Terrorism (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dragon

Senior Member
Apr 24, 2003
27,407
#41
++ [ originally posted by Don Bes ] ++



do you know what the Nazis said.


"there will be peace in the world only when the powerfull countries fully controll the small ones"


is that how you want america to be ?
Is not about America and its allies controlling the rest of the World, is about that they have more money than smaller countries so thats why they can have those weapons... but they cannot use them whenever they want because they have to stick to UN resolutions (and Iraq didnt do that) because if not, they should be isolated from the rest of the World -theorically, because its America what were talking about- and it would be wrong to let America do whatever they want, and thats exactly what the UN did. The UN should have had punished the USA for attacking Iraq without permission
 

Buy on AliExpress.com
Jan 7, 2004
29,704
#42
the question is


Does UN have the balls and power to punish US.


what you saying is lets make US even stronger and hope that the amercians always elect somebody responsible who wouldnt do something stoopid like starting a nuclear war. mind i remind you the americans did elect a hollywood superstar :lazy: and are about to re-elect bush
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Apr 24, 2003
27,407
#45
++ [ originally posted by Don Bes ] ++
the question is


Does UN have the balls and power to punish US.


what you saying is lets make US even stronger and hope that the amercians always elect somebody responsible who wouldnt do something stoopid like starting a nuclear war. mind i remind you the americans did elect a hollywood superstar :lazy: and are about to re-elect bush
Ive read that Americans dont take too much time into finding out who they should vote for and that there is a big abstinence percentage. If thats true, then its completely obvious that they would elect The Terminator as their governor.

I dont live in the USA so I dont really know if Kerry would be better than Bush, from what Ive read and saw about both candidates, I feel more related to what Bush supports than Kerry
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Apr 24, 2003
27,407
#46
++ [ originally posted by Don Bes ] ++
so there you go


dont hope on UN.


do you know that UN declared that with half the money US spends on weapons in a year can get rid of famine.
Yeah, the UN is a joke

If the USA wants to spend most of their money in weapons, then they can, theyre not entitled to spend their money in third world countries, or charities
 
OP

Zlatan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #48
    ++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


    Of course its not the answer, its the beginning. Using Preemptive strikes is part of the "game" of warfare.

    Yes, you are right. We do have those certain types of weapons. We do have biological and chemical weapons, but not for the usage on innocent people or other Military forces. We have those weapons to experiment on them, and to find vacinations or cures for them. My dad is a Scientist at Fort Detrick, where all that research goes on. We can have those weapons because the World doesn't have to worry about us using them anytime soon. But the same could not be said about Iraq. If Iraq did have WMD's, they very well could have used them. Thats the difference. But since Iraq didn't have them in the first place, the whole war was somewhat a waste of time from a Government standpoint. Bush and his team went with instinct and false information (thank you CIA), and it turned out to be a big mistake which is costing us Billions. But at least Saddam is not menacing Iraquis anymore.

    But its not like our intentions for other situations are bad. We give support and aid to many troubled regions of the World, and we are obligated to help because of our Economic stature. I wonder how the world would react if our Government pulled the plug on all humanity aid operations throughout the globe, as well as our militaristic presence.

    Do you really think the US would never use WMD's or Nuclear bombs? It's all about how desperate you are. If they were close to dfeat they would use it on innocent civillians just as everyone else. They are the biggest nation in developing biological and chemical weapons. And I dont buy that they're only doing it for vaccines. If they hadnt been created vaccines wouldnt have been needed.

    Also, I think you'll find that America, as well as any other country, does very little just because they have a good heart. In life, noone will do anything that doesnt benifit them in some way.


    ++ [ originally posted by fabiana ] ++
    If Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, he could have given them to Al Qaeda, or to any terrorist group unlike the USA that will keep them without harming the World. Thinking the USA would attack a country with nuclear weapons just because they wanted to is a complete lie. If he didnt have weapons, then why did Iraq refuse to sign those UN resolutions that said that they didnt have those weapons?

    Maybe Saddam didnt have those weapons, but Im quite sure he gave money to terrorists groups. All the anti-american governments do that, including the Venezuelan one!

    I'm sorry Fabi, but thats just not true. The US has shown no evidence of any connection between Osama and Saddam. As a matter of fact, Iraq was one of the most advanced muslim countries. Saddam didnt pay so much attention to religion as other Arab nations, Iraq had one of the best educational and health systems in the Arab world, and women had more rights than in other countries.


    ++ [ originally posted by fabiana ] ++


    Is not about America and its allies controlling the rest of the World, is about that they have more money than smaller countries so thats why they can have those weapons... but they cannot use them whenever they want because they have to stick to UN resolutions (and Iraq didnt do that) because if not, they should be isolated from the rest of the World -theorically, because its America what were talking about- and it would be wrong to let America do whatever they want, and thats exactly what the UN did. The UN should have had punished the USA for attacking Iraq without permission

    America and Israel violate UN resolutions all the time.


    ++ [ originally posted by fabiana ] ++


    Ive read that Americans dont take too much time into finding out who they should vote for and that there is a big abstinence percentage. If thats true, then its completely obvious that they would elect The Terminator as their governor.

    I dont live in the USA so I dont really know if Kerry would be better than Bush, from what Ive read and saw about both candidates, I feel more related to what Bush supports than Kerry

    I somehow think that the presidnent should be the best and most intelligent man in the country, not below average.
     

    The Pado

    Filthy Gobbo
    Jul 12, 2002
    9,939
    #51
    Z-man, regardless of how advanced and modern Saddam's Iraq was, it still does not justify his reign of terror and abuse. Bushy Junior probably had it in his mind that if he was ever elected President he was going to go to Iraw and finish his daddy's war.

    The U.N. is a joke. We probably all thought that for years, but the Bush-Iraq situation proved it to the world.

    Bush vs. Kerry? I would like to think that a country like the USA, with all its resources, could come up with something better. We need leadership at the top, and that has been lacking for years.

    The money that Bush and Kerry have raised and spent on their campaigns already (not to mention what will be spent before November) would easily end world hunger.
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    108,876
    #52
    ++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++



    Do you really think the US would never use WMD's or Nuclear bombs? It's all about how desperate you are. If they were close to dfeat they would use it on innocent civillians just as everyone else. They are the biggest nation in developing biological and chemical weapons. And I dont buy that they're only doing it for vaccines. If they hadnt been created vaccines wouldnt have been needed.

    Also, I think you'll find that America, as well as any other country, does very little just because they have a good heart. In life, noone will do anything that doesnt benifit them in some way.
    THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA would only use Nuclear Weapons as a response to the attack from another NATION who used the same weapons, as in a Cold War scenario. We would never use them as a first or second resort, only as a last one. The US would never use such weapons unless another country has used them FIRST. And the only way we would be near defeat is if we are attacked with those weapons, which on a global scale, seems highly unlikely.

    Well the last is true to some extent, but then why did Clinton send troops to Somalia back in the Mid 90's? As well as troops to your native homeland Bosnia and Kosovo? I don't think there is any superficial benefit from those conflicts.
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #53
    @Pado: I agree, I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. :)

    @Andy: Well, That might be true, and yet it may not be, I'm not sure. But one of the things I said is that in Bosnia they responded after 3 years, and in Quwait it was after days.
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    108,876
    #56
    ++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
    @Pado: I agree, I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. :)

    @Andy: Well, That might be true, and yet it may not be, I'm not sure. But one of the things I said is that in Bosnia they responded after 3 years, and in Quwait it was after days.
    Well I'm not sure you can find a coincidence with that. They are two totally different situations.

    Z, were you happy with the Coalition response to the trouble in Bosnia?
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #57
    That is my point exactly, they werent the same thing because of oil, or American interest in it I should say.


    As for the second question, no, I'm not. It was too little and too late. The UN especially was a joke, putting an embargo on weapons so that the Bosnian army could not arm themselves while they were up against one of the best equiped military forces in the world. Also, what the UN, especially the dutch battalion, did in Srebrenica was shameful. Srebrenica was a UN protected enclave, which they let the Serb army conquer and take over in a day without one bullet being fired. 10.000 men were killed because of that in just a few days.
     

    Bjerknes

    "Top Economist"
    Mar 16, 2004
    108,876
    #58
    ++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
    That is my point exactly, they werent the same thing because of oil, or American interest in it I should say.


    As for the second question, no, I'm not. It was too little and too late. The UN especially was a joke, putting an embargo on weapons so that the Bosnian army could not arm themselves while they were up against one of the best equiped military forces in the world. Also, what the UN, especially the dutch battalion, did in Srebrenica was shameful. Srebrenica was a UN protected enclave, which they let the Serb army conquer and take over in a day without one bullet being fired. 10.000 men were killed because of that in just a few days.
    Well everybody has priorities Zlatan. :) But you still can't come to a conclusion based on our info.

    I read about what happend in Srebrenica, and it was certainly a tragedy. They called it "Gendercide", or something like that. Wasn't it the worst case of Ethnic cleansing since the Holocaust? Why did they let the Serbs do that? The situation still seems very confusing. My knowledge is based on what I read and the movie "Behind Enemy Lines". :)
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #59
    Well, the UN forces were severly under-manned, and under-equiped so they were really no match for the Serbs. The bigger issue is the constant refusal from a french general in the UN, cant remember his name now, of air support. In fact, air support was requested some 3 days before the tragedy but it was either refused or called off when already under way. Also, the dutch battalions role in all this is shameful, they didn not fire one single bullet in defence of the Un protected enclave, and actually forced 5.000 people, who had come there for shelter, from their base ito serb hands. A lot of them were subsequently killed.

    And yes, in Bosnia was the worst case of ethnic clensing since the holocaust, and it wasnt just in Srebrenica, the whole coutry was supposed to be "Muslim clean".
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)