Japan will not Send Troops to Iraq due to increasing Violence

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: dmcowen674




But why did we leave Castro in power, he pointed WMD right in our face from 90 miles out and yet he is still there... :confused:
Easy, to have removed him by force might have resulted in a Nuclear conflict between us and the Soviets. At the very least it would have provoked them into invading West Berlin.
So you're saying the US. is wusses now? Or it was some kind of deal? If it was a deal that validates my point, Thank You.

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
So can we asume, HoP, that you disagree with those who say that the reason we are there is to liberate the Iraqis?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: dmcowen674




But why did we leave Castro in power, he pointed WMD right in our face from 90 miles out and yet he is still there... :confused:
Easy, to have removed him by force might have resulted in a Nuclear conflict between us and the Soviets. At the very least it would have provoked them into invading West Berlin.
So you're saying the US. is wusses now? Or it was some kind of deal? If it was a deal that validates my point, Thank You.
Have a little Brandy with your morning coffee Dave? It was a deal that we made with the Soviets to prevent further escalation of the Stand Off between us and the Soviets regarding their Missles in Cuba. As far as proving your point, to be honest with you I have a hard time trying to see any point you are trying to make. I'm not sure if you support our Invasion and Occupation of Iraq or not and if you do I'm not sure whether you supported it because you believed we needed to free the Iraqi's from Hussien or to rid that country of their alleged Stockpiles of WMDs
 

bigdog1218

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2001
1,674
1
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Originally posted by: chazzheatherly
Back in 1941, they were gonna take over the world. In 2003,
they can't even take over a street corner -
Gutless, useless, worthless - almost as bad as the French.
At least Tojo does not smell!
You made the bed, now lie in it. Why should they come in when Iraq is almost as dangerous now as during War.

New battles in Tikrit, Air strikes restarted, etc. Is THAT a place where safety can be provided for the rebuilding of the country? Where law and order duties can be passed to other nations?

I don't blame ANY country for not sending troops right now, not until the current security issues are at least on the mend.
Sorry that is gutless. You think the U.S. and it's soldiers should be the only ones to rid the world of ruthless Dictators? Where in the Constitution does it say we are the Worlds Cop?

Every country that believes in Democracy should be helping out otherwise they are just the wusses that they were and always will be.

The Security Issues is everyone's business not just the U.S. Our Men and Women will get the job done though without your help obviously.
American troops are only there because taking control of Iraq benifits America, it has nothing to do with making the world a better place. If we were all about Democracy why don't we start with Cuba? Or how about some other dictators like in North Korea?
They aren't supporting terrorists and don't have unaccounted-for materials for the manufacturing of WMD, genius.
So unless the dictator supports terrorists or has unaccounted-for-WMD-materials, we don't give two hoots for the citizens. I see. It's really not about democracy.
This has always been my question if you look at my posts looong before this whoe Iraq mess.

It has always seemed to me that we let and keep Dictators in power. There is some truth to the "We have to pick our Battles" kind of thing like someone mentioned above Countries harboring Terrorists, making WMD etc.

But why did we leave Castro in power, he pointed WMD right in our face from 90 miles out and yet he is still there... :confused:
OMG! You're so close to understanding this I could jump for joy!

If you wait until they're pointing WMD at you, it's too late. You finally get it? Please say yes.

Also, Castro didn't have a history of repeatedly using WMD and supporting terrorist (you liberal drones seem to forget that there are other terrorist groups besides Al Qaeda) and also hadn't tried taking over Haiti which is why we weren't justified in a forceful removal of Castro from power.

You're so close to getting this. Think outside the hive! Take the blue pill...no...wait...the red one, Neo!
Haha its so funny how you don't say anything about North Korea, and stopping a country from building WMD and invading a country because they have WMD are totally different. I can't understand how people still buy into the BS they're fed.

 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
So can we asume, HoP, that you disagree with those who say that the reason we are there is to liberate the Iraqis?
Yes. Although the removal of a dangerous regime is akin to liberating the people.

I, personally, think people should liberate their damn selves. Although, with modern technology it might be near impossible and they'd need help and it would be the obligation of powerful free nations...but that's a whole other topic.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Originally posted by: chazzheatherly
Back in 1941, they were gonna take over the world. In 2003,
they can't even take over a street corner -
Gutless, useless, worthless - almost as bad as the French.
At least Tojo does not smell!
You made the bed, now lie in it. Why should they come in when Iraq is almost as dangerous now as during War.

New battles in Tikrit, Air strikes restarted, etc. Is THAT a place where safety can be provided for the rebuilding of the country? Where law and order duties can be passed to other nations?

I don't blame ANY country for not sending troops right now, not until the current security issues are at least on the mend.
Sorry that is gutless. You think the U.S. and it's soldiers should be the only ones to rid the world of ruthless Dictators? Where in the Constitution does it say we are the Worlds Cop?

Every country that believes in Democracy should be helping out otherwise they are just the wusses that they were and always will be.

The Security Issues is everyone's business not just the U.S. Our Men and Women will get the job done though without your help obviously.
American troops are only there because taking control of Iraq benifits America, it has nothing to do with making the world a better place. If we were all about Democracy why don't we start with Cuba? Or how about some other dictators like in North Korea?
They aren't supporting terrorists and don't have unaccounted-for materials for the manufacturing of WMD, genius.
So unless the dictator supports terrorists or has unaccounted-for-WMD-materials, we don't give two hoots for the citizens. I see. It's really not about democracy.
This has always been my question if you look at my posts looong before this whoe Iraq mess.

It has always seemed to me that we let and keep Dictators in power. There is some truth to the "We have to pick our Battles" kind of thing like someone mentioned above Countries harboring Terrorists, making WMD etc.

But why did we leave Castro in power, he pointed WMD right in our face from 90 miles out and yet he is still there... :confused:
OMG! You're so close to understanding this I could jump for joy!

If you wait until they're pointing WMD at you, it's too late. You finally get it? Please say yes.

Also, Castro didn't have a history of repeatedly using WMD and supporting terrorist (you liberal drones seem to forget that there are other terrorist groups besides Al Qaeda) and also hadn't tried taking over Haiti which is why we weren't justified in a forceful removal of Castro from power.

You're so close to getting this. Think outside the hive! Take the blue pill...no...wait...the red one, Neo!
Haha its so funny how you don't say anything about North Korea, and stopping a country from building WMD and invading a country because they have WMD are totally different. I can't understand how people still buy into the BS they're fed.
What about NK? As far as I know they aren't known sponsors of terrorism nor have they used WMD in the past nor do they even have nukes yet.

If they acquire nukes that will be a whole separate issue. Why is that relevent to Iraq when both scenarios are so different? Are you thinking for yourself on this or regurgitating liberal rhetoric?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: dmcowen674




But why did we leave Castro in power, he pointed WMD right in our face from 90 miles out and yet he is still there... :confused:
Easy, to have removed him by force might have resulted in a Nuclear conflict between us and the Soviets. At the very least it would have provoked them into invading West Berlin.
So you're saying the US. is wusses now? Or it was some kind of deal? If it was a deal that validates my point, Thank You.
Have a little Brandy with your morning coffee Dave? It was a deal that we made with the Soviets to prevent further escalation of the Stand Off between us and the Soviets regarding their Missles in Cuba. As far as proving your point, to be honest with you I have a hard time trying to see any point you are trying to make. I'm not sure if you support our Invasion and Occupation of Iraq or not and if you do I'm not sure whether you supported it because you believed we needed to free the Iraqi's from Hussien or to rid that country of their alleged Stockpiles of WMDs
I should've on the Brandy.

Yes, but Communism and the Fall of the Russian Dictatorship is long gone, so why didn't we remove the old twerp? Because he is not making WMD, not harboring Terrorists, not killing his people? Just letting him rule his little Empire until he dies huh? A lifetime deal for a Dictator, how quaint and special.

Hey, I was sold on the whole WMD thing too, at least we weren't told that Iraq was going to attack in 45 minutes like our friends on the other side of the pond.

It was also sold that SD was harboring Terrorists as well as ethnic killings in the Country which has been proven with mas graves of 300,000 people although I admit to not having been there so can't say what is really there. I don't have an Intelligence fleet. I'm as much as a mushroom as the rest of us.




 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
What about NK? As far as I know they aren't known sponsors of terrorism nor have they used WMD in the past nor do they even have nukes yet. If they acquire nukes that will be a whole separate issue. Why is that relevent to Iraq when both scenarios are so different? Are you thinking for yourself on this or regurgitating liberal rhetoric?
While I've not heard that NK sponsor terrorist orgs, they have used terroristic tactics in the past - kidnapping foreign citizens for example. Some would call them a terrorist state.

As for WMDs - it is well known that they have had chemical weapons since '54, and today have a significant biological and chemical stockpile. And they have both sought to acquire nukes, and threatened to use them.

But you are quite right, the situations are different. Any attack on NK would cause immense regional carnage, and thus impact the whole world. We should not critisise Bush for treating them differently, any more than we would criticise kennedy for not attacking Cuba when missiles were discovered.
 

DT4K

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
6,944
3
81
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Originally posted by: chazzheatherly
Back in 1941, they were gonna take over the world. In 2003,
they can't even take over a street corner -
Gutless, useless, worthless - almost as bad as the French.
At least Tojo does not smell!
You made the bed, now lie in it. Why should they come in when Iraq is almost as dangerous now as during War.

New battles in Tikrit, Air strikes restarted, etc. Is THAT a place where safety can be provided for the rebuilding of the country? Where law and order duties can be passed to other nations?

I don't blame ANY country for not sending troops right now, not until the current security issues are at least on the mend.
Sorry that is gutless. You think the U.S. and it's soldiers should be the only ones to rid the world of ruthless Dictators? Where in the Constitution does it say we are the Worlds Cop?

Every country that believes in Democracy should be helping out otherwise they are just the wusses that they were and always will be.

The Security Issues is everyone's business not just the U.S. Our Men and Women will get the job done though without your help obviously.
American troops are only there because taking control of Iraq benifits America, it has nothing to do with making the world a better place. If we were all about Democracy why don't we start with Cuba? Or how about some other dictators like in North Korea?
Cause they don't have 12 years of continuous violations of UN resolutions that they agreed to.
Duh.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
I will never forget this my Japanese-American friend told me the other day.
We were talking about how stupid the whole war was, I finally said...

Me: "Havent we not learned the lessons of Vietnam?"
Him: "Probably, because George Bush was in a drunken haze through vietnam."

That had me rolling for at least 5 minutes. :)
 

fwtong

Senior member
Feb 26, 2002
695
5
81
Good, we don't need them. The war in Iraq proved that all we need is the coalition of the willing.
 

bigdog1218

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2001
1,674
1
0
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: bigdog1218
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Originally posted by: chazzheatherly
Back in 1941, they were gonna take over the world. In 2003,
they can't even take over a street corner -
Gutless, useless, worthless - almost as bad as the French.
At least Tojo does not smell!
You made the bed, now lie in it. Why should they come in when Iraq is almost as dangerous now as during War.

New battles in Tikrit, Air strikes restarted, etc. Is THAT a place where safety can be provided for the rebuilding of the country? Where law and order duties can be passed to other nations?

I don't blame ANY country for not sending troops right now, not until the current security issues are at least on the mend.
Sorry that is gutless. You think the U.S. and it's soldiers should be the only ones to rid the world of ruthless Dictators? Where in the Constitution does it say we are the Worlds Cop?

Every country that believes in Democracy should be helping out otherwise they are just the wusses that they were and always will be.

The Security Issues is everyone's business not just the U.S. Our Men and Women will get the job done though without your help obviously.
American troops are only there because taking control of Iraq benifits America, it has nothing to do with making the world a better place. If we were all about Democracy why don't we start with Cuba? Or how about some other dictators like in North Korea?
They aren't supporting terrorists and don't have unaccounted-for materials for the manufacturing of WMD, genius.
So unless the dictator supports terrorists or has unaccounted-for-WMD-materials, we don't give two hoots for the citizens. I see. It's really not about democracy.
This has always been my question if you look at my posts looong before this whoe Iraq mess.

It has always seemed to me that we let and keep Dictators in power. There is some truth to the "We have to pick our Battles" kind of thing like someone mentioned above Countries harboring Terrorists, making WMD etc.

But why did we leave Castro in power, he pointed WMD right in our face from 90 miles out and yet he is still there... :confused:
OMG! You're so close to understanding this I could jump for joy!

If you wait until they're pointing WMD at you, it's too late. You finally get it? Please say yes.

Also, Castro didn't have a history of repeatedly using WMD and supporting terrorist (you liberal drones seem to forget that there are other terrorist groups besides Al Qaeda) and also hadn't tried taking over Haiti which is why we weren't justified in a forceful removal of Castro from power.

You're so close to getting this. Think outside the hive! Take the blue pill...no...wait...the red one, Neo!
Haha its so funny how you don't say anything about North Korea, and stopping a country from building WMD and invading a country because they have WMD are totally different. I can't understand how people still buy into the BS they're fed.
What about NK? As far as I know they aren't known sponsors of terrorism nor have they used WMD in the past nor do they even have nukes yet.

If they acquire nukes that will be a whole separate issue. Why is that relevent to Iraq when both scenarios are so different? Are you thinking for yourself on this or regurgitating liberal rhetoric?
If you wait until they're pointing WMD at you, it's too late
You're making this too easy.
 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: Fencer128
Japan postpones Iraq deployment
Japan has said it will postpone sending troops to join the US-led coalition in Iraq until next year because of the worsening security situation.
I guess they will send troops - but not until either the security situation has improved or it looks like the administration can set a realistic and firm date for a government handover.

Cheers,

Andy
we dont help keeping the peace, we need help getting the peace settled. we wont need them after we quell the insurgents, we need them now to help quell the insurgents.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY