Printable View
The international bullies can't do much either if both sides aren't ready for peace. The Soviet Union learnt in Afghanistan, the US learned it in Vietnam. The US didn't do so well in Lebanon in the 80s or Somalia in the 90s either, and Iraq and Afghanistan don't look as good for them as they'd like. Oh, and Korea is still divided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
They didn't threaten anyone since the Gulf war? You are right to a point. He didn't because the US and UK were constantly on top of him. The problem is, that was no permanent solution. AT some point, the world had to be able to be able to trust Iraq. Easy for you to say that the world should have to monitor this guy for years on end at great expense. The US and the UK had a lot of assets at great expense there monitoring this "peace".Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
So if they were to leave, we are to believe that Iraq would become a good citizen of the world? You are naive if you believe THAT.....No, if Saddam was left alone, we know where he would have been.
As for no new arms? I guess the US Army was fighting non-existent troops and tanks during their war in 2003? Saddam did manage to keep a lot of his army intact and was able to slowly put pieces in place to manage to keep a strong military prescence. The fact the soldiers didn't always do well is more a function of the fact no one wants to die for a dictator if given a choice.
Eki, Understand something here. It is fine to criticize from a fine warm home in a peace loving little nation such as yours or a peace loving bigger nation such as mine, but solutions are never black and white, and to condemn people to live in a constant state of fear based on the rule of a mad man is wrong. You would condemn anyone to live in oppression to avoid a war. You have stated that all human life is sacred. I agree it is, and sometimes wars break out for motives that are not always clear or agreeable, but for you to cry over the lost lives since the US has arrived ignores the future the country now has, and you are also ignoring the millions of people oppressed by other nations in the Middle East and around the world who would likely love for the yoke of oppression to be lifted.
The Americans may be clumsy in their prosecution of the war, but at least they went in with motives beyond just conquest. If the US was all about that, then they would be controlling a large empire at the point of a gun. They do not and will not have that ever. The US believes in Democracy, just like Finland or Canada does. The only difference is, occasionally they are willing to die for that principle. It seems many in the West are not....
I think they do it because they are a professional military and are paid for it. Reinstitute draft, and you'll see how many Americans are really willing to die without a pay in foreign wars that have little to do with them. Many in the US military aren't even US citizens, they have enlisted because they wish they can get the citizenship that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Eki, WRONG on the number of US citizens in the Army. Very few joined under your pretences. Back up that statement...I defy you. There will not be a draft in the US because there is no need. The US military is not lacking volunteers. See, Americans are willing to die for their nation and they are willing to serve it. What is more, their military is willing to reward them with an education and other benefits. While they are not always right in some of their decisions, the US military is run by a democratically elected government and is only employed by civilian leadership. They are loyal their civilian leaders and only act when asked based on the democratically elected leaderships dictates.
You know little of Americans EKi, and it is making your arguments very weak.....
I have not heard them complaining about being in Germany and Japan for 60 years or in Korea for 50 years. Forty more years and Saddam would have been long gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I read one American writer who said that all imigrants from mexico should be first enlisted in the US army, then those who make it back alive should be granted citizenship :dork:
Funny how one of the first hits I got when I googled for evidence was this story in Boston Globe:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ng_foreigners/
Military considers recruiting foreigners
Expedited citizenship would be an incentive
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | December 26, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks -- including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials.
Foreign citizens serving in the US military is a highly charged issue, which could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially using mercenaries to defend the country. Other analysts voice concern that a large contingent of noncitizens under arms could jeopardize national security or reflect badly on Americans' willingness to serve in uniform.
The idea of signing up foreigners who are seeking US citizenship is gaining traction as a way to address a critical need for the Pentagon, while fully absorbing some of the roughly one million immigrants that enter the United States legally each year.
The proposal to induct more noncitizens, which is still largely on the drawing board, has to clear a number of hurdles. So far, the Pentagon has been quiet about specifics -- including who would be eligible to join, where the recruiting stations would be, and what the minimum standards might involve, including English proficiency. In the meantime, the Pentagon and immigration authorities have expanded a program that accelerates citizenship for legal residents who volunteer for the military.
And since Sept. 11, 2001, the number of imm igrants in uniform who have become US citizens has increased from 750 in 2001 to almost 4,600 last year, according to military statistics.
With severe manpower strains because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and a mandate to expand the overall size of the military -- the Pentagon is under pressure to consider a variety of proposals involving foreign recruits, according to a military affairs analyst.
"It works as a military idea and it works in the context of American immigration," said Thomas Donnelly , a military scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and a leading proponent of recruiting more foreigners to serve in the military.
As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan grind on, the Pentagon has warned Congress and the White House that the military is stretched "to the breaking point."
Both President Bush and Robert M. Gates, his new defense secretary, have acknowledged that the total size of the military must be expanded to help alleviate the strain on ground troops, many of whom have been deployed repeatedly in combat theaters.
Bush said last week that he has ordered Gates to come up with a plan for the first significant increase in ground forces since the end of the Cold War. Democrats who are preparing to take control of Congress, meanwhile, promise to make increasing the size of the military one of their top legislative priorities in 2007.Continued...
I don't think so. I think the decision for war was made many months before the whole UN resolution business. How many times was Hans Blix discredited by the Bush Admin for not finding the evidence that was never to be found anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
According to the phrase of the time that would be "53 are for me, 90-odd are against me" :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Bush was not the problem. He was the puppet. His neocon admin was the problem, as are -in my eyes- those who blindly follow people like them on their mission from above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
And Saddam was an idiot, yes, to say the least :s
Neo-con agenda propaganda is used to excuse the arguments the Bush supporters have put forward. Labelling people because you don't like their arguments doesn't change their arguments. Bush was given bad advice in your eyes, fine, but lets not change the reality that Saddam did everything he could to jerk the UN around.
As for the 53 for me, 90 against me crack, I would rather be standing with most of the 53 on a moral ground. While Canada was part of the 90 "against", at least Canada has a cordial relationship with the US and also is dedicated to democratic principles. I am not sure about all of the 90 being so dedicated to human rights.
As for Your claim Eki of all the foreigners trying to be recruited to get US citizen ship, 4600 is not much compared to the over 1 million men and women in Uniform in the US. It is a volunteer military, and it is a good one because of the fact people want to be there. Imagine that, being willing to give to your nation and its principles. Whatever you think of Bush, don't demean the vast majority of the people who serve in the military of the US. Anyone who serves as a volunteer in the military of a democratic nation deserves respect.
My contention has ALWAYS been that to cry over the death's in Iraq after Saddam provoked this conflict is to demean those who have suffered under his rule for over 3 decades. It is to demean every man, woman and child who has suffered in many other regimes around the world. Your contention that the US is the sole cause of all the suffering in Iraq is ill-founded. While the civilians caught in the conflict as innocents didn't deserve to die, neither did they deserve to live under the oppressive leadership of Saddam, and to be kept there by his son's after his passing if nothing was done.
IF the US went to war based on flawed intelligence, Fine, I can buy that, for I don't disagree they had bad intelligence. That said, their motives are a hell of a lot more pure than Saddam's and they didn't go there to enslave the people of Iraq. The path to hell may be paved with Good intentions in my eyes, but the hell of living in Iraq before the invasion was every bit as reprehensible and more than what is happening now. Iraqi's have a shot at peace and democracy, no matter how crude it is to you. You would take that away because the war violated your precious principles. I stated it before, those of you who would condone living in this nation have no concept of what that would be like, and you obviously see nothing wrong with dictators oppressing people unopposed. If you did, then you would spend a lot more time deploring their actions, but 35 pages in, I don't see the rabid condemnation of their actions vs those of George W Bush. When you condemn them with as equal and fervent enthusiasm, I will accept your principles with a different light, but so far, nothing has convinced me that any of this has to do with a fight for justice, just a fight to rid the world of George Bush. In 2 years he is gone, unlike Saddam, they wont have to invade Washington to get rid of him, Americans understand the value of democracy. Some of you obviously have forgotten....