Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
First, Sparhawk, the WMDs were *not* the only reason for the war, and nobody I know ever thought they were. I don't think any US politician ever said that they were the sole reason for going to war. Thus, the humanitarian reason does not "replace" the WMD reason at all.
|
Your right we had 50,000 different reasons, at least one will pan out right?
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
As I already stated quite a few times, the UN charter IS NOT THE INTERNATIONAL LAW. It is *PART* of the international law system. There are many more treaties and agreements that also are part of international law, and every single UN resolution is *also* international law. Often, at least some of these "laws" can be used by either side of an argument to support their cause, if only because they "laws" are vague.
[/B]
|
the only laws that apply to all the world are the UN's laws, the French do not need to heed an agreement between Canada and the US.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
sure... in theory, the UN is a formidable force; in practice, it almost never is. In Korea it was a big force, but it was almost beaten by the Chinese; in the '91 gulf war it was a big force indeed. That's about it, really. The rest of the time, the UN is pretty impotent.
[/B]
|
Those 2 wars were the only 2 wars that involved the world. They had no jurisdiction over Vietnam.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
The UN is a policeman without power, dependent on the "citizens" to form a lynch mob everytime a "criminal" does something bad. Furthermore, every time, this lynch mob has different rules and regulations, usually making them less potent than they might be. [/B]
|
the UN has no power because the US is not backing them, we only back the UN when we get our way, other wise we take our marbles and leave the playground.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
The US is the most powerful country on this planet, and as such, it can take what it wants, and pretty much do what it wants. In theory, it would be nice if they were to listen to the rest of the world, but if they don't there's not much you or I can do about it. Might does indeed make right here.
[/B]
|
America needs to set an example to the rest of the world to make the world better, if we solve our problems with violence, it is hypocritical to tell other countries not to use violence to solve there problems.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
Do you have any idea how big this area can be? Do you suggest the US should have bombed each and every shed that might contain WMDs? What about the countless hidden undergrond bunkers the Iraqis were said to have? How the hell do you bomb those? Besides, bombing anything at all would be AN ACT OF WAR, which was a bad thing, remember? (And if you're going to war anyway, you at least need ground forces to check the results of the bombings...)
[/B]
|
if we have so much evidence that Iraq has WMD and we know so much about there programs, why could we not share this with the UN inspectors, further, why can we not find them quickly. (yes i know about the 2 buried Winnebago’s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
We tried that game for 12 years. We already attacked them several times, and it did not work.
[/B]
|
no mater how much Saddam conceded in the last 8 months, we were set on war from the start. he was starting make concessions to the world and we threw it away, the world wanted to give him one more chance, but the US did not let him.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dragonlich
Bullshit. The Mexicans couldn't have done anything. They were beaten into submission in the previous century, and the difference in military power had only grown since then. They would have been destroyed in a war, and they (and everyone else) knew that. Germany was in no position to "deal with England and France" at all - they would have been lucky if they could maintain the pressure, but it was unlikely they could ever "win" the trench warfare. They had already tried that for some 3 years... Besides, even *IF* the Germans could have won, how do you propose they conquer the UK (with it's navy still pretty much intact), and even cross the Atlantic Ocean to conquer the US? The whole scenario is just incredibly unlikely.
[/B]
|
All Mexico had to do was stop the US from joining the war in Europe. This could be accomplished. They could have massed an army at the border and charged through California and Arizona, and then dug in, remember, trench warfare is very slow and tedious, and would have dragged on for months if not years. Remember the tech level, no tanks, no real planes (they had some but more of a support not an offence)
just the act of delaying our entry into the war in Europe could have shifted the balance to the Germans, especially with Russia soon to drop out of the war. And Germany being able to focus on France alone