Is the current size of the US military too small?

[Janus1]

marine is seeming more and more like the bastard child of Mutharussia and that spammer that was here awhile back.

[Guest]

i take offense to that janus1 :x

[Guerrilla Guy]

I am no mod but you guys are seemingly personally attacking Marine36…. cool it!!!

GG

[cystic crypt]

@Guerrilla:

I am no mod but you guys are seemingly personally attacking Marine36…. cool it!!!

GG

as a mod, i feel i should say something . . .
ummmm . . . be nice?

[CommissarYarric]

You guys suck at staying on topic. You really, really suck. Very badly :lol: .

To clear up why we hate the french, it is becuase they originally said they would back the Iraq war and would support the bill, but when the UN held the summit they completely changed their policy and vetoed our resolution. The Germans betrayed us as well, but France has veto, so thye did more damage. Since then, it has spiraled out of control, in both nations, due to the media.

Now, i think we should employ a larger army, but as we are a volunteer force, that would be difficult. I would not have a problem with a mandatory 2 year service in the military at a certain age, or some other form of conscription, but that wont ever happen in America, so i might as well forget about it. To increase troop supply for the important wars like Iraq, we need to reorganize our deployment. We need to pull out of all the nations we had troops in becuase of the Cold War, and we also need to pull our troops out of S. Korea, becuase thye are not doing anything their. SImply put, N. Korea wont be attakcing anyone, they cant afford to. Go the Korea topic if you feel like debating or want to hear my reasons.

Another way we could increase troop supply is rearm Japan. Thye want desperatly to help in Iraq, and would always support America becuase we did, and still do, so much for their economy. They could get a large volunteer service together relatively quickly, and since the population has little fear of war compared to Europe, the people would undoubtedly support such a war by a majority or at least 50/50. The current size of Japan’s military forces is 180,000, but i beleive thatcould eb expanded at least two fold if promopted by America. Thats another 100,000 troops for Iraq at least. I dont think we should accept allowing Japan to help only in reconstruction and security in non-combat areas, like the recent bill allows. They should be equal participatants. OF course, America cant really force Jpaan to change it’s policy, but their are many politicians hwo want to change that policy. I think it could be done.

[Guerrilla Guy]

@cystic:

@Guerrilla:

I am no mod but you guys are seemingly personally attacking Marine36…. cool it!!!

GG

as a mod, i feel i should say something . . .
ummmm . . . be nice?

forgive me CC…

Referring to people dying so one can get money and calling someone a bastard and a spammer??

You are the mod I am not denying it… But judge right besides your personal feelings please!!!

GG

[221B Baker Street]

To clear up why we hate the french, it is becuase they originally said they would back the Iraq war and would support the bill, but when the UN held the summit they completely changed their policy and vetoed our resolution. The Germans betrayed us as well, but France has veto, so thye did more damage. Since then, it has spiraled out of control, in both nations, due to the media.

Yes, the French could have at least been upfront with our diplomats from the beginning. I saw a TV article (PBS? Discovery channel? can’t remember) that Colin Powell and the other diplomats were shocked at the actual vote, because the very day before the French and German diplomats he was talking to said they would support the US resolution.

I don’t think that we need a larger Army, we do have sufficient forces to deal with any situation (or two situations that may come up). The problem that we have is that we never leave (Germany, S. Korea, …) afterwards.

The other problem is that the media isn’t being accurate about the entire Iraq situation either. They want the story to read a certain way so they spin it into half-truths (another name for a lie) to sell more papers and to fit their preconcieved notions. For example, their story about the 911 commision was (and still is :evil: !!) that there was no link between Saddam and al-Queda. But this has been publically disputed by 1) The 911 commission members, 2) President Bush, 3) Russian President Putin. Putin actually said that Saddam was connected to Al Queda and wanted to give Al Queda weapons of mass destruction. But this should be the subject of another post. :lol:

LOL

[CommissarYarric]

.Yeah, that really pissed me off. When the commission said that Sadaam did not assist Al-Queda in 9/11, the emdia went off to sya that absolutely no link exists, which is completely false. They have talked several times, proetcted Al-Queda terrorists, and provided them with with money and aid on several occasions. Stupid media :evil:

[cystic crypt]

@Guerrilla:

@cystic:

@Guerrilla:

I am no mod but you guys are seemingly personally attacking Marine36…. cool it!!!

GG

as a mod, i feel i should say something . . .
ummmm . . . be nice?

forgive me CC…

forgiven

Referring to people dying so one can get money and calling someone a bastard and a spammer??

the reference to people dying - brush up on your satire.
as for Janus1’s reference - impolite, and very close to flaming. Still, it was difficult to disagree. Also he did not “call” him these things, but rather said that he was reminded of other posters with these qualities.

[cystic crypt]

@CommissarYarric:

You guys suck at staying on topic. You really, really suck. Very badly :lol: .

To clear up why we hate the french, it is becuase they originally said they would back the Iraq war and would support the bill, but when the UN held the summit they completely changed their policy and vetoed our resolution. The Germans betrayed us as well, but France has veto, so thye did more damage. Since then, it has spiraled out of control, in both nations, due to the media.

this is the right of the French to do, however. For them to at one point publically issue one opinion and change it the next day required something to happen. I’m not sure what this is - perhaps the US invasion plans were MUCH more hasty than they had anticipated, perhaps there was a discussion about their military and future capabiliities, or perhaps their best interests as a trading partner with Iraq arose and convinced them to change their minds.
This is not new. The US does this on important issues that we have to deal with nearly daily. Commodities prices and stock prices, as well as jobs and the status of entire industries fluxuate directly in response to American “changes of heart” often with devestating consequences - and not just in my country, but all over the world. If we have to learn to deal with it, so can the US.

Now, i think we should employ a larger army, but as we are a volunteer force, that would be difficult. I would not have a problem with a mandatory 2 year service in the military at a certain age, or some other form of conscription, but that wont ever happen in America, so i might as well forget about it. To increase troop supply for the important wars like Iraq, we need to reorganize our deployment. We need to pull out of all the nations we had troops in becuase of the Cold War, and we also need to pull our troops out of S. Korea, becuase thye are not doing anything their. SImply put, N. Korea wont be attakcing anyone, they cant afford to. Go the Korea topic if you feel like debating or want to hear my reasons.

conscription is a terrible idea - in any country. I have no trouble with serving my country and i would be prepared to as a physician, or in a civic role. But a gov’t telling me to go out and kill people whether i want to or not is one of the most oppressive regimes i can imagine.

Another way we could increase troop supply is rearm Japan. Thye want desperatly to help in Iraq, and would always support America becuase we did, and still do, so much for their economy. They could get a large volunteer service together relatively quickly, and since the population has little fear of war compared to Europe, the people would undoubtedly support such a war by a majority or at least 50/50. The current size of Japan’s military forces is 180,000, but i beleive thatcould eb expanded at least two fold if promopted by America. Thats another 100,000 troops for Iraq at least. I dont think we should accept allowing Japan to help only in reconstruction and security in non-combat areas, like the recent bill allows. They should be equal participatants. OF course, America cant really force Jpaan to change it’s policy, but their are many politicians hwo want to change that policy. I think it could be done.

why would you expect them to double their forces at your whims, but not be allowed to help in reconstruction and security?
And if this invasion was for the good of Iraq, why should the best firms (or at least the best prices) not benefit Iraq and Iraqi’s? (unless the war was for US self-interest - in which case the French are right to not participate).

[Guerrilla Guy]

@cystic:

@Guerrilla:

@cystic:

@Guerrilla:

I am no mod but you guys are seemingly personally attacking Marine36…. cool it!!!

GG

as a mod, i feel i should say something . . .
ummmm . . . be nice?

forgive me CC…

forgiven

Referring to people dying so one can get money and calling someone a bastard and a spammer??

the reference to people dying - brush up on your satire.
as for Janus1’s reference - impolite, and very close to flaming. Still, it was difficult to disagree. Also he did not “call” him these things, but rather said that he was reminded of other posters with these qualities.

Aye Aye Sir…

Concerning Conscripts…

Would you be willing to go out and fight if people invaded Canada??

GG

[cystic crypt]

Fight? No. This would be the biggest waste of resources, and no military leader would let me fight, nor would i fight.

1. it would be wrong of me to kill another person. I have trouble envisioning the scenario where i would do this. If i claim to follow the bible, and i try to follow Jesus’ teachings, then killing another solder would directly violate His greatest teachings, and the very principals which should differentiate Christians from other religions.
2. i am too intelligent and too old to serve in an infantry, artillary, etc. capacity. The military would much more likely assign me a rank of Captain or greater.
3. the miliatry would never take a physician and have them serve as a warrior. I have 10 years of education that would be much better served in a lab constructing bio/neuro/chemical weapons, as a physician/surgeon, in an administrative capacity (i have served on a board of directors, and worked as a territory manager for a corporation) etc.

If Canada was to be invaded/require a massive increase in enrollment, i would serve in a military hospital, and apply my skills without prejudice for Canadian or other nationality to the best of my abilities in so far as i was able.
If i was compelled to serve in the infantry with a weapon, then i would protest as a conscientious objector, and still serve as a physician. If this was not possible, then i would have to take the alternative (prison), and serve my fellow prisoners as a physician insofar as i was able.

[CommissarYarric]

this is the right of the French to do, however. For them to at one point publically issue one opinion and change it the next day required something to happen. I’m not sure what this is - perhaps the US invasion plans were MUCH more hasty than they had anticipated, perhaps there was a discussion about their military and future capabiliities, or perhaps their best interests as a trading partner with Iraq arose and convinced them to change their minds.
This is not new. The US does this on important issues that we have to deal with nearly daily. Commodities prices and stock prices, as well as jobs and the status of entire industries fluxuate directly in response to American “changes of heart” often with devestating consequences - and not just in my country, but all over the world. If we have to learn to deal with it, so can the US.

Of course it is their right to do so, but that does not mean we cant be mad at them for it. We should be. It was only the spark, however. It was escalated by the media (the O’Reily embargo, for example) and certain individuals. I guess I should have clarified that I do NOT hate the French at all, except for their soccor team when they beat England in the Euro Cup this year. I was at the game in Portugal, it was devastating.

conscription is a terrible idea - in any country. I have no trouble with serving my country and i would be prepared to as a physician, or in a civic role. But a gov’t telling me to go out and kill people whether i want to or not is one of the most oppressive regimes i can imagine.

Maybe you were trying to spark a different debate, otherwise you are picking straws. Anyway, if you were drafted you would become a medic for your skills, in all likelyhood anyway. I dont view it as my government telling me to kill people, but telling me to protect others and protect my government, an organization that i hold an almost unpayable debt to, by fighting against terrorists and murders.

2. i am too intelligent and too old to serve in an infantry, artillary, etc. capacity. The military would much more likely assign me a rank of Captain or greater.

Im glad your not too full of yourself :lol: .
As for the religious issue, i dont think you would be violating any laws, becuase you are trying to save the lives of people. Its open to interpretation, of course, but i beleive that self defense is soemthing you can perform without punishment under God. Of course, you could always aim for the legs :wink: .

why would you expect them to double their forces at your whims, but not be allowed to help in reconstruction and security?
And if this invasion was for the good of Iraq, why should the best firms (or at least the best prices) not benefit Iraq and Iraqi’s? (unless the war was for US self-interest - in which case the French are right to not participate).

I never said either of those. Japan’s military forces are limited by thier constitution, if the government, or more importantly the emperor, asked more people to join, im sure they would. And it would not be at the whim of America. Their are many Japanese politicians who want to alter the constitution, and that would be much easier if they had a specific reason to. I think the Japanese want to participate, they were very mad when they could only help out monetarily in the Gulf War of 1991. I also never said they could not help out in reconstruction, i just think they should be able to fight as well. American soldeirs are doing both, so can the Japanese. I think they want to do it, and we should give them a reason. Right now we arent trying to convince them to do so, we should be more openly positive and receptive to the idea. If that fails, we could always threaten them with economic sanctions 8) :lol: .
As for the firms, they are benefitting the Iraqi’s, its just that they are benefitting Americans too. We are using the oil income to rebuild the infastructure, and American companies are sending over engineers to rebuild the essential services like power and water. We cant just create a new company out of thin air to rebuild Iraq, we have to use existing ones, and the ones in the best position to help were largely American. They are providing jobs for Iraqi’s and rebuilding the country, how is that not benefitting the Iraqi’s?

[cystic crypt]

conscription is a terrible idea - in any country. I have no trouble with serving my country and i would be prepared to as a physician, or in a civic role. But a gov’t telling me to go out and kill people whether i want to or not is one of the most oppressive regimes i can imagine.

Maybe you were trying to spark a different debate, otherwise you are picking straws. Anyway, if you were drafted you would become a medic for your skills, in all likelyhood anyway. I dont view it as my government telling me to kill people, but telling me to protect others and protect my government, an organization that i hold an almost unpayable debt to, by fighting against terrorists and murders.

If i did not have these skills, then i would be drafted to kill people. Training sargents do not train you to protect others and your gov’t. They train you to kill in the most efficient ways possible.

2. i am too intelligent and too old to serve in an infantry, artillary, etc. capacity. The military would much more likely assign me a rank of Captain or greater.

Im glad your not too full of yourself :lol: .

it apears that i am, but i try to be realistic.

As for the religious issue, i dont think you would be violating any laws, becuase you are trying to save the lives of people. Its open to interpretation, of course, but i beleive that self defense is soemthing you can perform without punishment under God. Of course, you could always aim for the legs :wink: .

it’s not about violating laws, but rather fundamental principles. I violate laws all the time - speeding, and even some biblical laws. Still, nothing quite violates “thou shalt not kill” and “love your enemies” and “pray for those that persecute you” and “do good to those that hate you” quite as much as killing people. This is very opposite.

why would you expect them to double their forces at your whims, but not be allowed to help in reconstruction and security?
And if this invasion was for the good of Iraq, why should the best firms (or at least the best prices) not benefit Iraq and Iraqi’s? (unless the war was for US self-interest - in which case the French are right to not participate).

I never said either of those. Japan’s military forces are limited by thier constitution, if the government, or more importantly the emperor, asked more people to join, im sure they would. And it would not be at the whim of America. Their are many Japanese politicians who want to alter the constitution, and that would be much easier if they had a specific reason to. I think the Japanese want to participate, they were very mad when they could only help out monetarily in the Gulf War of 1991. I also never said they could not help out in reconstruction, i just think they should be able to fight as well. American soldeirs are doing both, so can the Japanese. I think they want to do it, and we should give them a reason. Right now we arent trying to convince them to do so, we should be more openly positive and receptive to the idea. If that fails, we could always threaten them with economic sanctions 8) :lol: .

my apologies - i reread your post and realized that i made a mistake.

As for the firms, they are benefitting the Iraqi’s, its just that they are benefitting Americans too. We are using the oil income to rebuild the infastructure, and American companies are sending over engineers to rebuild the essential services like power and water. We cant just create a new company out of thin air to rebuild Iraq, we have to use existing ones, and the ones in the best position to help were largely American. They are providing jobs for Iraqi’s and rebuilding the country, how is that not benefitting the Iraqi’s?

it depends. By allowing only companies that the Americans approve of to participate in reconstruction, then you are limiting the number of companies that may participate. One does not need to be an economist to realize that this violation of competition principals predetermines a more expensive construction effort which the Iraqi’s must pay for (via their oil supplies). The benefit would go only to US (and coalition) companies. On the surface, this appears fair. However if the US invasion of Iraq was as ultruistic as his idiotship tried to make appear, then the optics become more dismal (please don’t make me spell this out to you).

[CommissarYarric]

If i did not have these skills, then i would be drafted to kill people. Training sargents do not train you to protect others and your gov’t. They train you to kill in the most efficient ways possible.

That is how you protect people in that situation, though. Protection involves violence, and the better you are at inflicting damage, the more able you are to protect. The quicker you kill the enenmy, the less people he can kill. Its bloody, and i can definately see the moral questions it would bring up, but in the end it is sometimes necessary for people to survive and live enjoyable, moral lives. However, i think are disagreement on the draft stems more from a difference in priorities. You value morality and sinlessness higher, while I value honor and duty higher. Similar, but with key differences. Killing is morally wrong, so forced service into doing so is wrong, even if the consequences are dire, while I view the duty one has to his/her nation to justify such a draft, even if it goes agianst one’s morality or the purpose for such a war is less than clear. Of course, this does not mean i would fight in a war of conquest for power, since that violates the reason for the government existing, that of protecting it’s citizens and ensuring thier well being. Unless it was Canada, of course 8) .
Anyway, im ranting, so ill stop.

it’s not about violating laws, but rather fundamental principles. I violate laws all the time - speeding, and even some biblical laws. Still, nothing quite violates “thou shalt not kill” and “love your enemies” and “pray for those that persecute you” and “do good to those that hate you” quite as much as killing people. This is very opposite.

By laws, i meant religious or moral principles, which, in my mind at least, imply a set of moral laws. Sorry for the confusion. However, i think their is a fundamental difference in “do good to those that hate you” and “let others do harm to you and innocents”, which is essentially what happens in a war. You need to stand up to oppressors in the best way possible, and the best way is through an organized military, in my opinion at least.

it depends. By allowing only companies that the Americans approve of to participate in reconstruction, then you are limiting the number of companies that may participate. One does not need to be an economist to realize that this violation of competition principals predetermines a more expensive construction effort which the Iraqi’s must pay for (via their oil supplies). The benefit would go only to US (and coalition) companies. On the surface, this appears fair. However if the US invasion of Iraq was as ultruistic as his idiotship tried to make appear, then the optics become more dismal (please don’t make me spell this out to you).

True, blocking competition from external sources will raise the prices, but as it was America that liberated the country, i beleive that America should benefit from it. We are currently paying billions of dollars to secure the nation, and we do need some compensation. The war is not some holy crusade, entirely benevolent in execution. However, it is (or will be) benefiting the Iraqi’s, and for thier trouble America should be compensated, even if it would slightly inhibit the development of the Iraqi’s. Its the best way for both America and Iraq to benefit, and America needs to benefit due to reality.

[Guest]

@CommissarYarric:

To clear up why we hate the french, it is becuase they originally said they would back the Iraq war and would support the bill, but when the UN held the summit they completely changed their policy and vetoed our resolution. The Germans betrayed us as well, but France has veto, so thye did more damage. Since then, it has spiraled out of control, in both nations, due to the media.

I have no idea which resolution you aer talking about. Which number was it?
AFAIR, the US and UK never proposed another resolution (the one that would have legalized the war) because the French and Russian made clear they would veto it (and give the weapon inspectors more time).
Is this again a case of “winner tries to rewrite history”?
You might want to look up teh facts:
There is a declaration by Russia, France and Germany, dated from the 5th March 2003. They announced they will not vote for a resolution that supports violence, and that Russia and France as permament members wil “take their full responsibilities”.
Then at the 16th March, there was the Meeting of the UK, US, Spain on the Azores. The same day Pres. Chirac announced that he could live with less than the 120 days more time for the inspectors (he said something like" one month, two month, i am ready to agree to any time that the inspectors say they need".
17th March, the US “ask” the UN to withdraw the inspectors. The UK decides that the resolution worked out on the Azores will not be proposed. This is the end of the diplomatic efforts by the US and UK. The US give Saddam Hussein a last ultimatum to leave the country. They (Ari Fleischer) announce on the 18th that they will march in regardless wether Saddam Hussein leaves or stays. France and Germany remind the US that it is up to the UN to legitimize this war. They make clear though that any use of WMDs by the Iraq would entirely change the situation.
On the 19th, there was a meeting of the security council, on minister level. UK and the US did not send their foreign affairs ministers. Instead, they started the war.

So, where is the betrayal, when did France and Germany say they would support the US?

@221B:

Yes, the French could have at least been upfront with our diplomats from the beginning. I saw a TV article (PBS? Discovery channel? can’t remember) that Colin Powell and the other diplomats were shocked at the actual vote, because the very day before the French and German diplomats he was talking to said they would support the US resolution.

Which vote and when? There was not even an official try to get a new resolution after 1441 (by the US or the UK).
How can anyone be disappointed by a vore that never happened?

LOL

Mind if i quote someone else for that:

Im glad your not too full of yourself :lol: .

Is it only me or did anyone here notice any non-USie laugh about his own “jokes”?

@CommissarYarric:

@CC:

this is the right of the French to do, however. … The US does this on important issues that we have to deal with nearly daily. … American “changes of heart” often with devestating consequences - and not just in my country, but all over the world. If we have to learn to deal with it, so can the US.

Of course it is their right to do so, but that does not mean we cant be mad at them for it. We should be.

Now, for some of the people here. Do the next step of thinking.
The world doesn’t “hate” the US because they are rich or free. But exactly because of the same behavior that Yarric said “should” make people mad at something.
So easy, yet i bet the ones who should read this don’t.

We are using the oil income to rebuild the infastructure, and American companies are sending over engineers … We cant just create a new company out of thin air to rebuild Iraq, we have to use existing ones, and the ones in the best position to help were largely American. They are providing jobs for Iraqi’s and rebuilding the country, how is that not benefitting the Iraqi’s?

You are siphoning the oil income to the US, by using their income to pay your enigineers and your firms. And you probably have no idea which company was best fitted for doing jobs there (i don’t, but i doubt that it must be USie companies). “in the best position” … of course, these were US firms, as the US said they would not allow “non-willing” to get a foot in the Iraq.
Gives a bad light for the reasons of why the war was started.

@CommissarYarric:

That is how you protect people in that situation, though. Protection involves violence, and the better you are at inflicting damage, the more able you are to protect. The quicker you kill the enenmy, the less people he can kill.

This logic only holds true when you are under attack.
And even then, you still have the option of sacrifice, to let others escape.
There also is the possibility to exhaust your enemy, without any deaths.
(Stupid thing that the US was the attacker, and not the Iraq, in the latest war.)

…but as it was America that liberated the country, i beleive that America should benefit from it. We are currently paying billions of dollars to secure the nation, and we do need some compensation. The war is not some holy crusade, entirely benevolent in execution. However, it is (or will be) benefiting the Iraqi’s, and for thier trouble America should be compensated

the war was illegal. You should not benefit from anything illegal.
What would you think if someone beats you up, then drives you to a hospital and takes all your money as a “taxi fee” for driving you to the hospital?
That is exactly the same logic.

[CommissarYarric]

So, where is the betrayal, when did France and Germany say they would support the US?

Before the March declaration, when America was preparing a resolution and gathering support, they said they would support it, then afterwords said they would oppose it without informing us. I cannot find a source at this moment, if a i do i will post it. However, it seems like several people here are aware of this fact, thye may eb abel to give mroe details.
As for vetoing the resolution, it was a typo. I meant to say they WOULD veto the resolution. Sorry.

Now, for some of the people here. Do the next step of thinking.
The world doesn’t “hate” the US because they are rich or free. But exactly because of the same behavior that Yarric said “should” make people mad at something.
So easy, yet i bet the ones who should read this don’t.

I think you did not read what I wrote, or you do not differenciate between anger or hatred. Every nation in the world would get mad at a country that said they would shut down a proposed resoultion, and that anger is justified. However, for that to turn into a general hatred for the population required alot of campaigning by the media, and they suceeded. I get angry at my mom all the time, but i dont hate her. In the same sense, a nation can get angry at America alot, but this should not translate into hatred for the nation unless they did something truly horrible. You may think they did, and then you are justfied in hating them, but i really think such an opinion is unfounded. Of course, i dont think I said people hate America becuase we are great, that was other people. I dont think Ameirca has done anything to justify hating us, but anger I understand. Im a bit angry at it myslef, but I would still die for it.

You are siphoning the oil income to the US, by using their income to pay your enigineers and your firms. And you probably have no idea which company was best fitted for doing jobs there (i don’t, but i doubt that it must be USie companies). “in the best position” … of course, these were US firms, as the US said they would not allow “non-willing” to get a foot in the Iraq.

We are using their oil to pay engineers and firms who are rebuilding the country…so we are using their oil to rebuild the country. They wont do it for free, you know. The companies in the best position were American companies becuase of that block. Most of our allies do nto have alot fo large companies, so out of the coalition the best companies were American. It doesnt taint the war, it just shows praticality. We spent money on the war and lost people in the war, so we are going to try to benefit from it. Iraqi’s are hardly being hurt. As you said, the government of Amerca is paying for it, which means that their actions are not economically smart. Foriegn companies would lose money doing such projects unless they were subsidized by a government or organization.

This logic only holds true when you are under attack.

We were talking about a draft in case of invasion, and if you would fight…you can figure the rest out. Maybe those other strategies could work, but it would depend on the anutre of the enmy and the war.

the war was illegal. You should not benefit from anything illegal.
What would you think if someone beats you up, then drives you to a hospital and takes all your money as a “taxi fee” for driving you to the hospital?

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Read that. Sadaam violated about 16 of those articles pratically every day. Not to mention genocide, which justifies a war against any nations commiting it. Could not find the actual law for that, but http://www.un.org/icty/basic/statut/stat2000.htm#4
shows that any such leaders shall be punsihed byt he interantional tribunal. Since those acts are illegal, I fail to see how bringing him to justice is an illegal war. The UN may not have backed it, but the UN refused to intervene in Rwanda either. Tell the families of the 800,000 people who died int hsoe months that a war to stop it would ahve been “illegal”. You will be killed. I’ll alter you example to fit reality:
That man is murdering someone’s family. i beat him up, and then to ensure that he doesnt die, I dirve him to the hospital, and make him pay for my gas. I think that is a more fitting to the situation.

[cystic crypt]

@CommissarYarric:

Now, for some of the people here. Do the next step of thinking.
The world doesn’t “hate” the US because they are rich or free. But exactly because of the same behavior that Yarric said “should” make people mad at something.
So easy, yet i bet the ones who should read this don’t.

I think you did not read what I wrote, or you do not differenciate between anger or hatred. Every nation in the world would get mad at a country that said they would shut down a proposed resoultion, and that anger is justified. However, for that to turn into a general hatred for the population required alot of campaigning by the media, and they suceeded. I get angry at my mom all the time, but i dont hate her. In the same sense, a nation can get angry at America alot, but this should not translate into hatred for the nation unless they did something truly horrible. You may think they did, and then you are justfied in hating them, but i really think such an opinion is unfounded. Of course, i dont think I said people hate America becuase we are great, that was other people. I dont think Ameirca has done anything to justify hating us, but anger I understand.

you need to talk to more displaced USies, i think. I have met a number who HATE the US for meddling in their country. Whether because of actions/inactions by their military, installing gov’ts/regimes that have killed people for nearly anything, economic policies that devestate another nations industries bringing ruin to their populace. Really - do you ever look at the world from a perspective other than that as an American? It might be very eye-opening. I do this as frequently as i look at the news - whether try to see things from an American perspective, from an Iraqi’s, a Chilean’s, or Canadian’s. This is difficult because i often do not understand the cultural millieu that i am looking at, but i do my best.

You are siphoning the oil income to the US, by using their income to pay your enigineers and your firms. And you probably have no idea which company was best fitted for doing jobs there (i don’t, but i doubt that it must be USie companies). “in the best position” … of course, these were US firms, as the US said they would not allow “non-willing” to get a foot in the Iraq.

We are using their oil to pay engineers and firms who are rebuilding the country…so we are using their oil to rebuild the country. They wont do it for free, you know. The companies in the best position were American companies because of that block. Most of our allies do nto have alot fo large companies, so out of the coalition the best companies were American. It doesnt taint the war, it just shows praticality. We spent money on the war and lost people in the war, so we are going to try to benefit from it. Iraqi’s are hardly being hurt. As you said, the government of Amerca is paying for it, which means that their actions are not economically smart. Foriegn companies would lose money doing such projects unless they were subsidized by a government or organization.

it does taint the war. the optics are terrible when there is such blatant conflict of interest being exhibited here. Also your comments do not make much sense. The gov’t of America is NOT paying for the war, unless you think that you own Iraq and their oil belongs to your gov’t, as this is what you are using to try to recoup the money you spent on the invasion.

the war was illegal. You should not benefit from anything illegal.
What would you think if someone beats you up, then drives you to a hospital and takes all your money as a “taxi fee” for driving you to the hospital?

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Read that. Sadaam violated about 16 of those articles pratically every day. Not to mention genocide, which justifies a war against any nations commiting it. Could not find the actual law for that, but http://www.un.org/icty/basic/statut/stat2000.htm#4
shows that any such leaders shall be punsihed byt he interantional tribunal. Since those acts are illegal, I fail to see how bringing him to justice is an illegal war. The UN may not have backed it, but the UN refused to intervene in Rwanda either. Tell the families of the 800,000 people who died int hsoe months that a war to stop it would ahve been “illegal”. You will be killed. I’ll alter you example to fit reality:
That man is murdering someone’s family. i beat him up, and then to ensure that he doesnt die, I dirve him to the hospital, and make him pay for my gas. I think that is a more fitting to the situation.

the war was illegal. period. regardless of what Saddam did in 1990-ish. Also you are not simply bringing Saddam to justice - you are invading a sovereign nation, you are killing foreign nationals in their country, you are destroying infrastructure, you have created a volatile environment which is resulting in more chaos daily than these people have experienced annually. How many car-bombings did Iraq suffer before the invasion? Please get your terms correct. This is not an arrest.
As for the families of the 800 000 - a war would not have been necessary - a show of force would have been useful. Also if proper attention was brought to Rwanda (and the Sudan more recently), then a war would not have been illegal. Furthermore, these incidents would not likely have occurred. Poor Romeo Dallaire.

[CommissarYarric]

you need to talk to more displaced USies, i think. I have met a number who HATE the US for meddling in their country. Whether because of actions/inactions by their military, installing gov’ts/regimes that have killed people for nearly anything, economic policies that devestate another nations industries bringing ruin to their populace. Really - do you ever look at the world from a perspective other than that as an American? It might be very eye-opening. I do this as frequently as i look at the news - whether try to see things from an American perspective, from an Iraqi’s, a Chilean’s, or Canadian’s. This is difficult because i often do not understand the cultural millieu that i am looking at, but i do my best.

I try to always look at the world from the perspective of a logical person, nationality be damned. America has done alot of things that are bad, but from a worldwide perspective the good it has done has outweighed the bad in my opinion. I don’t think people should hate the US government, besides a few groups which i would definately understand. I dont quite understand what you are saying here. Just becuase I think America is generally good, does not mean I dont look at the world through multiple perspectives. I just think that most of the hatred towards America is unfounded. Anger over certain policies, sure, but not general hatred for the country.

it does taint the war. the optics are terrible when there is such blatant conflict of interest being exhibited here. Also your comments do not make much sense. The gov’t of America is NOT paying for the war, unless you think that you own Iraq and their oil belongs to your gov’t, as this is what you are using to try to recoup the money you spent on the invasion.

Well, first, the oil has not payed for all the war, not even half. It has been the American government, wtih tax dolars. Well, I guess it is a matter of opinion, but i dont see it being tainted at all. I expected such a policy going in, I guess. No country is a benevolent angel that just rights wrongs all over the place. We had good intentions for the war, but we are going to try to benefit from it. The Iraqi’s are not being hurt by any real extent by allowing only American and allied companies to work their, and America is benefitting from it. It is hardly a conflict, since their is really no down side. As for the oil belonging to our government…well, yes. What other government does it belong to? The oil was a national industry under Sadaam, to the best of my knowledge, so until an Iraqi government can be set up, we have to administer it. No one else will. We have an obligation to use the profits from it to help Iraqi’s, and we are. We are going to give it back to Iraq, so i dont see a problem.

the war was illegal. period. regardless of what Saddam did in 1990-ish. Also you are not simply bringing Saddam to justice - you are invading a sovereign nation, you are killing foreign nationals in their country, you are destroying infrastructure, you have created a volatile environment which is resulting in more chaos daily than these people have experienced annually. How many car-bombings did Iraq suffer before the invasion? Please get your terms correct. This is not an arrest.
As for the families of the 800 000 - a war would not have been necessary - a show of force would have been useful. Also if proper attention was brought to Rwanda (and the Sudan more recently), then a war would not have been illegal. Furthermore, these incidents would not likely have occurred. Poor Romeo Dallaire.

Well, his random arrests and oppression fo Kurd and Shiite rights were continuing untill his removal, so it was not just 1990ish. A minor point, but still. The problem with your arguement is that in order to make such an “arrest”, war is often the solution. Besides, it was not just Sadaam, it was his whole government that needed to be removed. The whole system was totalitarian and oppressive. As for the car bombing and destorying infastructure, those are nto relevant to the debate. You will find few people who are more disappointed than me as to how the occupation was handled, but those are not relevant to justifying an invasion. If we had declared war on Nazi Germany, but, in the ensuing war and bombing campaigns, lost, in addition to devastating France and Germnay, would the war have been unjust? I would say no. By the same token, if we had invaded, stabilized the situation, and created a secure, growing Iraq almost immeadiatly, would you be in support of the war?
I personally dont feel that in Rwanda a show of force would have worked. The interhamwe were often outside the government’s control. Another hypothetical, though: what if America, upon hearing all the reports from the Red Cross and witnesses, had moved in immeadiatly, without wasting weeks consulting the UN? would such a war be illegal, even if it cost thousands of lives?
I apologize for any spelling mistakes, I was rushed for time.

[221B Baker Street]

F_alk wrote

So, where is the betrayal, when did France and Germany say they would support the US?

221B Baker Street wrote:
Yes, the French could have at least been upfront with our diplomats from the beginning. I saw a TV article (PBS? Discovery channel? can’t remember) that Colin Powell and the other diplomats were shocked at the actual vote, because the very day before the French and German diplomats he was talking to said they would support the US resolution.

Which vote and when? There was not even an official try to get a new resolution after 1441 (by the US or the UK).
How can anyone be disappointed by a vore that never happened?

Well I did find the reference to the dissappointment Colin Powell, et al. had:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/blair/etc/cron.html

You have to scroll down a bit to find it but apparently the following is the part I remember:

At a Jan. 20 press conference that Powell doesn’t know about, Dominique de Villepin goes on record saying France believes there is no reason for war: “Since we can disarm Iraq through peaceful means, we should not take the risk to endanger the life of innocent civilians or soldiers, to jeapordize the stability of the region, and further to widen the gap between our people and our cultures.”

Powell feels betrayed. “I happened to see Colin Powell pretty soon after the meeting on Jan. 20,” says Christopher Meyer, Britain’s ambassador to the U.S. at the time. “I think what I would say to you is that their remarks were bordering on the unprintable.”

Germany has just joined the Security Council as a new rotating member and it, too, voices opposition to war. German Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer declares that his country “will not be part of military action as the Federal Republic of Germany. And we want to avoid military action by a successful implementation of Resolution 1441.”

F_alk, I will admit that my memory of this situation was not correct and France was more open about their opposition than I remembered.