Why can't the US leave those countries alone who don't want a war?

[lobadobadingdong]

one thing for us to think about...
The us government put saddam in power over there, so our government is partially to blame.
Humans make mistakes, don't forget about ol' el presidente over in cuba, similar situation where our brilliant politicians put a madman into power. I can understand why some of the members of the UN have reservations, but we back them and send umpteen billion dollars to many of their countries every year instead of taking care of those out of work, homeless, and impoverished on our own soil. But if we took care of our own our country we would soon look like an isolationinst country similar to switzerland (forgive me if it's mis-spelled). Thier unemployment and impverished rates are staggeringly low compared to ours even though we have a higher overall quality of living.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: UDT89

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: UDT89

Originally posted by: ndee
Why can't they just accept it, that they don't want a war? For example Germany or France.

or the countries that have specific oil deals with Iraq.

Plus France owes us for past war services.

So, according to you, France should be obligated to support a war it doesn't feel is necessary?

were we obligated in WWI?

Of course not.

Luistania anyone?

 

[Insidious]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Insidious
I think these three countries are obligated to either support or offer suggestions and their opinion with supporting facts.

For what reasons do you think this?

IMO, any country has this obligation. To work cooperatively in supporting world peace and offering suggestions
as to how to accomplish that.

If you read carefully, I am not saying or implying any country is obligated to go to war beside the US, but they are obligated
to try and help achieve peace.

Political grandstanding is not helpful.

-Sid

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Insidious

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Insidious
I think these three countries are obligated to either support or offer suggestions and their opinion with supporting facts.

For what reasons do you think this?

IMO, any country has this obligation. To work cooperatively in supporting world peace and offering suggestions
as to how to accomplish that.

If you read carefully, I am not saying or implying any country is obligated to go to war beside the US, but they are obligated
to try and help achieve peace.

Political grandstanding is not helpful.

-Sid

Fair enough. Am I wrong, though, in thinking that they have offered alternatives to going to war? Something about more time or something like that? 😉

 

[jteef]

I dont think france or germany should be obligated to help us. I think they are obligated to quit threatening to prevent us from doing what's right though.

 

[Insidious]

Fair enough. Am I wrong, though, in thinking that they have offered alternatives to going to war? Something about more time or something like that?

Not completely wrong.

It just seems to me that the suggestions are somewhat less than substantive.

The biggest missing part (IMO) is the lack of a suggestion of what indicator
they would consider to be a que for "severe consequences" or success.

Continuing inspections just for the sake of inspections is kind of silly. When do
these countries think it would be fair to say enough is enough.

bottom line:
the suggestions just seem more argumentative than constructive

-Sid

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: numark

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: numark

Originally posted by: SlowSS
Do you mean those countries that has ulterior motives like billions of dollars of investments in Iraq???

Or like our country, which has billions of dollars of potential investments in Iraq if we "liberate" them?

You know, this rhetoric really is starting to get to me, this "holier than thou" attitude our country has against everyone else. If they don't want to go along with us, fine. Let them be. It's their affairs and they most certainly have the right to decide as their government and their citizens choose.

No, they don't have a right to choose that. They are part of an alliance and they are expected to hold up their end of the bargain. It's not like they can just say "we're gonna sit this one out". No, in an alliance, everyone helps everyone.

NATO has the obligation to protect countries that are actively under attack within the alliance. The US asked the NATO members to send troops and money to Turkey, which last time I checked (a few minutes ago) was in fact not under attack. In fact, they're not even in any danger at the moment of being attacked. There's no Iraqi troops lining up on the border to attack Turkish military. As a result, these countries are quite fine in refusing to send their troops to aid a country that's not under attack. We sure wouldn't send troops to their countries if they just happened to ask for it and weren't actively being attacked by anyone.

Turkey only asked for assistance in planning.

 

[dxkj]

We sure wouldn't send troops to their countries if they just happened to ask for it and weren't actively being attacked by anyone.

a few different people mentioned we should wait till someone is actively attacking someone else to intervene... how does this make sense? The US is big enough that we can wait until we are attacked before we do anything, a sucker punch isnt going to knock us down, but what about the smaller countries around Iraq? Kuwait was an example, and even if Iraq isnt planning on attacking another country, housing WMD that they can give to terrorists to use in other countries is just as bad.


As for germany and France, I say we take them down before the French launch a nuke out of the Eiffel Tower.... you know thats really just a giant missile silo!

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Does the expression "Piss or Get off the pot" mean anything to say for example France or Germany?

LOL!

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: gwlam12
war is ugly and should always be the last option.

How did I know you would be from California?


.

How did we know you were an inbred cockgobbler? Lucky guess I'm sure.

I learned from the best RD 😉

 

[Jadow]

I think the French should go to Iraq first!

They could prepare the Iraqis, teach them how to surrender really really fast.

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
one thing for us to think about...
The us government put saddam in power over there, so our government is partially to blame.
Humans make mistakes, don't forget about ol' el presidente over in cuba, similar situation where our brilliant politicians put a madman into power.

Saddam rose to power after King Faisal was ousted by Military officers who were then later ousted themselves by the Baath party. After that he killed all of his opposition and has done so ever since. Nothing to do with the US at all. The US backed the dictator Batista in Cuba who fled in the face of Castro and his rebels.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
one thing for us to think about...
The us government put saddam in power over there, so our government is partially to blame.
Humans make mistakes, don't forget about ol' el presidente over in cuba, similar situation where our brilliant politicians put a madman into power. I can understand why some of the members of the UN have reservations, but we back them and send umpteen billion dollars to many of their countries every year instead of taking care of those out of work, homeless, and impoverished on our own soil. But if we took care of our own our country we would soon look like an isolationinst country similar to switzerland (forgive me if it's mis-spelled). Thier unemployment and impverished rates are staggeringly low compared to ours even though we have a higher overall quality of living.

Well our unemployment rate is at about 4% right now so that's pretty high IMO. How do you think America has the higher overall quality of living? Care to explain?

 

[snooker]

Originally posted by: ndee
Why can't they just accept it, that they don't want a war? For example Germany or France.

France and Germany are not relevant. If they do not want to assist their fellow NATO members, then they need to be expelled from NATO. One day it will come back to haunt one or both countries. They will need NATO support sooner or later, and when they do, I bet they will not get the support the will be asking for........

 

[snooker]

Originally posted by: numark

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: numark

Originally posted by: SlowSS
Do you mean those countries that has ulterior motives like billions of dollars of investments in Iraq???

Or like our country, which has billions of dollars of potential investments in Iraq if we "liberate" them?

You know, this rhetoric really is starting to get to me, this "holier than thou" attitude our country has against everyone else. If they don't want to go along with us, fine. Let them be. It's their affairs and they most certainly have the right to decide as their government and their citizens choose.

No, they don't have a right to choose that. They are part of an alliance and they are expected to hold up their end of the bargain. It's not like they can just say "we're gonna sit this one out". No, in an alliance, everyone helps everyone.

NATO has the obligation to protect countries that are actively under attack within the alliance. The US asked the NATO members to send troops and money to Turkey, which last time I checked (a few minutes ago) was in fact not under attack. In fact, they're not even in any danger at the moment of being attacked. There's no Iraqi troops lining up on the border to attack Turkish military. As a result, these countries are quite fine in refusing to send their troops to aid a country that's not under attack. We sure wouldn't send troops to their countries if they just happened to ask for it and weren't actively being attacked by anyone.

Think about the Iraq's past before making statements like that. Iraq does not have to be actively attacking any one country at the present time to know that if a war breaks out Iraq WILL attack Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, shall I keep going? Out of all those countries Turkey is the only one who is notsetup for defense against such attack. What the U.S wantsd to do is prevent an attack before it happens.

This just goes to show you that alot of people want to wait to be slapped before they slap back..... Even though the person that is going to slap them has done so many times in the past. I for one would do everything in my power to prevent myself or any one of my friends from being slapped to begin with, which is exactly what the U.S and the rest of NATO (with the exception of those 2 countries) wants to do......

 

[syzygy]

The us government put saddam in power over there, so our government is partially to blame.

the u.s. did not 'put saddam in power'. he put himself in power after initial help from michael aflaq who pulled
saddam from bureacratic obscurity to the revolutionary command council in 1964.