The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
US sneers, belittles and ignores the UN before build up to invasion of Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld particularly scathing.
War declared over early May.
Now US asks UN to assist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3202991.stm
"Up your ass UN, we don't need no pasty Eurocrats telling us who we can and cayan't kill"
"Umm...that's not wise US"
"Screw you Eurotrash"
(fast forward to the "ceasation of hostilities")
"Ah, 'scuse us Mr UN, Mr Nice, could you like, gissa hand here? We're getting our butts kicked daily, in fact we've lost more soldiers since the invasion was over than during."
"Um...no"
"C'mon guys, we're not a police force! We kill people, we don't keep the peace"
"Um...no"
War declared over early May.
Now US asks UN to assist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3202991.stm
"Up your ass UN, we don't need no pasty Eurocrats telling us who we can and cayan't kill"
"Umm...that's not wise US"
"Screw you Eurotrash"
(fast forward to the "ceasation of hostilities")
"Ah, 'scuse us Mr UN, Mr Nice, could you like, gissa hand here? We're getting our butts kicked daily, in fact we've lost more soldiers since the invasion was over than during."
"Um...no"
"C'mon guys, we're not a police force! We kill people, we don't keep the peace"
"Um...no"
Page:
I've always believed that, in the long-run, both Iraq and the "West" will benefit from the action taken, regardless of the dubious circumstances under which it happened.
Dr Duck wrote:
>
> We *chose* to go to war, and for our own benefit, not theirs (WMD
> threat, plus the fact we've done so little to rebuild things after
> the war).
The Iraqis will benefit from having their infrastructure rebuilt and in turn their economy (oil) will run more efficiently. American and British companies will profit, I don't disagree but any developed country needs a health economy in which to thrive; this often means that many of the companies in the country may be multinationals or simply "foreign". Britain has many such organisations, who are in efect only here for their own self interests.
I am not saying that I am in total agreement with the course of action taken but I genuinely believe that, horrible cliche it may be, things will be better for the Iraqis in the long run. A retrospective evaluation of the situation a few years from now will give a clear indication of how wise Bush's decision was.
>
> We *chose* to go to war, and for our own benefit, not theirs (WMD
> threat, plus the fact we've done so little to rebuild things after
> the war).
The Iraqis will benefit from having their infrastructure rebuilt and in turn their economy (oil) will run more efficiently. American and British companies will profit, I don't disagree but any developed country needs a health economy in which to thrive; this often means that many of the companies in the country may be multinationals or simply "foreign". Britain has many such organisations, who are in efect only here for their own self interests.
I am not saying that I am in total agreement with the course of action taken but I genuinely believe that, horrible cliche it may be, things will be better for the Iraqis in the long run. A retrospective evaluation of the situation a few years from now will give a clear indication of how wise Bush's decision was.
Dr Duck wrote:
>
> Stretching the concept of 'vicor's justice'? Perhaps. Needed more
> explaination? Probably. Ah well.
>
> :^)
No, I understood what you meant. :)
>
> Stretching the concept of 'vicor's justice'? Perhaps. Needed more
> explaination? Probably. Ah well.
>
> :^)
No, I understood what you meant. :)
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Anyway, back on poin, my quote does matter, because it shows that the
> issue here is not the USA begging for the UN to be involved, but that
> the actual story is HOW the UN is involved, right now it seems like
> the UN will compromise for a UN approved force led by a US General.
I disagree; how can you justify that view when, prior to the war, the US government made it plain that they wanted no UN involvement? The US government has had to do a U-turn, and is losing face because of it. Aren't you just trying to shift attention away from the fact that the pre-war anti-UN rhetoric is being exposed as an arrogant folly?
>
> Anyway, back on poin, my quote does matter, because it shows that the
> issue here is not the USA begging for the UN to be involved, but that
> the actual story is HOW the UN is involved, right now it seems like
> the UN will compromise for a UN approved force led by a US General.
I disagree; how can you justify that view when, prior to the war, the US government made it plain that they wanted no UN involvement? The US government has had to do a U-turn, and is losing face because of it. Aren't you just trying to shift attention away from the fact that the pre-war anti-UN rhetoric is being exposed as an arrogant folly?
Belldandy wrote:
> You're contradicting yourself. You say the UN WANTS to take control
> of rebuilding, yet the US is having to persuade the UN. Can't have
> both at the same time can you ? To rebuild you need two things;
Or:
The UN wants to control rebuilding as it doesn't trust America to do a good job, and doesn't want the US acting at will contrary to the UN's 'authority'.
But at the same time, if it jumps right in then it's effectively telling the US that it's willing to go clean up America's mess whenever things aren't going well.
Plus their support would seem to vindicate the US acting contrary to the UN's wishes.
Probably most of us have been disappointed by the UN's percieved inability to flex any muscle. This is an easy way for them to do just that.
So they make the US sweat it out, play 'hard to get'. Don't let the US have everything their own way. Then they try to make Iraq a better place.
The balance of the two positions.
> You're contradicting yourself. You say the UN WANTS to take control
> of rebuilding, yet the US is having to persuade the UN. Can't have
> both at the same time can you ? To rebuild you need two things;
Or:
The UN wants to control rebuilding as it doesn't trust America to do a good job, and doesn't want the US acting at will contrary to the UN's 'authority'.
But at the same time, if it jumps right in then it's effectively telling the US that it's willing to go clean up America's mess whenever things aren't going well.
Plus their support would seem to vindicate the US acting contrary to the UN's wishes.
Probably most of us have been disappointed by the UN's percieved inability to flex any muscle. This is an easy way for them to do just that.
So they make the US sweat it out, play 'hard to get'. Don't let the US have everything their own way. Then they try to make Iraq a better place.
The balance of the two positions.
Light wrote:
> How does
> the UN wanting to take full control of the rebuilding of Iraq detract
> in any way from the fact that the US are having to come cap in hand
> in order to beg the UN to rescue them from the mess they've made?
You're contradicting yourself. You say the UN WANTS to take control of rebuilding, yet the US is having to persuade the UN. Can't have both at the same time can you ? To rebuild you need two things;
1) Security.
2) Elimination of remaining forces loyal to Saddam, or as a bare minimum, suppression.
Security is best brough about by a Peacekeeping force, part of the problem is that the US has troops in place now doing the job of peacekeeping when they've barely trained for it. Soldiers, as a rule, are trained to kill the enemy, not to keep control of a civilian population.
Hence, the US force structure in Iraq, along with the UK's, is geared towards 2 - taking out the remainging loyalists to Saddam and capturing people.
Like it or not, Iraq isn't going to go away, and a withdrawal is not very desirable for anyone, the UN was unable to resolve this, now it has a chance to aid the rebuilding which Annan, by your own admittance, wants to see. Europe can moan all it wants, end of the day they need the resources in that area to be secure just as much as everyone else, including ordinary Iraqi's. The problem here is Europe, IMO. It want's be be a super power, but it hasn't got the balls to act like it.
However much France, Germany etc complain about the US, the fact remains that the USA is still the backbone of NATO and, unless we have an overnight press release, only the UK and Spain are doing anything to increase their capability as a fighting force. Any immediate military crisis in Europe or elsewhere in the next ten years will be reliant on US involvement to ensure any kind of successful resolution.
Take North Korea. Say we all wake up tomorrow morning to find a couple of million North Koreans streaming over the border straight for South Korea ?
Or, China makes a grab for Taiwan ? Or goes into Russia ?
India and Pakistan go to war.
Whose going to sort those messes out ? Not Europe, not the UN without the USA, no, it's America. But what happens if it's leaders turn round and say they're not interested ?
Anyway, back on poin, my quote does matter, because it shows that the issue here is not the USA begging for the UN to be involved, but that the actual story is HOW the UN is involved, right now it seems like the UN will compromise for a UN approved force led by a US General.
> How does
> the UN wanting to take full control of the rebuilding of Iraq detract
> in any way from the fact that the US are having to come cap in hand
> in order to beg the UN to rescue them from the mess they've made?
You're contradicting yourself. You say the UN WANTS to take control of rebuilding, yet the US is having to persuade the UN. Can't have both at the same time can you ? To rebuild you need two things;
1) Security.
2) Elimination of remaining forces loyal to Saddam, or as a bare minimum, suppression.
Security is best brough about by a Peacekeeping force, part of the problem is that the US has troops in place now doing the job of peacekeeping when they've barely trained for it. Soldiers, as a rule, are trained to kill the enemy, not to keep control of a civilian population.
Hence, the US force structure in Iraq, along with the UK's, is geared towards 2 - taking out the remainging loyalists to Saddam and capturing people.
Like it or not, Iraq isn't going to go away, and a withdrawal is not very desirable for anyone, the UN was unable to resolve this, now it has a chance to aid the rebuilding which Annan, by your own admittance, wants to see. Europe can moan all it wants, end of the day they need the resources in that area to be secure just as much as everyone else, including ordinary Iraqi's. The problem here is Europe, IMO. It want's be be a super power, but it hasn't got the balls to act like it.
However much France, Germany etc complain about the US, the fact remains that the USA is still the backbone of NATO and, unless we have an overnight press release, only the UK and Spain are doing anything to increase their capability as a fighting force. Any immediate military crisis in Europe or elsewhere in the next ten years will be reliant on US involvement to ensure any kind of successful resolution.
Take North Korea. Say we all wake up tomorrow morning to find a couple of million North Koreans streaming over the border straight for South Korea ?
Or, China makes a grab for Taiwan ? Or goes into Russia ?
India and Pakistan go to war.
Whose going to sort those messes out ? Not Europe, not the UN without the USA, no, it's America. But what happens if it's leaders turn round and say they're not interested ?
Anyway, back on poin, my quote does matter, because it shows that the issue here is not the USA begging for the UN to be involved, but that the actual story is HOW the UN is involved, right now it seems like the UN will compromise for a UN approved force led by a US General.
The sagacious one wrote:
> Wars cost money and the liberation of Iraq was expensive. We
> therefore have every right to recoup the money spent freeing the
> people of Iraq (one day they will thank us) through boosting our own
> economies by securing work for our own companies.
We *chose* to go to war, and for our own benefit, not theirs (WMD threat, plus the fact we've done so little to rebuild things after the war).
Take from Saddam himself ? Perhaps.
But to keep down Iraqis while we hold the door open for 'our boys' to take a piece of the pie ? (See Bush's policies creating favourable conditions for US companies, and preventing Iraqi run companies from going into business to preserve the market for America) When they never asked for this, never consented to us taking stuff, never caused the problem we sought to deal with ? Surely no better than theft ?
> Wars cost money and the liberation of Iraq was expensive. We
> therefore have every right to recoup the money spent freeing the
> people of Iraq (one day they will thank us) through boosting our own
> economies by securing work for our own companies.
We *chose* to go to war, and for our own benefit, not theirs (WMD threat, plus the fact we've done so little to rebuild things after the war).
Take from Saddam himself ? Perhaps.
But to keep down Iraqis while we hold the door open for 'our boys' to take a piece of the pie ? (See Bush's policies creating favourable conditions for US companies, and preventing Iraqi run companies from going into business to preserve the market for America) When they never asked for this, never consented to us taking stuff, never caused the problem we sought to deal with ? Surely no better than theft ?
Hedfix wrote:
> Dr Duck wrote:
> 'Victor's Justice'.
>
> Mabye in Korea, how did that turn out again?
>
> But last time I checked America pulled out of Vietnam.
The general term 'victor's justice' is where those left in power after a war get to dictate morality and consequent 'justice'.
Usually applicable to where one country wins control of another, and exercises that control imposing its particular view of 'justice'.
Kissinger's country survived, and so he needed only be judged by his own government. Who look upon him more favourably than the other side.
The US may have pulled out of 'Nam, but 'Nam didn't go on to win the US.
Stretching the concept of 'vicor's justice'? Perhaps. Needed more explaination? Probably. Ah well.
:^)
> Dr Duck wrote:
> 'Victor's Justice'.
>
> Mabye in Korea, how did that turn out again?
>
> But last time I checked America pulled out of Vietnam.
The general term 'victor's justice' is where those left in power after a war get to dictate morality and consequent 'justice'.
Usually applicable to where one country wins control of another, and exercises that control imposing its particular view of 'justice'.
Kissinger's country survived, and so he needed only be judged by his own government. Who look upon him more favourably than the other side.
The US may have pulled out of 'Nam, but 'Nam didn't go on to win the US.
Stretching the concept of 'vicor's justice'? Perhaps. Needed more explaination? Probably. Ah well.
:^)
Dr Duck wrote:
> Certainly greed.
>
> But does the fact that US/UK actively fought give them a 'right' to
> now screw all the money they can out of Iraq ?
>
> I don't think it does. And surely anyone who disagrees has to
> acknowledge the supporting the element of 'conquest' in the war ?
>
> By all means, they're self serving and greedy. It's just that we are
> too.
Wars cost money and the liberation of Iraq was expensive. We therefore have every right to recoup the money spent freeing the people of Iraq (one day they will thank us) through boosting our own economies by securing work for our own companies.
> Certainly greed.
>
> But does the fact that US/UK actively fought give them a 'right' to
> now screw all the money they can out of Iraq ?
>
> I don't think it does. And surely anyone who disagrees has to
> acknowledge the supporting the element of 'conquest' in the war ?
>
> By all means, they're self serving and greedy. It's just that we are
> too.
Wars cost money and the liberation of Iraq was expensive. We therefore have every right to recoup the money spent freeing the people of Iraq (one day they will thank us) through boosting our own economies by securing work for our own companies.
Dr Duck wrote:
> 'Victor's Justice'.
Mabye in Korea, how did that turn out again?
But last time I checked America pulled out of Vietnam.
> 'Victor's Justice'.
Mabye in Korea, how did that turn out again?
But last time I checked America pulled out of Vietnam.
Page: