Obama shows sense of realism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

There was no specific resolution permitting the invasion of Iraq in 2003 in stark contrast to the first Gulf War and you know it. The resolutions you speak of did not specifically allow invasion of a sovereign state. Kofi Annan even described the invasion as being illegal for those reasons.

The UN resolutions WERE enforced with embargos and the occasional use of force. Missile strikes and annexing huge chunks of Iraqi airspace was pretty major.

Presumably though if you're so upset about UN resolutions not being enforced you'll want Israel to be invaded pretty sharpish right? After all Israel is the single biggest violator of UN resolutions on the planet. Got to treat all countries equally eh? Or do UN resolutions only need to be enforced by invasion when it suits you?

---

Kofi Annan was corrupt, his son was up to his ears in the oil for food scam. So anything he says on Iraq I would have to say is invalid due to his obvious conflict of interest.

The UN resolutions should have been enforced by the embargo if there was proof it was working and Iraq was getting out of the WMD business, but it was clear he wanted everyone to think he was up so something; but with Bush looking for possibilities with regimes with WMD's and sympathy for Al Quaida, playing poker with nothing in your hand was a bad strategy. I will point out I think that the Gulf War in hindsight was not the best way to have dealt with Iraq, BUT that is hindsight.

As for the resolutions passed by the UN, many make no sense or are pushed by agenda's that are not pure. The resolutions against Israel are drawn up by the Arab states and somehow given validity by countries purely making trouble. The resolutions of the UN often are NOT enforced, but here we had two major powers ready to enforce them or go back to war with Iraq as a continuation of the first gulf war. Saddam agreed to those 12 to end that war and then was renegging 11 years later because he didn't want to look weak. The resolutions that ended that war basically said you agree or the cease fire is off. That Clinton chose not to go to war with Iraq was his call, but if you remember in 1997 there was a lot of talk of reopening the hostilities over this then and a lot of it was from the very same people decrying it in the US Congress when Bush did it.

Listen, I follow geo politics from a layman's point of view based on what I can read and learn in the media. I do know this much tho. This constant anti US carping is a bit of a joke, because despite their flaws, they have never been a legitimate threat to any democratic, free nation. They may play bullying games economically, and their popular culture has kind of overrun some places, but the US isn't the world's bad guy.

AS for your Brit military friend, he couldn't give you the justification in legal terms. He is a military man, they make decisions based on military logic. Legality they leave to their political masters. Was Blair clean? Maybe not...but I can also tell you Tony Blair would have no desire to end up in the Hague as a war criminal, and unlike the US, you have to know he would have to consider that possiblity. Americans wont accept a outside body dictating their domestic laws or politicians. Americans rule americans. Blair wouldn't be protected that way if certain groups in the UK felt he had committed a war crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

North Korea is how big and rich? The US is how big, rich and close to the US?


Neither was Iraq to the US in 2003. Or Lebanon to Israel in 2006.

---

North Korea has been threatening to invade the south, where 30000 American troops have been a trip wire for years. Using nukes on them isn't a threat?

Lebanon wasn't a threat? The Nation state of Lebanon wasn't, but they couldn't stop Hezbollah from attacking Israeli settlements with rocket attacks. After about a year or so of this nonsense, Israel could very well claim Lebanon was a failed state and you would have to go a long way to say Lebanon was in control of its borders. Sorry, Israel was heavy handed but justified on many levels for wanting to stop terrorist attacks on its civilians. THAT is why a country has an army...to defend its territory.

AS for Iraq to the Americans, you are partially right. Iraq or just about all but a few nations are no direct threat to the Americans. Americans tho, and their military are often drawn into conflicts because of the geopolictical implications of their non-involvement. Only an idiot would not see the US involved in the Arab world as being about anything other than oil. That said, the protection of the oil producing states in the Persian Gulf is a imperative for the developed world for the possiblity of the oil flow being shut off or manipulated could wreck the ecomomic system of the planet in ways the bankers of Wall St. couldn't touch. The US was there to put Kuwait back in Kuwaiti hands, and they stayed there to keep Saddam from making another grab for the oil states. Therefore, if they are going to be there, and they fought a war to put Saddam on his own side of the border, they would be the most logical people to enforce the UN resolutions ending that war. When Saddam didn't follow the dictates of this, Bush had his pretext. Bush also was of the theory that any regime with WMD's hostile to the West AND with possible connections to Bin Laden might be a threat (weak I know...but hey, the CIA, MI in Britain and SDECE all thought Iraq had WMD's, and Saddam wouldn't have any morals about selling them to people hostile to theUS)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

It is pure appeasement. There is no argument that can change that fact.

Once again a left winger has cowardly thrown our allies under the bus. Neville Chamberlain would be proud.

Welcome back Carter

---

anthonypop, surveys suggest that the majority of people in Poland and Checkh Republic are happy with Obama's decision. The only people under the buss are the christofascists who rule the GOP and want eternal war with Islam.

The reason Obama is so popular among the liberals, who voted for him, and the countries around the world is that he is a Democrat. Democracy means - the People Rule. The majority of the people who elected him, maybe even the majority of Americans, approve his more peaceful way. The majority in Poland and the Check Republic also approve his decision. So it was the right decision - he proved himself as a true democrat. I have to remind people that, yes, the US will not have their high tech weapons in Poland and the Check Republic, but the Russia will also not install rockets in Kalinsgrad. Sounds nice to me. No weapons, no fighting.
But I am not surprised that conservatives are unhappy. Their ideology is "my way or the highway". To impose it they need bullying. So they are not very different to Putin as they would like to think. They are even homophobic and liberal-hating as him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1boat

The reason Obama is so popular among the liberals, who voted for him, and the countries around the world is that he is a Democrat. Democracy means - the People Rule. The majority of the people who elected him, maybe even the majority of Americans, approve his more peaceful way. The majority in Poland and the Check Republic also approve his decision. So it was the right decision - he proved himself as a true democrat. I have to remind people that, yes, the US will not have their high tech weapons in Poland and the Check Republic, but the Russia will also not install rockets in Kalinsgrad. Sounds nice to me. No weapons, no fighting.
But I am not surprised that conservatives are unhappy. Their ideology is "my way or the highway". To impose it they need bullying. So they are not very different to Putin as they would like to think. They are even homophobic and liberal-hating as him.

---

First, Democrat and democracy aren't the same thing. One is a political philosophy the other is a political party that may or may not have many of the tenents of the democratic philosophy.

Second, the one pole that I could find shows significant support in the US for the missle defense shield. It is a bit old, and I didn't do too much searching for a newer one, so maybe things have changed a bit.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=203835

Third, Obama doesn't have the overall support of the US anymore.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

Fourth, Liberals do their fair share of bullying as well. Just look at how often people opposed to health care are called racists. For them it's "my way or you're a racist". I'm not saying that that justifies some of the things that are said on either side of the eisle, just that ALL of them do it. The "bullying" is not just a Conservative trait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

They are being more careful with their cash and not going into debt to do what they want to do. I think Putin is also wary about giving the military too much...they may take him out if they have too much...

Their economy tho is more realistic...this is the real economy that the country has and that is the level it can fund its military. The USSR went broke trying to be something it wasn't. Reagan was the man who cottoned on to that...

---

I think you are being unnecessarily paranoid about Russia's military capabilities. It seems to me that every important aspect of its defence industry and military is in tatters. The armed forces don't have sufficient resources, are generally ill-equipped and, by Western standards, ill-trained. And the defence industry there has singularly failed to adapt to the post-Cold War world in spite of many efforts aimed at countering this — there has been little proper funding for badly-needed new products because the Russian armed forces can't afford them, many important Russian companies have developed an extremely poor reputation in terms of the basic reliability and 'fitness for purpose' of their products, and they are thus seriously handicapped on the export market. It doesn't paint a very scary picture to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Second, the one pole that I could find...

---

A Freudian slip if ever I saw one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Was Blair clean? Maybe not...but I can also tell you Tony Blair would have no desire to end up in the Hague as a war criminal, and unlike the US, you have to know he would have to consider that possiblity.

---

Given that there was simply no way in reality that Blair or Bush was ever likely to go up in front of a war crimes trial, I would doubt that he lost a moment's sleep over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

First, Democrat and democracy aren't the same thing. One is a political philosophy the other is a political party that may or may not have many of the tenents of the democratic philosophy.

Second, the one pole that I could find shows significant support in the US for the missle defense shield. It is a bit old, and I didn't do too much searching for a newer one, so maybe things have changed a bit.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=203835

Third, Obama doesn't have the overall support of the US anymore.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

Fourth, Liberals do their fair share of bullying as well. Just look at how often people opposed to health care are called racists. For them it's "my way or you're a racist". I'm not saying that that justifies some of the things that are said on either side of the eisle, just that ALL of them do it. The "bullying" is not just a Conservative trait.

---

chuck, it is true. Of course that the Dems and the liberals have some problems as well. But if you compare the ideas of the Dems, the GOP and United Russia you will be suprised to see how much the GOP and United Russia are similar in social issues for example, or the ideas about the role of the Fatherland in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

North Korea has been threatening to invade the south, where 30000 American troops have been a trip wire for years. Using nukes on them isn't a threat?

---

What are they doing in Korea? There's room enough for 30000 American troops in the mainland USA.

North Korea is how big and rich compared to South Korea?