Isnt this extremely hypocritical

[Random Variable]

But I dont see any chance of that happening again with either Afghanistan or Iraq as long as Bush is the president because he has said that starting a democracy in Iraq was a problem of the International community but not that of the US.

Now you're crticizing the U.S. for not wanting to act unilaterally in a effort to bring democracy to Iraq .

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Linflas
Well we are kind of beating the proverbial dead horse here. I do not live in a small country so I do not have the vantage of your view of us but you would have to grant that likewise you do not have our view either. All I can tell you is that based on my view of my countries past actions I believe that by and large we have been a positive force in the world. When we finished WWII we did not take territory as tribute but rather attempted to help our former enemies and allies alike recover. It is my hope that when we are finished in Afghanistan we will do that as well. Sometimes unpopular choices have to be made and it is my belief that dealing with Iraq or with terrorists the choice is exactly that. History will ultimately be the judge of whether we chose wisely.

The Marshal plan is definetly the best thing the US has ever done to help the world, along with the wonderful NASA
But I dont see any chance of that happening again with either Afghanistan or Iraq as long as Bush is the president because he has said that starting a democracy in Iraq was a problem of the International community but not that of the US.

No no Czar........don't put it in that fashion..............what was said was that the US thinks any new government in Iraq should be implemented with and from input from around the world and not a government put in place by the US alone.................Bush has stated this as well as Powell and the statement has met nothing but agreement even from those countries which opposse war with Iraq but see it as inevitable because Saddam HAS ignored and violated every agreement he made in 1991 and will not allow inspectors unfettered search for WMD in Iraq...................

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
No no Czar........don't put it in that fashion..............what was said was that the US thinks any new government in Iraq should be implemented with and from input from around the world and not a government put in place by the US alone.................Bush has stated this as well as Powell and the statement has met nothing but agreement even from those countries which opposse war with Iraq but see it as inevitable because Saddam HAS ignored and violated every agreement he made in 1991 and will not allow inspectors unfettered search for WMD in Iraq...................

that is true and I support it, it would only make matters worse if it would be the US who would be the only ones do. But the reason I mentions this is the US thinks that it doesnt need the international community to start the war but needs it to end it.

 

[Moonbeam]

I also am an American. I also feel that on balance this country has been a positive in the world. I also feel that there is a particular strand of American thinking that has no real faith is the principles this country was founded on. They are men and women of fear, who do not trust people and have a need to control. They use military power for that control. I see it as a form of mental illness, the same one that?s been with us for millennia. They are the people who will kill you before you can kill them because the see in you not your hate, but their own. They are the people who have their noses in their own armpits and say the world stinks. They want to kill you because they don't want to see themselves, to look at their disease.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
No no Czar........don't put it in that fashion..............what was said was that the US thinks any new government in Iraq should be implemented with and from input from around the world and not a government put in place by the US alone.................Bush has stated this as well as Powell and the statement has met nothing but agreement even from those countries which opposse war with Iraq but see it as inevitable because Saddam HAS ignored and violated every agreement he made in 1991 and will not allow inspectors unfettered search for WMD in Iraq...................

that is true and I support it, it would only make matters worse if it would be the US who would be the only ones do. But the reason I mentions this is the US thinks that it doesnt need the international community to start the war but needs it to end it.

Now that's kind of a warped way to view it IMHO..................I mean think about it, even in a UN joint mission, probably 85% of the manpower and equipement will be from the US! And, NO, the US is NOT asking for "help" to end it..............we WILL be footing the bill for it, we are only asking for input and help in setting up a new government in Iraq, one which has international approval and backing....................why is this hard to understand???? Read what was said.....................

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Now that's kind of a warped way to view it IMHO..................I mean think about it, even in a UN joint mission, probably 85% of the manpower and equipement will be from the US! And, NO, the US is NOT asking for "help" to end it..............we WILL be footing the bill for it, we are only asking for input and help in setting up a new government in Iraq, one which has international approval and backing....................why is this hard to understand???? Read what was said.....................

because the US has the most mobile army of all the UN members and one of the biggest to. Think you would be pleased when the EU finaly manages to get its own army then the US can step a bit down on the UN military spending.

There is a big difference on having UN support and not having it wen it comes to the international community

 

[dexvx]

If you go in and start a regime change, then you should be there at the end. What bush said that it is the problem of the international community to see a democracy in Iraq is completely irresponsible. If that happens, Iraq will turn into another religiously fanatical Afghanistan and be worse off, defeating your moot point. I'd rather have Saddam in power than another Taliban-like regime.

Lets face it. Saddam is a secular leader, he is not a religious fanatical who believes in martyrdom to the extreme. He has WMD, but does he use it? No. You can argue he used it against the Kurds, but that was on a small, experimental scale. He did NOT use it during the Gulf War and unlike fanatics, he knows the concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction). The problem is with Bush is that if you box him in a corner with nowhere to go, logic will die it, and when he has nothing to lose, MAD will come true.

Overall I feel this problem is an issue that should've been dealt with a long time ago. The UN as a whole failed to uphold its resolutions, and it has snowballed into this. Perhaps the reason why the UN is softening is because people have forgotten what caused World War II in the first place.

----------------------------

What Czar is saying about hypocriticism that obviously you people cant see is that there are confirmed Georgian terrorist rebels in Georgia. Russia wants to go after them, yet the US denies that while it wants to go after Saddam.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ToBeMe
Now that's kind of a warped way to view it IMHO..................I mean think about it, even in a UN joint mission, probably 85% of the manpower and equipement will be from the US! And, NO, the US is NOT asking for "help" to end it..............we WILL be footing the bill for it, we are only asking for input and help in setting up a new government in Iraq, one which has international approval and backing....................why is this hard to understand???? Read what was said.....................

because the US has the most mobile army of all the UN members and one of the biggest to. Think you would be pleased when the EU finaly manages to get its own army then the US can step a bit down on the UN military spending.

There is a big difference on having UN support and not having it wen it comes to the international community

I agree! Have you read what almost all countries said following yesterdays developments?????? Almost all of them said and agreed that Saddam had violated all the 1991 agreements completely and that he must agree to full, unfettered inspections immeadiately or face the consiquences which may well include invasion of multilateral forces.

I believe what you're missing here is the fact that many countries are now agreeing that they would be included in a coalition against Iraq if a deadline is set and Iraq fails to comply!