US knew France and Russia would veto the war resolution, but was working to get a "moral victory"(ir at least 9 out of 15 votes - Resolution will still be killed by veto, but at least theres a semblance of consensus) by convincing the non-permenant members of the UNSC into going with attacking Iraq. Yet the evidence they presented was so shabby, so full of holes, half-truths and outright lies that they failed to get even that, after which they went unilateral.
What does this say about world opinion? -
Yes its an excuse, but had America not taken international law into its own hands, would the Indians have the excuse?Originally posted by gasband:As i said, just because the Indians say its all USA fault lor, thats why I must attack Pakistan, just because they say so, u believe ah?
So next time i do anything bad, i just blame it on anyone who may have done it b4, is that fair and objective?
I don't believe the Indians for a moment, I'm just saying what America has done is to open a Pandora's Box that might change the geopolitical balance in the whole world. -
Originally posted by Viper52:I'm just saying what America has done is to open a Pandora's Box that might change the geopolitical balance in the whole world.
i also stress that -
I agree to this war not because Iraq may have WMD thus whether they found any is not important to me.Originally posted by Viper52:But like I said, if the US had given 1441 time to work, and the inspectors had found REAL evidence of Iraqi non-compliance and presented, would the UNSC been able to vote no?
Russia and China never really agreed to Desert Storm in 1991, yet they never vetoed, nor threaten to veto the UN resolutions against Iraq. Why? Because evidence of Iraqi wrongdoing in Kuwait was so obvious that there was no way they could exercise their veto without looking like total a***oles.
Remember before this war, the US knew France and Russia would veto the war resolution, but was working to get a "moral victory"(ir at least 9 out of 15 votes - Resolution will still be killed by veto, but at least theres a semblance of consensus) by convincing the non-permenant members of the UNSC into going with attacking Iraq. Yet the evidence they presented was so shabby, so full of holes, half-truths and outright lies that they failed to get even that, after which they went unilateral.
What does this say about world opinion?
I agree because firstly this guy here has a past history of ruthless violence. But I am not unforgiving. He had chances to repent. He had almost 10 years to abide by sanctions. But guess what? not even UN officials could not 100% determine whether Saddam had abided by Sanctions. So how longer do we wanna wait when it is almost 10 years? Saddam is a terrorist, how else do u describe a person who praises the work of those terrorists involved in 911?
You can wait until the whole world agrees, but it may too late just too late. -
Thank you, and unfortunately that is what many in the pro-war lobby do not see. They see it as just the US against Saddam alone, and do not think about the potential worldwide consequences of America's actions.Originally posted by duotiga83: i also stress that -
Why too late? Is he a threat to the world? Look at my earlier debate with laser51088 about whos the greater threat to the world and compare North Korea's and Iraq's military strength.Originally posted by gasband:You can wait until the whole world agrees, but it may too late just too late.
As it is I doubt Saddam before this war would have been a military threat to the region not to mention the world. His missiles have difficulty reaching beyond Kuwait, while North Korea's can reach all of East Asia and they've going further all the time.
Try not to forget, US patriots scored as many kills against coalition aircraft as Iraqi air defences. That alone shows the threat posed by the Iraqi military. -
since you agree its an excuse, it remains that.Originally posted by Viper52:Yes its an excuse, but had America not taken international law into its own hands, would the Indians have the excuse?
I don't believe the Indians for a moment, I'm just saying what America has done is to open a Pandora's Box that might change the geopolitical balance in the whole world.
Did usa really opened a Pandora's box or did the world insist they did? Even if USA did the right thing, all it takes are foolish people like France, Russia and India to use that 'RIGHT' act as an excuse to attack others, this 'RIGHT' act immediately becomes a 'PANDORA's BOX'.
Look at it objectively, when USA attacked Iraq, it did not say from now on, we do things this way, it did not say, every country should be dealt this way. And since they did not say that, what right do other countries to use it as an excuse to do likewise?
These EXCUSES made the USA attack a Pandora's box not the attack itself. If India wants to attack Pakistan, go ahead! Just dun use USA as an excuse because what USA just did was not only right for themselves but for us and the Iraqis. -
My fren, it is not about military might. If it purely military might, IRAQ and NORTH KOREA are nowhere near the top.Originally posted by Viper52:Why too late? Is he a threat to the world? Look at my earlier debate with laser51088 about whos the greater threat to the world and compare North Korea's and Iraq's military strength.
As it is I doubt Saddam before this war would have been a military threat to the region not to mention the world. His missiles have difficulty reaching beyond Kuwait, while North Korea's can reach all of East Asia and they've going further all the time.
Try not to forget, US patriots scored as many kills against coalition aircraft as Iraqi air defences. That alone shows the threat posed by the Iraqi military.
North Korea may have might but they have been willing to compromise, willing to talk and willing to abide. But IRAQ, playing games and making a fool out of UN officials and openly supporting terrorists attacks, thats why they need to be taken out, fast. -
lol, I must have said alot of times. . North Korea can be controlled because China is there. They depend on China and China at this point in time would not want a rowdy NK as other nations would associate it with themselves, also factor in china's proximity with North Korea. .. I said NK can build up faster its cos of Iraq's oil resources, they have French and Russian weapons, why? Oil! For NK to have the same capability, they'll need to kiss China's butt first. . .Originally posted by Viper52:Why too late? Is he a threat to the world? Look at my earlier debate with laser51088 about whos the greater threat to the world and compare North Korea's and Iraq's military strength.
As it is I doubt Saddam before this war would have been a military threat to the region not to mention the world. His missiles have difficulty reaching beyond Kuwait, while North Korea's can reach all of East Asia and they've going further all the time.
Try not to forget, US patriots scored as many kills against coalition aircraft as Iraqi air defences. That alone shows the threat posed by the Iraqi military. -
Are you sure that the US has pledged never to do this again? Already the Gang of Four 2003(Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz) has held up Operation Iraqi Freedom as a model to try and enact "regime change" in other countries and the Administration has already started bandying about the names of Iran Syria and North Korea.Originally posted by gasband:since you agree its an excuse, it remains that.
Did usa really opened a Pandora's box or did the world insist they did? Even if USA did the right thing, all it takes are foolish people like France, Russia and India to use that 'RIGHT' act as an excuse to attack others, this 'RIGHT' act immediately becomes a 'PANDORA's BOX'.
Look at it objectively, when USA attacked Iraq, it did not say from now on, we do things this way, it did not say, every country should be dealt this way. And since they did not say that, what right do other countries to use it as an excuse to do likewise?
These EXCUSES made the USA attack a Pandora's box not the attack itself. If India wants to attack Pakistan, go ahead! Just dun use USA as an excuse because what USA just did was not only right for themselves but for us and the Iraqis.
Since you know that your actions are going to open the Pandora's Box in other (supposedly) less morally upright countries than the USA, why do it when there are better options (ie UN consensus) available? -
gassy, dun mind if u read CNA war forum, see the reactions there, some of the post are excellent.Originally posted by Viper52:They see it as just the US against Saddam alone, and do not think about the potential worldwide consequences of America's actions.
n compare wif this
General Miltary and
OTS
this 2 forum have extremisim in both sides -
Like I've said, if you've evidence of Iraq supporting terrorism, contact the US Embassy ASAP. As far as I know they're still looking. There might be a reward in it for youOriginally posted by gasband:My fren, it is not about military might. If it purely military might, IRAQ and NORTH KOREA are nowhere near the top.
North Korea may have might but they have been willing to compromise, willing to talk and willing to abide. But IRAQ, playing games and making a fool out of UN officials and openly supporting terrorists attacks, thats why they need to be taken out, fast.
As for making a fool of the UN, even the last report submitted by Hans Blix's team to the UN stated that cooperation from Iraq was satisfactory. So whither non-compliance? -
How long would you have the military wait for weapons inspections? Force buildup in Middle East already started last. Attempts at inspections began so many years ago. Whether or not they have WMD, fact is that they do have made repeated attempts to evade inspections.Originally posted by Viper52:Are you sure that the US has pledged never to do this again? Already the Gang of Four 2003(Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz) has held up Operation Iraqi Freedom as a model to try and enact "regime change" in other countries and the Administration has already started bandying about the names of Iran Syria and North Korea.
Since you know that your actions are going to open the Pandora's Box in other (supposedly) less morally upright countries than the USA, why do it when there are better options (ie UN consensus) available?
The Pandora's Box you claimed the US open is only there beacuse the fact that there are similar regimes in this world holds true. The fact that there are people who continue working in NK's slave camps holds true. -
Hahaha, which member of China's ruling Politburo told you that? The official Chinese press, as well as most regional watchers, agree that China has grown increasingly frustrated at North Korea's instrangience, distanced itself from the DPRK leadership and has significantly reduced aid and assistance to the Reds of Pyongyang. The same watchers said that it was pointless leaning on the Chinese because they're hands are tied too.Originally posted by laser51088:lol, I must have said alot of times. . North Korea can be controlled because China is there. They depend on China and China at this point in time would not want a rowdy NK as other nations would associate it with themselves, also factor in china's proximity with North Korea. .. I said NK can build up faster its cos of Iraq's oil resources, they have French and Russian weapons, why? Oil! For NK to have the same capability, they'll need to kiss China's butt first. . .
Don't pluck stories from thin air to support your arguments
-
Are you sure that USA will do it again, i may ask you then? Oh, just because they bandy some names about, it is truth? Then all the more I am convinced Saddam needs to be taken out fast, because he OPENLY supports Terrorists, he openly ask sucidal bombers to do their jobs, oh this man is dangerous, he really must be taken out.Originally posted by Viper52:Are you sure that the US has pledged never to do this again? Already the Gang of Four 2003(Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz) has held up Operation Iraqi Freedom as a model to try and enact "regime change" in other countries and the Administration has already started bandying about the names of Iran Syria and North Korea.
Since you know that your actions are going to open the Pandora's Box in other (supposedly) less morally upright countries than the USA, why do it when there are better options (ie UN consensus) available?
Once again, please stop labelling it Pandora's box. I already said, if others wanna open their PANDORA's BOX, they can use any excuse, what makes you think only USA exclusively can be used as an excuse? IS that bias against the USA or what? If these countries choose to open their own Pandora's box, why should we blame it on USA since they have done the right thing as I emphasized.
It just like I slap a person because he needs to snap out of his misery, and the next moment people around me start saying, hey since he can slap other people who seem miserable, i shall go around slapping anyone who look miserable. So, is that my fault for doing the right thing? -
latest news state that china have in support wif the south n have cut off some of the links wif pongyang. The cut of oil to NK is rather obvious for now.Originally posted by laser51088:lol, I must have said alot of times. . North Korea can be controlled because China is there. They depend on China and China at this point in time would not want a rowdy NK as other nations would associate it with themselves, also factor in china's proximity with North Korea. .. I said NK can build up faster its cos of Iraq's oil resources, they have French and Russian weapons, why? Oil! For NK to have the same capability, they'll need to kiss China's butt first. . .
read my post here
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=38913&page=2 -
I originally tried posting on the CNA forum, somehow can't post there. . .Originally posted by duotiga83:gassy, dun mind if u read CNA war forum, see the reactions there, some of the post are excellent.
n compare wif this
General Miltary and
OTS
this 2 forum have extremisim in both sides
I like one person's view from the forum, saw it on tv. . .
None of the supporters of the war claim that war is good, rather, the general opinion is that it is necessary. . . -
Originally posted by laser51088:I originally tried posting on the CNA forum, somehow can't post there. . .
I like one person's view from the forum, saw it on tv. . .
None of the supporters of the war claim that war is good, rather, the general opinion is that it is necessary. . . The mod see wad u post b4 they post it up in the web n tv.
i agree wif ur 3rd sentence -
Are words coming out from Saddam himself evidence enough? Didnt you hear him praising terrorists involved in 911? Didnt you hear him supporting the use of suicidal bombers on people? Or did you choose not to? So, if thats not evidence of a violent and dangerous terrorist, i dun noe whats evidence to you. Must he come and sucide bomb you before you believe? up to you.Originally posted by Viper52:Like I've said, if you've evidence of Iraq supporting terrorism, contact the US Embassy ASAP. As far as I know they're still looking. There might be a reward in it for you
As for making a fool of the UN, even the last report submitted by Hans Blix's team to the UN stated that cooperation from Iraq was satisfactory. So whither non-compliance?
Well well, he has submitted a satisfactory report, but he was never 100% sure that Iraq abided by sanctions. He never was. So whats the point of having 10 years of less than 100% sure reports, u tell me? whether 99% or 99.9% sure, it is still not 100% and constitute non-compliance. -
It began in 1991, got barred in 1998. The UN forced open Iraq's doors in November 2002, the US forced it shut in February 2003 to fulfil Dubya's agenda. During this time, the UN reported that satisfactory progress has been made, yet the inspectors were forced out by the US.Originally posted by laser51088:How long would you have the military wait for weapons inspections? Force buildup in Middle East already started last. Attempts at inspections began so many years ago. Whether or not they have WMD, fact is that they do have made repeated attempts to evade inspections.
The Pandora's Box you claimed the US open is only there beacuse the fact that there are similar regimes in this world holds true. The fact that there are people who continue working in NK's slave camps holds true.
Force buildup might have ongoing, but don't forget who's dictating the pace, the Yanks can slow it down had they been sincere about waiting for 1441 to run its course. But as it was they had made up their minds, and had they been given the choice, they wouldn't want to wait for 1441 to work -
The fact that there's frustration shows China is trying to do something about it, they have shown support for South Korea as well, the question is, in controlling NK would it be US or China that first has a chance??Originally posted by Viper52:Hahaha, which member of China's ruling Politburo told you that? The official Chinese press, as well as most regional watchers, agree that China has grown increasingly frustrated at North Korea's instrangience, distanced itself from the DPRK leadership and has significantly reduced aid and assistance to the Reds of Pyongyang. The same watchers said that it was pointless leaning on the Chinese because they're hands are tied too.
Don't pluck stories from thin air to support your arguments
Look at the 'aid and assistance' to Pyongyang, shows pretty much what I said isn't it? That NK still depends on China... I wonder where NK would get funds for itself without outside help . . . besides helping similar countries in building their own nukes of course -
yeah i read them and yes they are good.Originally posted by duotiga83:gassy, dun mind if u read CNA war forum, see the reactions there, some of the post are excellent.
n compare wif this
General Miltary and
OTS
this 2 forum have extremisim in both sides
THe point is that I maintain that no war is good but some are needed, you can see that in my other posts, just in case some people call me a pro-war lobbyist or some neo-conservative hawks.
Each war is needed for different reasons and are always different. To suggest that USA's attack open up a whole new world of wars, that is ridiculous. If that is so, why did World WAr I or II stopped? It stopped because all recognised EVIL forces were stopped. If the theory of ripple effect is so true, world war II wouldnt have stopped, because it will just go on and on but it did stop. So now, what makes you think this think wun stop, USA has invaded Iraq, it has not announced plans to invade any more. It may have stopped if all EVIL has been taken out. After a war like this, feelings and emotions rise, it is normal that many countries will start feeling insecure, it is the same after every war. So to suggest so QUICKLY that this war is bad and will cause major ripple effect sounds to me a bias towards USA rather than being objective. -
gasband: define EVIL in political term thnx and GOOD