Posted by iceburn on 4/1/2003, 1:55 pm, in reply to "Re: Threat of Iraq" That was entirely my point. You seem to have twisted your own points. If you look at your previous posts, you harp on how the Iraqis could never actually invade our borders or we would never be flying an Iraqi flag, like those are the only possible ways that a country could be a threat to us. Now, you've changed your tune entirely. Again, we are a superpower, and are susceptible to many market, political, and other conditions (including the Middle East's main export - oil). You may not like it, but oil is pretty important to our economy. The idea of Germans aiding the Japanese invaders is silly. Germany did not have the appropriate troop transport to make any kind of real sea invasion (one of many reasons why the invasion of Britain never went down). Germany had no production-ready bombers that could make a flight from any European base and attack the U.S., and Germany was bogged down in a war with Russia, that contrary to your statements later, was not going in their favor, and was going to see Germany pushed back to its borders, if not Berlin. The Japanese wanted control over the Pacific, and the United States was in the way (heck, we were even working against them). Pearl Harbor was a necessary objective. If the Japanese had not 'blown their wad' at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese navy would most certainly not have had a chance at the United States mainland. The invasion of China and Manchuria was already stretching Japanese manpower to the extreme, and any kind of invasion of the U.S. mainland would have been disasterous. : I differ with the Kuwait situation because Countries make allies if it serves in their national interests. In Kuwait's case, they had a lot of oil. The United States needed another gauranteed supply of excellent quality oil. Your assumption that allies are only good in times of war is preposterous. There's no need skirting around it. The Middle East has oil - lots of excellent quality oil. Oil is vital to our current economy, and we are on good terms with almost every country in the Middle East. That's why, despite protests in multiple countries, the Arab governments have not been overly anti-war. Russia has not too long ago made agreements with Iraq for a pipeline that will gaurantee its own oil deposits. France, I believe, is genuinely against the war because they don't feel it is right. The Russian administration doesn't want to lose a large national (oil) interest, and is thus anti-war (although they could more than likely be swayed a different way if the U.S. were to gaurantee a continued supply of oil or an even better arrangement for the Russians). It's all politics. I don't necessarily like it, but I understand it. Having war Countries have had allies for millenia and have not been the subject of such. Your statement is just too large of a generalization. Nations form alliances to further their interests. Nations have formed alliances in the past to open exchanges of food, clothing, and work force, gaurantee military or domestic support, etc. : As a sovereign nation, we do not have a right We most certainly do, and there have been many other sovereign nations that have demanded others to do so or face military action. This is just the most recent. Now, if you are saying, 'I don't think that a nation should ever tell another nation what to do', then that's your opinion. If you are saying, 'This has never been done before and it is just despicable', then you are wrong on the first point, and showing an opinion on the second point. This command is nothing short of an correct. and it's no way That's your opinion. It is, however, not the way humanity, civilization, or anything that we've ever done as a species has ever worked. In fact, your kind of civilization is one of the main precursors for the downfall of great civilizations like Greece, Rome, Persia, and countless Chinese dynasties. The only thing that such policies gaurantee is a softness in diplomacy and peacetime military readiness and training. Nothing good can come from a country taking the position of "Just do this whenever you want to. I've got time to wait. I'll be right here." Also, troops don't get experience from sitting idly at a base in the comfort of their own country. In other words, yes, I'm saying that the United States must be at war every once in a while to maintain an effective military. No matter what technology you have, if your men are all green (as in not experienced), you might as well throw in a towel in a major battle. It happened to the French and Russians in World War II, and was a major reason that a weaker tank force was able to force more technologically advanced tank divisions to surrender. The situation we have here is not really any different from countless other wars throughout history. Heck, England and France would sometimes start wars in Europe or elsewhere just because. Do I agree with it? No, not really. Mandating a united global Name one instance in history that has ever occured like your perfect world. Name one period of time in history where one group, nation, or government did not act thusly. The Catholic church, Greece, Rome, Persia, France, Britain, etc. What is the difference between one group of nations doing it, and one country doing it? The UN is only in existence because we allow it to be. Any nation is free to quit the UN, although there could be serious political ramifications for that country. Unless serious changes happen to the UN, it will fall apart. I That's your opinion, but why? The U.N. is a league of nations that attempts to resolve matters as democratically as possible. It's a good idea and is intended to avert wars (much like it could have averted this war). I wish that the United States had not worded 1441 so harshly and threatened military action if the provisions had not been met by such a short period of time, but I also know that like yourself, the Iraqi government does not respect the U.N. Blair tried. The U.S. government was going to go in and pick out a thorn from its side with or without U.N. approval. The administration made that very clear before the U.N. shinanigans ever began. The U.N. body is not robust enough or united enough to be as effective as it should be. I still think that the concept was a noble one, though. : Unlike Nazi Germany, Iraq faces serious The nazi party was a small, unaccepted party that had to put down uprisings from Leftists, Rightists, Communists, its own SA, and three assassination attempts. As far as Iraqi opposition goes, do you really think Saddam would let such opposition exist if it weren't for the UN stopping him? Isn't the Iraqi National Congress located in London? Exactly how much power of effecting change do they have? French resistance I believe you are wrong about the Russians. Can you imagine being able to mobilize several million troops within a matter of a week or so? Granted, the initial troops were taken by surprise, surrounded, and eventually surrendered or were killed, but the German offense went no farther than Stalingrad. By that time, the Russian military machine was in full swing, and the manpower that country had was incredible. In my opinion, France should not be given as much flack as they get nowadays about being 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys'. They simply relied on an outdated defense plan (the Maginot line defense), and weren't quite prepared for the Germans new style of warfare. Who knows? If the Maginot line would not have surrendered, let the tanks pass by, and simply annahilated the German supply column and infantry, we might all be sitting around laughing at the 'beer-making retarded offensive monkeys' or something
24.196.62.85
: Invasion is the starkest of imminent threats,
: not the only one.
: one of the primary principles of having a
: non-coercive government is to not make war
: allies during peacetime - unless preparing
: for a war, there is no reason for such
: allies. Kuwait for instance, what military
: advantage did allying with Kuwait serve
: us, that was vital to our national
: defense? None. Absolutely none, in fact,
: allying with Kuwait only served to
: increase our chance of being assaulted and
: terrorized, not decreased it.
: allies in peacetime is a guarentee for
: getting dragged into a war and increases
: the risk for ugly domestic terrorism.
: to demand any other one lay down it's
: arms.
: ultimatum to surrender,
: for civilized nations to deal with one
: another.
: military force to enact disarming of
: sovereign governments is not a respectable
: tactic, and giving a global authority this
: kind of power is downright deplorable.
: won't be supporting that line of reasoning
: for this war, and I respect U.N.
: resolutions about as much as Iraq does.
: domestic and neighboring opposition
: forces. The people in and around Iraq, by
: large, can support opposition forces and
: are capable of effecting change, like the
: Iraq National Congress.
: was a joke and to this day serves more as
: political propaganda than anything. Polish
: resistance was crushed. Russia would
: likely not have fought back Germany to
: it's eastern border. Britian was
: unprepared to follow up alone against
: Germany. 
. LOL.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread