120,000 more US troops going to Gulf
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
Sounds bad. Just more troops away from their families and put in harms way. My only hope this war is over very soon.
Sounds bad. Just more troops away from their families and put in harms way. My only hope this war is over very soon.
Comments
Not good.
If that nightmare scenario develops, what the hell would we do in response?
Originally posted by sammi jo
With some 350,000 US troops holed up in Iraq, perhaps North Korea's loose cannon Kim Jing Il is tempted to take a preemptive strike on S. Korea and engage the 50,000 US troops stationed there with his 4 million strong army.
If that nightmare scenario develops, what the hell would we do in response?
Perhaps the UN would get involved. Maybe only after a few million South Koreans died, though.
Just kidding, I know the UN wouldn't do anything.
We could let the South Koreans fight the war. That would make a lot of sense since they have a lot lot lot lot more troops in South Korean than us. Just a thought.
I was for the first gulf war and the kosovo war.
I am quite sure that a korean war will rebuilt the UN, but frankly i do not wish for south korean people that such a nightmare will arrive.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
And granted that if failed to support an actual solution to the conflict rather than the mere liberation of Kuwait.
If the liberation of Kuwait wasn't the solution to the problem then what was?
And remember before you answer that right up until that invasion Saddam was the US's pet dictator in the region.
Just because the current war is the most dangerous, terrible, illegitimate nightmare since the Second World War and will increase global terror by a factor of 10 doesn't mean that no wars should be fought.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
If the liberation of Kuwait wasn't the solution to the problem then what was?
Killing and more killing. Haven't you figured it out yet? If the hawks can't have free reign with their toys, then it's not a solution.
If the liberation of Kuwait wasn't the solution to the problem then what was?
And remember before you answer that right up until that invasion Saddam was the US's pet dictator in the region.
Right. I cannot have a position which would contradict the one that Reagan and Father Shrubbery had been party to. I am beholden to consistency with others' stances which I did not support. That makes complete sense. Therefore I also cannot say that we should have gone to Baghdad in 91. Especially once the Iraqi rebellion had taken what, 14 out of 18 provinces? That makes perfect sense.
The solution the UN and the US mistakenly took only resolved Kuwait. That solution did not resolve why Kuwait was an issue in the first place, why the Kurds were an issue, why the Shi'a were an issue, why the Marsh Arabs were an issue, why Saudi Arabia was almost an issue, why Iran-Iraq had been an issue and why WOMD and sanctions would continue to be issues for another 12 years. If that view means condemning Bush, Reagan, Cheney, Powell and various others along with the UN for both their support of Saddam and later their bandaid solution to his regime's aggression then I have no problem with that. As far as I'm concerned you can put a Glock to Reagan's oatmeal filled dome and pull the trigger for his administration's culpability. Or indict him if you prefer to be civilized. I didn't support our support of Hussein at the time and I don't retroactively support it now.
Remember how the security council voted in favour of action in Kuwait? And how that action had the support of all the countries in the middle east? Exactly the opposite of this war?
Just because the current war is the most dangerous, terrible, illegitimate nightmare since the Second World War and will increase global terror by a factor of 10 doesn't mean that no wars should be fought.
This war doesn't prove that no wars should be fought. But there are plenty of other wars that show that as far as the collective wisdom of the UN Security Council is concerned, that body does not have the unity nor the stomach to provide genuine solutions. You can certainly make enough of a case for why this war should not be sanctioned by the UN, I'll disagree but I recognize that your stance in entirely reasonable and moral.
But even if we had not gone to war, the Security Council still had no solution. One year ago at this time we had had eleven ****ing years of sanctions which mainly hurt the population rather than the regime, no change in regime, continued possession of WOMD and the UN wasn't even bothering to do anything about it. Three years of paralysis since the inspectors left 12/98. What kind of contribution to Security is that? The Security Council, while a noble idea, is a joke. Very few if any wars have been fought or for that stopped from being fought in that body's name. You've mentioned other ones yourself at times that you supported where the UN could not provide a solution.
Why don't you start another thread and list every conflict, civil or international in the post-WWII era and show how the UN dealt with each one.
Originally posted by bunge
Killing and more killing. Haven't you figured it out yet? If the hawks can't have free reign with their toys, then it's not a solution.
Yeah, nuke em till they glow and then shoot em in the dark.
Originally posted by NoahJ
Yeah, nuke em till they glow and then shoot em in the dark.
You don't have to use nukes, but most hawks do seem to enjoy a little bit of the old ultra violence.
Funny stuff, Noah, funny stuff.
The UN will sit, twiddling its thumbs and whistling while hundreds of thousands of people are slaughtered. It reminds me of Eddie Izzard talking about Pol Pot and Stalin, how we don't care if a brutal regime is slaughtering millions, as long as it is their own people.
The UN's handling of the Iraq question was an absolute abortion.
Originally posted by groverat
Funny stuff, Noah, funny stuff.
The UN will sit, twiddling its thumbs and whistling while hundreds of thousands of people are slaughtered. It reminds me of Eddie Izzard talking about Pol Pot and Stalin, how we don't care if a brutal regime is slaughtering millions, as long as it is their own people.
The UN's handling of the Iraq question was an absolute abortion.
Originally posted by NoahJ
Not cool.
http://www.protestwarrior.com/
The photo above is from these guys and their funny "infiltrations" of various "peace" marches.
Check out the gallery on their site, of some of their posters. Notice how oblivious everyone around them is to their signs. They apparently aren't even reading what is on them!
"Oh cool...another protest sign. Let's welcome them to the fold and not actually realize they're tweaking us...".
If there's one group out there BEGGING to be made fun of, it's the hardcore, lay-in-the-street, march-at-the-drop-of-a-hat, "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!" goobers who are going to hate anything and everything done by a Republican administration and are looking for any excuse to scream, tote signs, march, fight with cops, etc.