The War in Iraq, good or bad? speak your mind here!
- Thread starter Gunwing
- Start date
- Status
Pfft, it doesn't make it any more excusable nor make them any less culpable, at least not in my book.
You didn't answer my question either.
Assuming it went down as they are reporting it, the Marines made a concious decision to go into a town, pull people out of their houses and murder them. So they cracked up as a group then? Oh and I guess by the same turn the guys who committed the massacre at My Lai cracked up too, maybe that's why they all got away with it aye?
You didn't answer my question either.
Assuming it went down as they are reporting it, the Marines made a concious decision to go into a town, pull people out of their houses and murder them. So they cracked up as a group then? Oh and I guess by the same turn the guys who committed the massacre at My Lai cracked up too, maybe that's why they all got away with it aye?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
{YBBS}Sage said:
Being canadian, I've spent a bit of time reading about Rwanda and Gen Romeo Dallaire.
You can call Rwanda a UN failure, but a great deal of the blame can be laid directly on the doorstep of France, Belgium, and the US (amongst others).
France knew in advance the preparations were being made to massacre the Tutsi minority and did nothing about it. They also supplied weapons to the Hutu's WHILE the massacres were in progress. Finally, when their troops arrived (outside of UN auspices, mind you), they protected the guilty. There is even some evidence that France supplied the anti-aircraft missiles that were used to shoot down the then president of the country, the event that triggered the catastrophe.
Belgium pulled out their troops after the death of 16 of their soldiers. Granted, given that Rwanda used to be a colony, they probably shouldn't have been there in the first place, but they were the only really combat capable troops in the command. The Belgians also had advance warning of the massacres.
Finally, the US dragged their feet on beefing up the UN force, in part to avoid another Somalia. The ultimate embarrasment had to be watching that state department official hem and haw around the definition of genocide on national television.
On the other hand, there were some examples of selfless sacrifice. The troops contingent from Ghana reportedly performed very well and stayed with the mission until the end.
The main problem with UN peacekeeping missions is that, if they don't have a NATO (or equivalent) backbone, they will be inneffective. Most NATO countries would prefer to avoid UN involvment. The UN pays countries to provide troops which is why you see countries like Bangladesh volunteer so frequently. Unfortunately, they usually show up without logistical support, vehicles, or even ammunition.
Bottom line: Rwanda was certainly not a UN success, but the real villain was France.
Upvote
0
...The UN allowed these nations to back out of Rwanda to save face. The UN could have put a foot down and done something, instead they took the "This is embarassing to us and we dont want any more trouble" argument and allowed a population to be massacred. Then of course, once they decided that they needed to do something, the UN talked about it and argued over who provided the tanks and what color they would be until the genocide was conveniently over. The most ironic part is that Clinton had literally JUST given a speech about the holocaust, saying that "Never again" would something like that be allowed to happen. Apparently, he meant "Never again will European whites" be allowed to be massacred. And before anyone jumps on me for that one, ask yourself why we (the US) got aggressively involved in the balkans when there was ethnic cleansing but not in Africa when there was ethnic cleansing...
I dont think there is any single country that can take the blame for Rwanda - although individual nations were pressing hard for the UN to back out, the fact that it was allowed to happen is more the fault of the UN as a whole than the nations who were pushing. The UN as a military organization is a dismal failure, and the image of the UN as an international aid distributor is getting tarnished more and more with each scandal. There need to be some big shakeups, or the UN will entirely lose its relevency.
I dont think there is any single country that can take the blame for Rwanda - although individual nations were pressing hard for the UN to back out, the fact that it was allowed to happen is more the fault of the UN as a whole than the nations who were pushing. The UN as a military organization is a dismal failure, and the image of the UN as an international aid distributor is getting tarnished more and more with each scandal. There need to be some big shakeups, or the UN will entirely lose its relevency.
Upvote
0
I slightly disagree. The UN is a consensus driven organization. It has virtually no authority and so, if it wants something to happen, it must resort to soft power. It will never be able to get countries to move in directions they don't want to.
Heck, the only reason the Korean war was conducted under UN auspices was because the Soviet Union boycotted/abstained from the vote. Ooops.
However, the UN did NOT cause, or even worsen, the Rwandan tragedy. That can be laid directly at the feet of the countries I referenced earlier.
Heck, the only reason the Korean war was conducted under UN auspices was because the Soviet Union boycotted/abstained from the vote. Ooops.
However, the UN did NOT cause, or even worsen, the Rwandan tragedy. That can be laid directly at the feet of the countries I referenced earlier.
Upvote
0
The UN, for the most part, has become nothing more than an ineffectual debating society. I honestly think its time has passed and that it should be done away with. Oh, sure, it has a few programs that have some impact, but the same can be said of just about any governmental agency. However, the fact remains that the vast majority of what the UN actually accomplishes is simply to convert oxygen into carbon dioxide and generate reams of landfill (aka "resolutions" that have no power).
Shut 'em down, kick 'em out, and convert the building into low-income housing. At least that would be somewhat productive.
Shut 'em down, kick 'em out, and convert the building into low-income housing. At least that would be somewhat productive.
Upvote
0
The fact that the UN is a consensus driven organization just goes to back my assertion that no single country or even handful can be wholly responsible for the organization's actions. I do agree that the nations you list are the major players in what happened, but I also think that the UN itself holds just as much or more blame for any action or inaction taken. For example, the US' attempt to rally support for its new war in Iraq - the small bloc of nations calling for action, even though they were arguably some of the most powerful on earth, could not shake the UNs' collective refusal to act. Its the same thing as the Rwanda debate - a bloc tries to sway the whole to their way of acting - the difference is that for Iraq, the UN said no, for Rwanda, the UN looked the other way. The organization as a whole is still responsible for what happens, regardless of who the major pushers are.
I dont know that I agree that the UN serves no purpose right now - but I do agree that it is kind of a toothless guard dog - it barks a lot, but it wont bite you, no matter how hard you kick it. Its humanitarian programs, while corrupt, are more capable than virtually any private charity or national aid program. The threat of UN action has in the past done a lot to curb ambitious nations' expansion but as I said, the recent actions, or rather, inactions by the UN are eroding their credit as a legitimate and powerful body. If they start taking real and concise action when problems arise, this erosion can be reversed.
I dont know that I agree that the UN serves no purpose right now - but I do agree that it is kind of a toothless guard dog - it barks a lot, but it wont bite you, no matter how hard you kick it. Its humanitarian programs, while corrupt, are more capable than virtually any private charity or national aid program. The threat of UN action has in the past done a lot to curb ambitious nations' expansion but as I said, the recent actions, or rather, inactions by the UN are eroding their credit as a legitimate and powerful body. If they start taking real and concise action when problems arise, this erosion can be reversed.
Upvote
0
Explosioneer said:
you want a good answer?
well the answer is, how the fudge does africa matter anyhow?, it dosent make our cars, it dosent produce our food. its just a darn sinkhole of a bunch of countries trying to make it onto their feet. in short it would have been a waste of money to go and help them. why get our feet dirty to help somone else we dont give a flipping **** about?
thats the answer, and it makes me sick typing it. i watched to movie hotel rwanda, and man was i pissed afterwards, we in our modern society with all these animal lovers fighting for the rights of worms ... yes us .. we couldent even do nada .. zilch to stop genocide. we have some royal sized priority problems..
anaways back to the original post, i would like to beleive that the us is there for the humanitarian side of it. save the people from that guy. im just not really sure what to beleive, honest people stopped running for political positions in the 50s.
as to if this is our obligation or not, i beleive it is. its like a school playground, bullies and the bullied, the biggest nation on earth = the teachers. if those teachers dont stop it then little jhonnys gonna bring dadys.357 magnum to school and shoot some assholes face off. on the other hand, if people with the power to, step in, then these things can be resolved.
my only hope for iraq is that its not going to be a second vietnam, where bush gets voted out and the next guy just pulls everything out of iraq and it goes back to its old ways. it would be a damned waste to see all of those who have died be dishonoured in such a way.
Upvote
0
I will absolutely guarantee you that should a Democrat be elected, an immediate pullout WILL be what happens. After all, who cares what happens to the Iraqi people, or to the Afghanis for that matter? What's important is making the voters at home happy, making sure their pork barrel is filled to overflowing and singing joyous platitudes that mean absolutely jack all.
God help this country if someone like Hillary Clinton or Al Gore gets elected. You think the last few years have been bad? You haven't seen ANYTHING yet.
God help this country if someone like Hillary Clinton or Al Gore gets elected. You think the last few years have been bad? You haven't seen ANYTHING yet.
Upvote
0
As much as I'm not a fan of Bush and his particular brand of "Republican," I'm more afraid of a Hillary Clinton and her brand of "Democrat."
I'm afraid you've got your hand on the pulse of the problem, BooBoo. I think BOTH parties will campaign for the White House with a certain "Time table for Iraq" as part of their sales pitch. I agree that the Democrats will probably have a MUCH speedier idea of when that will be, but who knows - its an unpopular war, and as you say, they dont care about the effect, just the votes. The best way to win votes is to say, "America, I'm here to save you" and get the troops out of harms way. I figure both parties will sell Iraq down the river, and give a concrete time table for withdrawing. Its really a shame that we only have 2 realistic choices to vote for, because most of the time they're both wrong.
The war in Iraq was foolish, with hind-sight especially, but since we've involved ourselves so fully we have no choice but to stick it out. I've read that it takes about 10 years to properly put down an insurgency and stabilize a nation (but always remember the saying "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"). I dont think the US has the patience to do that, so our foolish war is likely going to lead to a far more dangerous Iraq than the one we went to war with.
Colt .45 - The only problem I see in your 'stop the bully' argument is that the US, in attempting to stop the world bully, has become one. It is the selective nature of the US' involvement to stop 'terror' and 'evil' in this world that gives me pause. I agree whole heartedly that evil men like Saddam should be stopped - but why just Saddam? If the US was really out to stop every bully who oppressed their people, why do we cooperate with some of those very nations?
This 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality has done this world more harm than good. We condemn Saddam as a butcher - while our diplomats sit at the side of Saudi leaders who lead efforts to oppress women and religious minorities in their own country. We stand side by side with Pakistan in the 'war on terror' and look the other way at human rights violations carried out by Pakistanis in Kashmir, for one. I'm not trying to say that we cant attempt to do some good in this world, even if that might require us to use force from time to time - what I'm saying is that the selective nature of the 'justice' that the US hands out is laughable, if I could be morbid enough to describe it as such. And always remember - the US did not go in to Iraq BECAUSE Saddam mistreated his populace - we did it to stop the WMDs that the American people were assured time and time again that Saddam had. At least, thats what we were told. George Bush and God in heaven (if they arent the same thing
) know the answer to why we are there. The rest of us get to live (and in some cases die) with the results of these political word games.
I'm afraid you've got your hand on the pulse of the problem, BooBoo. I think BOTH parties will campaign for the White House with a certain "Time table for Iraq" as part of their sales pitch. I agree that the Democrats will probably have a MUCH speedier idea of when that will be, but who knows - its an unpopular war, and as you say, they dont care about the effect, just the votes. The best way to win votes is to say, "America, I'm here to save you" and get the troops out of harms way. I figure both parties will sell Iraq down the river, and give a concrete time table for withdrawing. Its really a shame that we only have 2 realistic choices to vote for, because most of the time they're both wrong.
The war in Iraq was foolish, with hind-sight especially, but since we've involved ourselves so fully we have no choice but to stick it out. I've read that it takes about 10 years to properly put down an insurgency and stabilize a nation (but always remember the saying "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"). I dont think the US has the patience to do that, so our foolish war is likely going to lead to a far more dangerous Iraq than the one we went to war with.
Colt .45 - The only problem I see in your 'stop the bully' argument is that the US, in attempting to stop the world bully, has become one. It is the selective nature of the US' involvement to stop 'terror' and 'evil' in this world that gives me pause. I agree whole heartedly that evil men like Saddam should be stopped - but why just Saddam? If the US was really out to stop every bully who oppressed their people, why do we cooperate with some of those very nations?
This 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality has done this world more harm than good. We condemn Saddam as a butcher - while our diplomats sit at the side of Saudi leaders who lead efforts to oppress women and religious minorities in their own country. We stand side by side with Pakistan in the 'war on terror' and look the other way at human rights violations carried out by Pakistanis in Kashmir, for one. I'm not trying to say that we cant attempt to do some good in this world, even if that might require us to use force from time to time - what I'm saying is that the selective nature of the 'justice' that the US hands out is laughable, if I could be morbid enough to describe it as such. And always remember - the US did not go in to Iraq BECAUSE Saddam mistreated his populace - we did it to stop the WMDs that the American people were assured time and time again that Saddam had. At least, thats what we were told. George Bush and God in heaven (if they arent the same thing
) know the answer to why we are there. The rest of us get to live (and in some cases die) with the results of these political word games.
Upvote
0
[CoFR]BooBoo said:
That's hardly true. As we speak the UN has thousands of peacekeepers deployed on the crisis areas. The food and other aid programs also have little more than "some" impact. As we've seen, a full scale invasion nor a bombing campaign does not bring peace.
Upvote
0
![[5thW]Heide](/data/avatars/s/2/2482.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
When history books are written in lets say 50 years from now on, I think you will find the military units of today's "Superpowers" aren't praised the way they are today.
Today the media runs the governments propaganda , and runs it highly effective.
Journalism is (should be) about providing news of domestic and international events for the masses in such a way that they should be able to make up their own minds.
One way of doing things today is simply to have a news "reporter" give a minute or two for actual reporting and then have a 10 minute long speech, highly biased and clearly supporting the governments stand, Fox news anyone?
Lets be clear about the masses , they are there to be fed, nothing less nothing more.
A tool for the muppets in charge, and very easy to manipulate.
Germany and Russia did this very well in their days, today we have the same for USA.
So I'm basically looking for some good sites, sites that aren't downright leftist or right wing extreme.
Good ol' pure independent news sites, please provide me some links.
Thanks in advance.
Today the media runs the governments propaganda , and runs it highly effective.
Journalism is (should be) about providing news of domestic and international events for the masses in such a way that they should be able to make up their own minds.
One way of doing things today is simply to have a news "reporter" give a minute or two for actual reporting and then have a 10 minute long speech, highly biased and clearly supporting the governments stand, Fox news anyone?
Lets be clear about the masses , they are there to be fed, nothing less nothing more.
A tool for the muppets in charge, and very easy to manipulate.
Germany and Russia did this very well in their days, today we have the same for USA.
So I'm basically looking for some good sites, sites that aren't downright leftist or right wing extreme.
Good ol' pure independent news sites, please provide me some links.
Thanks in advance.
Upvote
0
![[-project.rattus-]](/data/avatars/s/0/161.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
[5thW]Heide said:
Allthough quite OT, at leats here in Europe American papers are held high in that regard, as they don't have a big enough audience which is worth "decieving". Also, the paper ausience is usually more on the well educated side, so they are not thta easily "fooled".
(Words in quotes, as they are overexaggerating, but I obvlously lack the right words))
Upvote
0
If you want bare facts without a spin, read the AP reports. Usually, they just tell exactly the information as they know it, and do not go in to speculation, although they will occasionally do so to give the reader an idea of why the news story is important. The only thing the 24 hr news stations are good for is a laugh.
Upvote
0
Zarqawi got pwned!!
No virgins for homie... he smokes a turd in Hell as I type this. Horray!!
I wonder if he went 'Straight to Hell', or if Saint Peter delivered the bad news in person??
No virgins for homie... he smokes a turd in Hell as I type this. Horray!!
I wonder if he went 'Straight to Hell', or if Saint Peter delivered the bad news in person??
Upvote
0
Shut it up FFS. He still was a human, even if he did do many bad things. What would you think if everyone would say things like "Omfg buddylee finally got pwned horray!" when you died? You know I'm not defending him, I'd never do that, but your post is just ridicolous.BuddyLee said:Zarqawi got pwned!!
No virgins for homie... he smokes a turd in Hell as I type this. Horray!!
I wonder if he went 'Straight to Hell', or if Saint Peter delivered the bad news in person??
Also I just don't understand why neonazism and neostalinism are forbidden, but this american patriot crap isn't? Seriously, it's not any better.
Upvote
0
I think this thread lasted long enough, My thanks go out to all the people that gave the effort of keeping it nice and civil
Upvote
0
- Status