A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Wars against Iran or North Korea instead of Iraq ~ so go back to 2002 and 2003 and instead of Iraq the focus was on Iran or North Korea.
Would you support....
- Thread starter A_Wanderer
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
The question rests on a false premise. You are assuming that all of us support war. I reject the basis of the question.
OP
OP
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
You could just vote no, this is independent of Iraq.
financeguy
ONE love, blood, life
Oh right sorry, I thought you were asking us to vote between Iran and NK. Fair enough, I voted no. Happy now, babycakes?
Edited to add: it's still a loaded question
Edited to add: it's still a loaded question
Last edited:
Scarletwine
New Yorker
No.
No. The reason primarily is that the case that made war against Saddam a necessity does not exist in the case of North Korea and Iran.
North Korea
1. As brutal as the country is to its own people, North Korea has not invaded another country in over half of century. This is the direct opposite of Saddam who invaded and attacked four different countries over the past 20 years and threatened the planets energy supply with sabotage and siezure.
2. North Korea may have produced every general type of WMD known to man, but how many times have they used this WMD against other countries? NONE Saddam on the other hand has used WMD more times than any leader in history!
3. Any attack on North Korea would have to consider some of the unique and unavoidable consequences of any such attack. Unlike any other place on the planet, North Korea has massed the planets largest artillery force in the mountains along the DMZ, less than 30 miles from South Korea's largest city Seoul, with 10 million people. North Korea has thousands of large, well hidden and defended, artillery pieces, that could rain down thousands of artillery shells in a matter of minutes all over one of the largest cities on the planet. The number of people that could be killed in the FIRST DAY of any conflict just from North Korean Artillery being fired at the city of Seoul is in the "hundreds of thousands". While the US military and South Korean military could gradually destroy much of this artillery, it would probably take many days or weeks to completely destroy every piece of North Korean Artillery in range of the South Korean capital. Considering the number of people that would die the first day, several weeks later, the numbers would be unbelievable.
4. Then, if #3 was not enough, you have to consider the fact that North Korea has had Nuclear Weapons since 1994. North Korea probably has a few dozen nuclear warheads that are or can be fitted to short or medium range ballistic missiles that can hit any part of Japan, North Eastern China, and Eastern Russia. This gives them the capability to wound or kill over a million people in less than 15 minutes.
5. To sum up, North Korea has had a very benign and conservative behavior compared to SADDAM in regards to international invasion and attack of other countrys, and in that sense do not represent a threat. BUT because of their capabilities un democratic and hostile behavior to their people and disagreements with other countries on nearly everything, the World must be prepared to fight North Korea if it decides to use its capabilities against any other country. Because any conflict could potentially lead to millions of deaths within the first few weeks, disarming North Korea through military intervention is not an option, in the current situation. Only a rather unique situation where the costs of continuing containment was greater than the cost of intervention, would military intervention then become a necessity. As it stands right now, North Korea appears to have no interest in war with the Wests as long as the United States, South Korea and other countries keep their military guard up. North Korea has not invaded any country in over half a century and despite is militant tone, is unlikely to do so any time in the near future as long as South Korea and the United States maintain a large and strong military force.
1. Iran, like North Korea has not actually launched an unprovoked military invasion of another country in a long time. In fact, you have to go all the way back to 1856 to find Iran actually engaging in the same behavior(launching an unprovoked invasion of another country) that Saddam did four times while he was in power. Iran for a very long time after World War II was an ally of the Western World. Its only been since the Iranian revolution of 1979, that extremist anti-western elements have hijacked the country. Saddam's unwise invasion of Iran in 1980 and the military setbacks Saddam suffered created the potential for the new Iranian extremist government to defeat Iraq and then prey on the smaller Arab nations that were south of Iraq and contained a majority of the planets energy supply. Iran was never that strong though and never really had handle on Saddam where they could truely envision going further than Iraq. Eventually they were defeated.
2. Iran's conventional military and power projection capability has always been rather weak and and was not a match for Saddam's reduced and defeated military following the 1st Persian Gulf War in 1991. Saddam's military maintained a conventional military force that still had twice as many armored vehicles and other weapon systems as Iran did, even after his defeat in the 1st Gulf War. Although Iran has purchased new military equipment from Russia and other countries, most of its military equipment remains outdated and some of it is still old outdated American military equipment from the days of the Shah.
3. It appears Iran has placed much of its money in getting nuclear weapons as opposed to developing a large well equipped conventional military force suited for invading and occupying large area's as Saddam used to have. Their Chemical and Biological warefare capability is far behind what Saddam once had and has rarely if ever been used.
4. The two things that make Iran a threat despite its major shortcomings in capabilities and benign behavior in the situations above, is its support for Terrorism primarily against Israel through (Humas and Hezbolah) and its intense pursuit to develop a nuclear weapon.
5. To sum up, the chance that there could be war with Iran in the future is a lot higher than any chance there would be war with North Korea. Although the Mullah's in Iran are a lot less militant than they were 25 years ago at the start of the Iranian revolution, they still have views and idea's that are cause for serious concern. Their actions and crackdowns on Iranian democratic movements is a huge concern. How far they are willing to go in terms of building a nuclear weapon and what they would be willing to do with such weapons is not known and is a huge cause for concern.
To the degree that Iran's connections to terrorism are confined to Humas and Hezbolah and that those organizations terrorism is confined to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, US military internvention in Iran is unlikely even with the development of Nuclear Weapons. The problem is that situation could change overnight. To what degree would Iran use its Nuclear Weapons technology to aid any terrorist organization? In addition, once Iran has nuclear weapons, the costs and risk to military intervention to disarm Iran dramatically go up.
A strong case can be made for the need to intervene to stop Iran from developing Nuclear Weapons, but because Iran has been rather benign in so many area's where SADDAM was a hostile monster, its weak military capabilities excluding its nuclear program, its greater distance from vital energy reserves in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the unknowns about its connections with terrorism, I would have to say that for now, military intervention should not be attempted. There are still a lot of diplomatic and economic options that could be used against Iran that could have a positive effect. In addition, while the Mullahs have contained or are containing the democracy movement in Iran, it is still there and their numbers are growing. Iran is about to experience a population explosion in the next 20 years and its going to be increasingly difficult for the Mullahs to maintain their grip on power.
Any military intervention in Iran would have to be an all out military internvention to remove the government and disarm the Nuclear problem. Airstrikes while they could hurt Iran would not end or stop the nuclear problem even if they were successful at hitting key centers for development. It could delay the development of a BOMB if the strikes were successful, but thats it. The only thing that would insure that a Nuclear Weapon would not be developed would be the replacement of the government and the Mullahs.
Hopefully, over the next 25 years, Iran will eventually develop into a democracy. Iran is very different from SADDAM's Iraq where one person was running the whole place and had the greatest internal security operation to prevent any revolution or overthrow of his power. In Iran, like in Serbia a few years ago, Iran's conservatives have the power, but it is on very shakey ground and a variety of things could make it fall apart.
For right now, the case for military intervention in Iran is not strong enough, but could be in the future if certain things were to change. This is without considering the fact that the US miltary already has a lot on its plate with Iraq/Afganistan and its other military committments around the world. Another problem will be if and when military intervention becomes a necessity, will Iran by then have the "BOMB" and what costs and problems would military intervention under those conditions entail?
North Korea
1. As brutal as the country is to its own people, North Korea has not invaded another country in over half of century. This is the direct opposite of Saddam who invaded and attacked four different countries over the past 20 years and threatened the planets energy supply with sabotage and siezure.
2. North Korea may have produced every general type of WMD known to man, but how many times have they used this WMD against other countries? NONE Saddam on the other hand has used WMD more times than any leader in history!
3. Any attack on North Korea would have to consider some of the unique and unavoidable consequences of any such attack. Unlike any other place on the planet, North Korea has massed the planets largest artillery force in the mountains along the DMZ, less than 30 miles from South Korea's largest city Seoul, with 10 million people. North Korea has thousands of large, well hidden and defended, artillery pieces, that could rain down thousands of artillery shells in a matter of minutes all over one of the largest cities on the planet. The number of people that could be killed in the FIRST DAY of any conflict just from North Korean Artillery being fired at the city of Seoul is in the "hundreds of thousands". While the US military and South Korean military could gradually destroy much of this artillery, it would probably take many days or weeks to completely destroy every piece of North Korean Artillery in range of the South Korean capital. Considering the number of people that would die the first day, several weeks later, the numbers would be unbelievable.
4. Then, if #3 was not enough, you have to consider the fact that North Korea has had Nuclear Weapons since 1994. North Korea probably has a few dozen nuclear warheads that are or can be fitted to short or medium range ballistic missiles that can hit any part of Japan, North Eastern China, and Eastern Russia. This gives them the capability to wound or kill over a million people in less than 15 minutes.
5. To sum up, North Korea has had a very benign and conservative behavior compared to SADDAM in regards to international invasion and attack of other countrys, and in that sense do not represent a threat. BUT because of their capabilities un democratic and hostile behavior to their people and disagreements with other countries on nearly everything, the World must be prepared to fight North Korea if it decides to use its capabilities against any other country. Because any conflict could potentially lead to millions of deaths within the first few weeks, disarming North Korea through military intervention is not an option, in the current situation. Only a rather unique situation where the costs of continuing containment was greater than the cost of intervention, would military intervention then become a necessity. As it stands right now, North Korea appears to have no interest in war with the Wests as long as the United States, South Korea and other countries keep their military guard up. North Korea has not invaded any country in over half a century and despite is militant tone, is unlikely to do so any time in the near future as long as South Korea and the United States maintain a large and strong military force.
1. Iran, like North Korea has not actually launched an unprovoked military invasion of another country in a long time. In fact, you have to go all the way back to 1856 to find Iran actually engaging in the same behavior(launching an unprovoked invasion of another country) that Saddam did four times while he was in power. Iran for a very long time after World War II was an ally of the Western World. Its only been since the Iranian revolution of 1979, that extremist anti-western elements have hijacked the country. Saddam's unwise invasion of Iran in 1980 and the military setbacks Saddam suffered created the potential for the new Iranian extremist government to defeat Iraq and then prey on the smaller Arab nations that were south of Iraq and contained a majority of the planets energy supply. Iran was never that strong though and never really had handle on Saddam where they could truely envision going further than Iraq. Eventually they were defeated.
2. Iran's conventional military and power projection capability has always been rather weak and and was not a match for Saddam's reduced and defeated military following the 1st Persian Gulf War in 1991. Saddam's military maintained a conventional military force that still had twice as many armored vehicles and other weapon systems as Iran did, even after his defeat in the 1st Gulf War. Although Iran has purchased new military equipment from Russia and other countries, most of its military equipment remains outdated and some of it is still old outdated American military equipment from the days of the Shah.
3. It appears Iran has placed much of its money in getting nuclear weapons as opposed to developing a large well equipped conventional military force suited for invading and occupying large area's as Saddam used to have. Their Chemical and Biological warefare capability is far behind what Saddam once had and has rarely if ever been used.
4. The two things that make Iran a threat despite its major shortcomings in capabilities and benign behavior in the situations above, is its support for Terrorism primarily against Israel through (Humas and Hezbolah) and its intense pursuit to develop a nuclear weapon.
5. To sum up, the chance that there could be war with Iran in the future is a lot higher than any chance there would be war with North Korea. Although the Mullah's in Iran are a lot less militant than they were 25 years ago at the start of the Iranian revolution, they still have views and idea's that are cause for serious concern. Their actions and crackdowns on Iranian democratic movements is a huge concern. How far they are willing to go in terms of building a nuclear weapon and what they would be willing to do with such weapons is not known and is a huge cause for concern.
To the degree that Iran's connections to terrorism are confined to Humas and Hezbolah and that those organizations terrorism is confined to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, US military internvention in Iran is unlikely even with the development of Nuclear Weapons. The problem is that situation could change overnight. To what degree would Iran use its Nuclear Weapons technology to aid any terrorist organization? In addition, once Iran has nuclear weapons, the costs and risk to military intervention to disarm Iran dramatically go up.
A strong case can be made for the need to intervene to stop Iran from developing Nuclear Weapons, but because Iran has been rather benign in so many area's where SADDAM was a hostile monster, its weak military capabilities excluding its nuclear program, its greater distance from vital energy reserves in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and the unknowns about its connections with terrorism, I would have to say that for now, military intervention should not be attempted. There are still a lot of diplomatic and economic options that could be used against Iran that could have a positive effect. In addition, while the Mullahs have contained or are containing the democracy movement in Iran, it is still there and their numbers are growing. Iran is about to experience a population explosion in the next 20 years and its going to be increasingly difficult for the Mullahs to maintain their grip on power.
Any military intervention in Iran would have to be an all out military internvention to remove the government and disarm the Nuclear problem. Airstrikes while they could hurt Iran would not end or stop the nuclear problem even if they were successful at hitting key centers for development. It could delay the development of a BOMB if the strikes were successful, but thats it. The only thing that would insure that a Nuclear Weapon would not be developed would be the replacement of the government and the Mullahs.
Hopefully, over the next 25 years, Iran will eventually develop into a democracy. Iran is very different from SADDAM's Iraq where one person was running the whole place and had the greatest internal security operation to prevent any revolution or overthrow of his power. In Iran, like in Serbia a few years ago, Iran's conservatives have the power, but it is on very shakey ground and a variety of things could make it fall apart.
For right now, the case for military intervention in Iran is not strong enough, but could be in the future if certain things were to change. This is without considering the fact that the US miltary already has a lot on its plate with Iraq/Afganistan and its other military committments around the world. Another problem will be if and when military intervention becomes a necessity, will Iran by then have the "BOMB" and what costs and problems would military intervention under those conditions entail?
all_i_want
Refugee
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,180
no. i would never condone war to further a nation's agenda.
'war is mass murder unless it is waged for the very survival of your nation'
"TO LET PEOPLE SLAUGHTER EACH OTHER ALLEGEDLY WITH THE OBJECT OF MAKING MANKIND HAPPY IS BOTH INHUMAN AND DEPLORABLE IN THE EXTREME."
"EVERY NATION HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND PROPER TREATMENT AND NO COUNTRY SHOULD VIOLATE THE TERRITORY OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY."
"A nation which makes the final sacrifice for life and freedom is never beaten"
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
http://tadevrimi.sitemynet.com/ingilizce.htm
was iraq war a 'provoked military invasion of another country'?
does US has a better record in usage of WMDs and initiation of 'provoked military invasion of another country' than iraq? dont forget US got away with the mass destruction on its largest scale in hiroshima and nagazaki. in the last 50 years US invaded vietnam, afghanistan, iraq and committed its forces for long term occupation. US meddles with other countries' internal affairs way too much. south america always proves to be a good example. wasnt pinochet supported by the US.
i understand all the arguments about saddam being a bad man and having a record of brutality, but so did MANY dictators who were SUPPORTED by the US, but hey, they were snuggly with the white house, so who cares? such hypocracy(ive got a feeling thats misspelled.. oh well)
does being a democracy make bombing, invading other countries and torturing their people OK?
'war is mass murder unless it is waged for the very survival of your nation'
"TO LET PEOPLE SLAUGHTER EACH OTHER ALLEGEDLY WITH THE OBJECT OF MAKING MANKIND HAPPY IS BOTH INHUMAN AND DEPLORABLE IN THE EXTREME."
"EVERY NATION HAS THE RIGHT TO DEMAND PROPER TREATMENT AND NO COUNTRY SHOULD VIOLATE THE TERRITORY OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY."
"A nation which makes the final sacrifice for life and freedom is never beaten"
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
http://tadevrimi.sitemynet.com/ingilizce.htm
was iraq war a 'provoked military invasion of another country'?
does US has a better record in usage of WMDs and initiation of 'provoked military invasion of another country' than iraq? dont forget US got away with the mass destruction on its largest scale in hiroshima and nagazaki. in the last 50 years US invaded vietnam, afghanistan, iraq and committed its forces for long term occupation. US meddles with other countries' internal affairs way too much. south america always proves to be a good example. wasnt pinochet supported by the US.
i understand all the arguments about saddam being a bad man and having a record of brutality, but so did MANY dictators who were SUPPORTED by the US, but hey, they were snuggly with the white house, so who cares? such hypocracy(ive got a feeling thats misspelled.. oh well)
does being a democracy make bombing, invading other countries and torturing their people OK?
Pero
Refugee
Damn you people, hell yeah!!!just kidding, as much as i'm a pacifist, i would rather kick someones ass then going in the war,
NO MORE, NO WAR
NO MORE, NO WAR
Pero
Refugee
Damn people, you sure don't know what'a cramp in a hand.
If would write so much, my hand would fall of.
If would write so much, my hand would fall of.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
No.
coemgen
Rock n' Roll Doggie
No. 
deep
Blue Crack Addict
A_Wanderer said:
wars against Iran or North Korea instead of Iraq
~ so go back to 2002 and 2003
the American people would not have supported a war on Iraq in 2002 or 2003
without being out and out lied to by the Bush Administration.
Iran ?
It would have been harder to fake the evidence of danger with Iran
Ironically the Al Queda link is more plausible, however the booty was in Iraq.
North Korea. ?
this would just be stupid.
the last thing South Korea wants is this to move too fast. Their plan is something like a gradual reunification.
Plus the neocons that run this Administration love N K. It is their trump card for their worthless phony SDI, star wars program the will suck 100s of billions of dollars out of taxpayers pocket and into the accounts of their blood sucking cronies, the so-called defense contractors.
Iraq was always the only card that WOULD be played in the axis of evil deck.
It requires only the smallest amount of reasoning and honesty to admit that the TWO most responsible terrorist regimes get a past from this Administration. Dictatorships in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Last edited:
Re: Re: Would you support....
The criteria for war with Saddam has always rested on whether he was complying with the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire and the 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. No ONE LIED and its time this liberal fantasy was put to rest. Most Americans like how the Bush administration has handled Iraq which is why they gave Bush the first majority in an election any President has had since 1988!
SDI technology is NOT worthless! I have friends that are alive today because this technology was used to intercept Iraqi ballistic Missiles fired into Kuwait in March 2003 at the start of the war! The Army will soon have the ability to intercept Artillery Shells and Mortar rounds fired on the battlefield which up until a few years ago was thought to be impossible.
deep said:
The criteria for war with Saddam has always rested on whether he was complying with the conditions of the 1991 Gulf War Ceace Fire and the 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules. No ONE LIED and its time this liberal fantasy was put to rest. Most Americans like how the Bush administration has handled Iraq which is why they gave Bush the first majority in an election any President has had since 1988!
SDI technology is NOT worthless! I have friends that are alive today because this technology was used to intercept Iraqi ballistic Missiles fired into Kuwait in March 2003 at the start of the war! The Army will soon have the ability to intercept Artillery Shells and Mortar rounds fired on the battlefield which up until a few years ago was thought to be impossible.
earthshell
The Fly
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2005
- Messages
- 282
"as long as the bush administration does it!" ~ typical republican jackass
their evil administration lies everyday, and it's costing us thousands of lives. if bush wants to keep his wars going, he can strap on his cowboy hat and boots, slap on a holster, and do it himself. i won't stand for it.
no i say.
their evil administration lies everyday, and it's costing us thousands of lives. if bush wants to keep his wars going, he can strap on his cowboy hat and boots, slap on a holster, and do it himself. i won't stand for it.
no i say.
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
That's funny. Our animal is not the jackass, but the elephant. 
Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Re: Re: Re: Would you support....
Two thumbs up
STING2 said:
Two thumbs up
Anthony
Refugee
North Korea and Iran were and still remain a much larger threat to the world than Iraq could ever have been, and I find it alarming that not much is being done about this threat.
I never opposed Iraq on grounds of pacifism. Indeed, I actually supported, and still support, the war in Afghanistan. I still believe it was key to and set out a framework, if you will, on the War on Terror. I really don't wish to go on about the War in Iraq, for it is redundant, but I do not live in comfort that the world was made safer because of the toppling of Hussein's regime. I live in fear that lives were lost and money spent on clearly the wrong threat.
I voted yes. Not because I'm a war-monger but because they 'are' a threat, North Korea even more so than Iran. I want something to be done; something quick and efficient, uncompromising and direct. I want to see negotiations opened and deadlines set, sanctions inflicted and embargos carried out, and even decisive military action if necessary.
Ant.
I never opposed Iraq on grounds of pacifism. Indeed, I actually supported, and still support, the war in Afghanistan. I still believe it was key to and set out a framework, if you will, on the War on Terror. I really don't wish to go on about the War in Iraq, for it is redundant, but I do not live in comfort that the world was made safer because of the toppling of Hussein's regime. I live in fear that lives were lost and money spent on clearly the wrong threat.
I voted yes. Not because I'm a war-monger but because they 'are' a threat, North Korea even more so than Iran. I want something to be done; something quick and efficient, uncompromising and direct. I want to see negotiations opened and deadlines set, sanctions inflicted and embargos carried out, and even decisive military action if necessary.
Ant.
knox
Refugee
Unfortunately, I can't vote "yes or no", because I would have supported military action in one case, and would not have in the other.
In the case of Iran, I would have supported appropriate military action (and still do, given Iran's insane move towards nuclear weapons, as well as continued support of terrorists). However, Iran has a much better chance at internal reform/revolution than Iraq ever did, and they didn't pose the threat that we feared Saddam did.
It would be nuts to start a war with North Korea, given the size of their military. A war with North Korea would have to be sudden, fast, and very bloody: basically, the entire country would have to be destroyed, which is not a thing to be taken likely. Unlike Iraq, where less than 20,000 civilians have died because of US military action according to anti-war site Iraq Body Count, action against North Korea would probably result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. We're not at that point.
In the case of Iran, I would have supported appropriate military action (and still do, given Iran's insane move towards nuclear weapons, as well as continued support of terrorists). However, Iran has a much better chance at internal reform/revolution than Iraq ever did, and they didn't pose the threat that we feared Saddam did.
It would be nuts to start a war with North Korea, given the size of their military. A war with North Korea would have to be sudden, fast, and very bloody: basically, the entire country would have to be destroyed, which is not a thing to be taken likely. Unlike Iraq, where less than 20,000 civilians have died because of US military action according to anti-war site Iraq Body Count, action against North Korea would probably result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. We're not at that point.
all_i_want
Refugee
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,180
hey who cares about millions of lives lost when you could be spreading freedom?
knox
Refugee
all_i_want said:
If you can make an argument as to how carbet-bombing North Korea would serve to better the cause of freedom in the world, I'm willing to listen.
all_i_want
Refugee
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,180
i guess the irony wasnt as plain to see as i thought it was 
knox
Refugee
all_i_want said:i guess the irony wasnt as plain to see as i thought it was
I just think that people throw out that sarcastic freedom comment (and ones like it) way too often.
all_i_want
Refugee
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,180
my favorite in that area is from the french foreign affairs minister:
'you cant spread freedom the way you spread perfumes or fragrances'
that was a good one
'you cant spread freedom the way you spread perfumes or fragrances'
that was a good one
knox
Refugee
all_i_want said:my favorite in that area is from the french foreign affairs minister:
'you cant spread freedom the way you spread perfumes or fragrances'
that was a good one
yeah.all_i_want
Refugee
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,180
although his delivery was incredibly french, he does have a point
earthshell
The Fly
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2005
- Messages
- 282
you know what else is funny, wiseass? i didn't vote for the jackasses. john kerry is a phony, he's complete suck up to conservatives. bush is just plain stupidity. when will we get away from bigoted, animal abusing candidates?Macfistowannabe said:That's funny. Our animal is not the jackass, but the elephant.
Those of you whoo don't like the term "freedom" being thrown around can easily substitute "Human rights" instead. The two go hand in hand.
And maybe 'you cant spread freedom the way you spread perfumes or fragrances' but you might be able to knock down obstacles to freedom like dominos.
Look for the "Berlin Wall" of the Middle East to fall this decade.
And maybe 'you cant spread freedom the way you spread perfumes or fragrances' but you might be able to knock down obstacles to freedom like dominos.
Look for the "Berlin Wall" of the Middle East to fall this decade.
Harry Vest
Refugee
How about not a "war" per say but HELPING in Sudan - like kicking the butts of those Arabs that are killing all the Blacks???
These guys ARE terrorists and we should be there "defeating the terrorists" - just like we should of in Rwanda. By the way...by "we" I mean the U.S., Canada, China, Russia, France, Germany etc. etc. - the so called UN.
These guys ARE terrorists and we should be there "defeating the terrorists" - just like we should of in Rwanda. By the way...by "we" I mean the U.S., Canada, China, Russia, France, Germany etc. etc. - the so called UN.
all_i_want
Refugee
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,180
military interventions are not made on the basis of right or wrong anymore, theyre made on the basis of profit and national interests.
id say NATO should go. UN peace corps are pretty useless. but then, US doesnt lead the world towards worthy causes anymore. and european community.. well, they obviously cant be bothered. if they couldnt be bothered in the 90s when there was a genocide going on in the middle of the continent there's simply no way theyd go to sudan to help people.
id say NATO should go. UN peace corps are pretty useless. but then, US doesnt lead the world towards worthy causes anymore. and european community.. well, they obviously cant be bothered. if they couldnt be bothered in the 90s when there was a genocide going on in the middle of the continent there's simply no way theyd go to sudan to help people.
