Support NeoGAF

[videogamer]

The UN is a useless organization that has no power in the world whatsoever.

Uh what do you think land mine removal and the UN Refugee Agency are? Take a look at how the UN is helping out Sudanese refugees across the border from Darfur. Or look at how UNICEF is helping to provide immunizations.

When you call it "useless", I think that you are doing a disservice to those at the UN who have made a positive difference on the world. At the very least, your statement is an unfair hyperbole.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

I'll give you two

Funding terrorism by financially rewarding the families of terrorist bombers.

Failing to comply with the UN resolutions they signed due to losing a war THEY started.

You've just described practically every country in the Middle East, regardless of a treaty being a factor or not.

I disagree. I think he made it clear that if things didn't change drastically that we would go in.

Yeah, Bush made it clear that Iraq needed to make drastic changes. You know, like stopping the production of the "weapons of mass destruction" that we didn't find.

You're right... To bad they started a war that brought us there. I do not want to wait for the shit to hit the fan again to go back. I think of this war as finishing what should have been done 10 years ago.

Saddamn started a war 10 years ago. 10 years ago when we actually had a reason to go in. We could have avoided this, but unfortunately daddy is just as big of a fuckup as junior here, and couldn't finish the job. Bush can act like the Iraqi people's saviour now, but how many Iraqis died because his father let Saddam reign supreme for the last 10 years, instead of doing something about it when we had the chance?

Right now Iraq is in the middle of an area that houses the biggest threat to the US.

Keywords: middle, area.

I guess being near larger threats is reason enough, eh?

That makes it the most important one.

Holy shit, you're a joke character... right?

Why would N Korea attack us? Bragging rights =P If they did sell arms to terrorists, they'd be a grease spot and they know it. Its a shakedown for more US aid and a transparent one at that.

Yeah, Bush obviously thinks North Korea is all talk. That must explain why North Korea is Bush's main reason for having a national missile defense system. You sound like the rest of the Republican douchebags that vote party over president. Bush is a retard, but at least he is Republican! Errr scratch that, you have to be delusional.

 

[Crag Dweller]

Saddamn started a war 10 years ago. 10 years ago when we actually had a reason to go in. We could have avoided this, but unfortunately daddy is just as big of a fuckup as junior here, and couldn't finish the job. Bush can act like the Iraqi people's saviour now, but how many Iraqis died because his father let Saddam reign supreme for the last 10 years, instead of doing something about it when we had the chance?

Well to be fair Bush sr. was following the U.N. mandate to get Iraq out of Kuwait, not to get Saddam out of Iraq. Your'e condeming him for the same thing you wanted Bush jr. to do, follow what the U.N. wants. I think you're hatred of all things Bush is impairing you reasoning.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Well to be fair Bush sr. was following the U.N. mandate to get Iraq out of Kuwait, not to get Saddam out of Iraq. Your'e condeming him for the same thing you wanted Bush jr. to do, follow what the U.N. wants. I think you're hatred of all things Bush is impairing you reasoning.

No, I'm condemning them for their fuckups. I'm definitely not condemning Bush for not listening to the UN. I'm condeming him for being in a war we shouldn't be in. As for Senior here, he gave the Iraqis false hope, and then left them high and dry. But eh, at least he did what he was "required" to do. Who cares if it was the right thing to do or not.

 

[Socreges]

Well to be fair Bush sr. was following the U.N. mandate to get Iraq out of Kuwait, not to get Saddam out of Iraq. Your'e condeming him for the same thing you wanted Bush jr. to do, follow what the U.N. wants. I think you're hatred of all things Bush is impairing you reasoning.

Why did he encourage Shiites and Kurds to uprise then?

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Why did he encourage Shiites and Kurds to uprise then?

And then leave them high and dry to be slaughtered.

 

[Socreges]

You're not helping things.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

You're not helping things.

Is it not the truth?

 

[Socreges]

Is it not the truth?

Of course it is. But loaded comments like those will only aggravate the people I want to get answers from!

 

[Crag Dweller]

Well, I'm not going to defend Jr., he had a chance to do something in the world that would of made a real difference after 9/11, and pissed it away. Not unexpected at all.

As far as Sr. goes, he knew that the U.S. acting alone and going into Iraq to take Saddam out would of had the same effect it's having today in the region. Thats why we built a coliltion in the first place to get him out of Kawait. No one else was chomping at the bit to go in there with us either. Everyone involved wanted to get out while the getting was good, and just go home. The world had him on the ropes, why didn't the U.N. do something? In fact, the world view was that he wouldn't last long after the war, so sanctions and inspections were deemed the way to go. Also, The evidence that he had WMD at the time seems pretty solid(considering that the U.N. destoyed some after the war during the inspections), what if he used it to defend himself against us trying to come in and remove him from power?

As for "Why did he encourage Shiites and Kurds to uprise then?" I don't know, maybe because we wanted the Iraqi's to do it themselves instead of getting more Americans killed? Wouldn't that be the most prefered way of getting Saddam out of power? Once again, where was the U.N.? They saw the same thing we were seeing with the uprising. Everything shouldn't be laid at America's feet should it?

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Well, I'm not going to defend Jr., he had a chance to do something in the world that would of made a real difference after 9/11, and pissed it away. Not unexpected at all.

Yup.

As far as Sr. goes, he knew that the U.S. acting alone and going into Iraq to take Saddam out would of had the same effect it's having today in the region. Thats why we built a coliltion in the first place to get him out of Kawait. No one else was chomping at the bit to go in there with us either. Everyone involved wanted to get out while the getting was good, and just go home. The world had him on the ropes, why didn't the U.N. do something? In fact, the world view was that he wouldn't last long after the war, so sanctions and inspections were deemed the way to go. Also, The evidence that he had WMD at the time seems pretty solid(considering that the U.N. destoyed some after the war during the inspections), what if he used it to defend himself against us trying to come in and remove him from power?

As for "Why did he encourage Shiites and Kurds to uprise then?" I don't know, maybe because we wanted the Iraqi's to do it themselves instead of getting more Americans killed? Wouldn't that be the most prefered way of getting Saddam out of power? Once again, where was the U.N.? They saw the same thing we were seeing with the uprising. Everything shouldn't be laid at America's feet should it?

Lol yeah, the Shiites and Kurds were going to overthrow Saddamn.... The reason they hadn't already was because they liked being persecuted and murdered. If that wasn't the case they could have easily overthrown Saddamn with their overwhelming forces.

 

[Socreges]

As for "Why did he encourage Shiites and Kurds to uprise then?" I don't know, maybe because we wanted the Iraqi's to do it themselves instead of getting more Americans killed? Wouldn't that be the most prefered way of getting Saddam out of power?

I should have mentioned that he actually gave the Kurds/Shiites the impression that they were going to continue into Iraq and help them out. They didn't. And the Kurds/Shiites took it up the ass, to put it lightly.

What I'm wondering is if the US, at any point, actually planned to go in, and then decided not to. Or if they just wanted to create a distraction and give Saddam some trouble at home.

Once again, where was the U.N.? They saw the same thing we were seeing with the uprising. Everything shouldn't be laid at America's feet should it?

When it's a largely unilateral war, yes.

 

[Crag Dweller]

Lol yeah, the Shiites and Kurds were going to overthrow Saddamn.... The reason they hadn't already was because they liked being persecuted and murdered. If that wasn't the case they could have easily overthrown Saddamn with their overwhelming forces.

Well, the way I see it, it was like " here you go, we soften him up for you now is your best chance". They couldn't do it and got slapped down hard. How does that become a U.S. problem and not a world problem? There are 191 members of the U.N., let someone else be the world police for a while. Once again the U.S. is in the position of damned if you do, damned if you don't. I say let the rest of world take care of itself, we have enough problems at home to worry about.

 

[Gahiggidy]

Kerry on Iraq

 

[Guileless]

Kerry has explained his position on the Iraq war resolution as this: he was voting to give Pres. Bush the power to use military force to ensure sanctions were enforced; he was not endorsing the use of military force as it ultimately played out. He has also said he would not have proceeded the way the Bush administration did. It's a subtle argument, but arguments are subtle when you're dealing with exceedingly complex problems.

 

[Phoenix]

Ok, but in essence it would be the same. It was just another stall. Ten years had gone by. How long would we wait until action was deemed necessary? Even Blix said that Saddam had violated the treaty.

But was it a violation that required the use of force. Hindsight is 20/20 and now we know that no, the use of force was not warranted as we still haven't found anything. At that time sure the picture painted was that he was breaching in a variety of ways - but suppose we had waited. Waited long enough to verify the evidence?

I'm not saying that Iraq didn't have WMDs. I'm not saying that they aren't still somewhere on the globe. But considering the capability of US satellite recon and our ability to find one man in that same amount of space - it is appearing more and more unlikely that the UN should have come to the decision to use force either.

If you watched any of the hearings on the war (and I tend to watch a healthy dose of news feeds), one thing that became clear is that in the war in Afghanistan many many many questions were asked about how it should be carried out and what level of forces, political pressure, allies, etc would be necessary. The war on Iraq however didn't meet with the same level of inquiry. There was an 'acceptance of guilt' and a general acceptance that everything being said was true. In a sense you have to blame everyone in the administration and in Congress for not putting down pressure to make sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything was true and accurate before making such a move. If we were going to go it alone we could have waited as long as was necessary to verify the information. Today, tomorrow, or 2 years from now we would be just as ready to cruise missile and bomb the country to the ground as the day before. Time WAS on our side. We simply chose to act without due diligence.

So when is enough enough? When you can no longer tolerate the current situation. Could we have continued to tolerate it? Sure. We made an active choice not to. We COULD have waited with no clear penalty in doing so. But such is life, we made a knee-jerk decision based upon what is apparently weak and largely unsubstantiated evidence which goes against many intelligence gathering procedures (like believing fully in exactly ONE person as an intelligence source) and we made the wrong call. Its that simple.

 

[Phoenix]

Well, the way I see it, it was like " here you go, we soften him up for you now is your best chance". They couldn't do it and got slapped down hard. How does that become a U.S. problem and not a world problem? There are 191 members of the U.N., let someone else be the world police for a while. Once again the U.S. is in the position of damned if you do, damned if you don't. I say let the rest of world take care of itself, we have enough problems at home to worry about.

This was actually covered in a PBS documentary on Iraq. In the closing days of the war were absolutely trying to drop a 5K lb bomb on Saddam and were flying missions to do so but we couldn't. The war ended but Saddam was in place. The job was unfinished but we were no longer able to wage war by UN cease fire so we encouraged the local population to overthrow him. Then comes the messy pieces - do you give aid and weapons to the rebels? How can you support them without ground forces? The climate at home is changing and people want this whole thing to be over so in the midst of it all, the situation has to 'go away'. Air force pilots flying CAP on many occasions were in positions to support the situation on the ground and were denied permission to assist - their hands were tied, we tied them. We knew what was going on and let it happen. For us, the war was over and staging an overthrow wouldn't set well - so the rebels were left to pull it off on their own.

As for the isolationist mentality - that might have worked back in the 40's but it won't work today. We live in a global economy and society and everything that happens in the world effects our 'problems at home'. Yes we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't - and that's when you do what right... for YOU, just like everybody else. Withdrawing into fortress america is no longer a viable nor possible option in the world. Everyone is intertwined with everyone else and that's just the way of things and we have to get over it.

 

[Xenon]

You've just described practically every country in the Middle East, regardless of a treaty being a factor or not.

Name for me one other country where their leader openly said they will reward the families of suicide bombers.

Yeah, Bush made it clear that Iraq needed to make drastic changes. You know, like stopping the production of the "weapons of mass destruction" that we didn't find.

Yes but at the same time Saddam could not account for the WMDs we already knew he had. It also took us sending our fleet to knock on his door to get him to start cooperating in the first place.

Saddamn started a war 10 years ago. 10 years ago when we actually had a reason to go in. We could have avoided this, but unfortunately daddy is just as big of a fuckup as junior here, and couldn't finish the job. Bush can act like the Iraqi people's saviour now, but how many Iraqis died because his father let Saddam reign supreme for the last 10 years, instead of doing something about it when we had the chance?

Why didn't we.... BECAUSE the majority colition was against it. The is especially the case for countries in the middle east. But I agree GWB Sr, fucked it up. He should have just finished it. But that is modern war for you. We wouldn't want to get anybody upset would we.

So let me get this straight you agree they should have been removed and it was wrong to leave him in there. But, we have no reason to be there now.... hmmm are you a joke character?

My main problem with what Bush Jr did is he went in for different reasons than advertised. They used fear mongering with WMD (which was a concern just not an imminent one). Later when that failed to pan out, they switch to "We did it for the Iraqis" Which was I'm sure a small part. However, the republicans trying to sell it as a main reason is outright fruad.

Keywords: middle, area.

I guess being near larger threats is reason enough, eh?
Holy shit, you're a joke character... right?

And if there was a Terrorist Country A and Terrorist Country B on both sides of Iraq your obtuse statement would hold an once of water. We did go after the biggest threat first, Afghanistan. It no longer openly supports terrorists, their leaders, or houses training camps. Iraq was second.

Don’t bring up Saudi Arabia because their government is working with us. What benefit would come from attacking their government?

Yeah, Bush obviously thinks North Korea is all talk. That must explain why North Korea is Bush's main reason for having a national missile defense system. You sound like the rest of the Republican douchebags that vote party over president. Bush is a retard, but at least he is Republican! Errr scratch that, you have to be delusional.

Hey just because we're not charging in to attack their country doesn't mean we should protect ourselves. It would cover against any other country as well.

Why does it always come down to name calling. And actually I'm a democrat. I am pro abortion and for gay marriage. I believe we need to make schools in inner-city areas just as good as the ones it the suburbs(I’ve been to both and know there is a huge difference) I want medical coverage for everyone(we are paying for it anyways by making poor people go through emergency rooms who cant turn away patients, thus having medical bill hiked up to cover the costs). So the next time you open your mouth make sure you wipe, because the shit crusts up pretty quick

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

So let me get this straight you agree they should have been removed and it was wrong to leave him in there. But, we have no reason to be there now.... hmmm are you a joke character?

It might be the case that I was fighting a guy 10 years ago and now regret not kicking him in the balls... but it doesn't necessarily mean I should do so now.

 

[Azih]

Iraq is more dangerous to the world now than it was before. On a list of security targets Iraq didn't even crack the top 5.

The reason it seemed to be second only to Afghanistan was because of WMD and Al-Qaeda links. Frankly no one believed the Al-Qaeda link (or should have), and the UN weapons inspection team was fine for the WMD issue (more than fine as it turns out, mobile biological weapons labs my ass). No WMD, no link to international terrorists, not a very credible threat.

 

[LuckyBrand]

Oh, I don't know... promoting a world community, freedom, and peace.

thats hilarious!!!

they definately helped promote peace in eastern europe (EASTERN EUROPE!) when they came together to stop slobodan milosevic!! oh wait, that was NATO!

look at all the good the UN does to stop or try to stop the genocide in africa that is constantly occuring..

and certainly the UN doesnt have an ongoing scandal with the Oil for Food program..

UN is great!!! and they *definately* are a major factor in peace, freedom and "world community"...

 

[videogamer]

thats hilarious!!!

they definately helped promote peace in eastern europe (EASTERN EUROPE!) when they came together to stop slobodan milosevic!! oh wait, that was NATO!

look at all the good the UN does to stop or try to stop the genocide in africa that is constantly occuring..

and certainly the UN doesnt have an ongoing scandal with the Oil for Food program..

UN is great!!! and they *definately* are a major factor in peace, freedom and "world community"...

The UN is involved in world peace. Did you read my post? Your post was a flat-out criticism of the UN without acknowledgement of what it contributes to the world community.

 

[Socreges]

they definately helped promote peace in eastern europe (EASTERN EUROPE!) when they came together to stop slobodan milosevic!! oh wait, that was NATO!

If it wasn't for the UN, the US would have killed many, many Serbians for no good reason.

look at all the good the UN does to stop or try to stop the genocide in africa that is constantly occuring..

and certainly the UN doesnt have an ongoing scandal with the Oil for Food program..

UN is great!!! and they *definately* are a major factor in peace, freedom and "world community"...

Several other people have already pointed out the UN's flaws. Nonetheless you've got to acknowledge that they DO promote peace, freedom, and a world community. Well, I guess I shouldn't expect that from you. Perhaps that's an overly complicated concept: not defining things to simply 'good' or 'bad'.

 

[Xenon]

The UN is involved in world peace. Did you read my post? Your post was a flat-out criticism of the UN without acknowledgement of what it contributes to the world community.

Sound like every post about the US at GAF

Iraq is more dangerous to the world now than it was before.

No one said that it was. I said that the largest current threat to the US is terrorism which resides in the middle-east region. Saddam has link to terror and terrorists that has been proven. He has provided a safe haven for wanted terrorist and provided funding to terrorists. There has also been information released on links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

Washington Times

It might be the case that I was fighting a guy 10 years ago and now regret not kicking him in the balls... but it doesn't necessarily mean I should do so now.

to finish your analogy.... Take that same guy and lock him building for ten years with a bunch of other people who will suffer. Make no or little effort to get him to adhere to the law. Have some of the people who put them there make money off of it. Have that guy pay people cause trouble in the neighborhood and only turn in some of his weapons.

Your choice is leave things they way they are(fucked up), just release him and go back to square one, or end it.

 

[videogamer]

Sound like every post about the US at GAF

There have been plenty of posts defending the US' intentions and actions. Perhaps you have ignored them, because I've read plenty here. The UN doesn't have many defenders.... on this forum and in the general media there is harsh criticism for the UN that doesn't take into account the work that it does around the world.

 

[Dan]

The UN does some good sure, but it doesn't even come remotely close to accomplishing as much as it should. Its members signed on for a hell of a lot more than some landmine clearing and immunizations. Fact is, most of the members actively avoid doing anything. When an organization of that kind of global magnitude can't be empowered to do something about genocide, there's something wrong. It's not all bad, no, but it's also very, very far from being good.

The UN is this giant vault of excuses when it comes to international affairs. Countries can pretend to actively pursue global solutions to problems by taking the issue to the UN knowing full well that nothing will come of it. When no solution is found and the people speak out, the initiating countries can blame the rest of the world but say that they're still doing the proper thing by going to the closest thing to a global authority in existence. It's a self-perpetuating farce.