Thread: Why i think the USA won't Nuke or invade Iran

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, the ceasefire is what ended (temporarily) the 1991 war we engaged in with the Hussein regime after they took over Kuwait. The Hussein regime did not comply with the ceasefire, and they violated it on several grounds. So the 2003 invasion was a continuation of the 1991 war. We were not being bullies.

As i understand it the original gulf war of 1991 was a joint UN endeavour lead primarily by the United States. I hold firmly that the matter was not one for any individual country to pursue without support from the UN and NATO.

The United Nations security council estabilished the terms of the ceasefire and any interprations of the terms or any enforcement of the order should have been carried out only by the UN and possibly NATO but not by an individual nation or any other body sepearte from the United Nations. Not doing so only results in ugly international incidents like the world has in Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq as an ugly example arrogance on behalf of the bush admnistration and i have to say the majority of the americans agree with me.

Thats my opinion i guess...


[quote=Universal Mind]

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Negotiations did not work with the Hussein regime. They thumbed their noses at us for twelve years in regard to their terrorism and the ceasefire provisions that concerned it.

As i understand it in that article there is much speculation on many isues and it did not appear that Iraq was an immiment threat to the united states in any sense. Any grievenaces the USA had with Iraq should have been pursued through the United Nations, there is a reason why the united nations is there its to prevent uneccesary conflcits like WWII. Sadly if the bush administration wasn't so arrogant this conflict could have been avoided!

3.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

(unanswered... I would love to know your answer to it.)

I can't say for sure if Iraq would be totally independent or if it would not have large american military bases thats a big IF. I suppose iraq would proably be independent. Alot of my opposition to the occupation is a pride issue and other issues too...(there i said it!)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then you understand that the insurgency has not served to keep our troop number lower than otherwise. It has kept it very high.

Okay yes. and there are two possible approaches i can come to this. I can say the invasion of iraq was illegal and thus the actions of the insurgency are legitimate to fight of an illegal invasion and occupation on the other hand i can say its a silly issue of pride. You know the humilation of the first gulf war plus the more recent invasion and plus the fact of a being occupied by a christain army......

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They would not deal with it. Not only was genocide not enough basis for a U.N. invasion as far as the U.N. was concerned. Genocide plus everything else I have talked about was not enough for the U.N. to send in forces. Also, we did not act alone. We went in with a very large coalition.

As shitty as the UN is in your view. I still think its only a matter for the UN. But if it was genocide that was your issue why didn't you guys invade in the 80's at the height (I think) of the genocide and only in 2003 when things were pretty much quite in comparison. I think this has to do alot with what traveling troubador said. Back in the 80's Saddam was regarded as a stooge of the west and as long as that was true you guys just let him do his thing, if only for the sake of having a pro america guy in power?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

As i understand it the original gulf war of 1991 was a joint UN endeavour lead primarily by the United States. I hold firmly that the matter was not one for any individual country to pursue without support from the UN and NATO.

The United Nations security council estabilished the terms of the ceasefire and any interprations of the terms or any enforcement of the order should have been carried out only by the UN and possibly NATO but not by an individual nation or any other body sepearte from the United Nations. Not doing so only results in ugly international incidents like the world has in Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq as an ugly example arrogance on behalf of the bush admnistration and i have to say the majority of the americans agree with me.

Thats my opinion i guess...

Like I said, the United Nations would not do its job. I have told you the long list of reasons we saw the Hussein regime as a threat and a very potential funder and supplier of terrorist groups who want to kill us. Acting on that was not arrogant. It was the prudent thing to do. Most of us wish it never had to happen.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

As i understand it in that article there is much speculation on many isues and it did not appear that Iraq was an immiment threat to the united states in any sense. Any grievenaces the USA had with Iraq should have been pursued through the United Nations, there is a reason why the united nations is there its to prevent uneccesary conflcits like WWII. Sadly if the bush administration wasn't so arrogant this conflict could have been avoided!

The United Nations was not going to help us with the problem in 2003. They had gotten too arrogant and apathetic as a result of corruption. The apathy of and hatred toward us from Russia and France was part of that problem. When the U.N. does not do its job, we have to do it for them. We could not just let a terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism and apparent funding of Islamofascist terrorists continue to exist when they kept ignoring our ceasefire on terrorism grounds in a post-9/11 era after the formation of the necessary Bush Doctrine, especially after U.N. representatives and the intelligence divisions of six governments reported that they had present stockpiles of WMD's (plus a history of WMD programs, including a nuclear one). Doing so would have been insane.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I can't say for sure if Iraq would be totally independent or if it would not have large american military bases thats a big IF. I suppose iraq would proably be independent. Alot of my opposition to the occupation is a pride issue and other issues too...(there i said it!)

Wow, thank you for your honesty. If it is any consolation to you, a lot of us Americans wish we were not by far the most powerful country in the world. A lot of us wish the rest of the world would adopt our economic system so they too could be powerful, prosperous, and civilized. I have a lot of great things to say about the American system, but I wish we were not the only country with it. I wish we could just be another great country among many. That is something that could actually happen. I want the best for the whole world, not to have my country win some pride contest. It is not about that.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Okay yes. and there are two possible approaches i can come to this. I can say the invasion of iraq was illegal and thus the actions of the insurgency are legitimate to fight of an illegal invasion and occupation on the other hand i can say its a silly issue of pride. You know the humilation of the first gulf war plus the more recent invasion and plus the fact of a being occupied by a christain army......

At least the side that lost was the side that deserved to lose.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

As shitty as the UN is in your view. I still think its only a matter for the UN. But if it was genocide that was your issue why didn't you guys invade in the 80's at the height (I think) of the genocide and only in 2003 when things were pretty much quite in comparison. I think this has to do alot with what traveling troubador said. Back in the 80's Saddam was regarded as a stooge of the west and as long as that was true you guys just let him do his thing, if only for the sake of having a pro america guy in power?

Genocide was not the issue. It was an issue. Genocide has never been enough reason alone for the U.S. to go to war, but it has been one more variable to add to the list of reasons. Saddam was a plan that went horribly wrong. By 2003, there was a solid enough list of reasons to overthrow his government.