Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    no sorry not quite on that level was talking about Bush2. I think that Bush1 was totally justified.
    Sorry, I've just torn you a new ******* for not being at the same point in the debate as me and Sire. You recognized it after I *******ed you! No offense!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I think what he's driving at is "why did Bush1 drive out Iraq from Kuwait when there were so many other problems that were more pressing"?

    So, we're back to a "blood for oil" argument again. :rolleyes:

    Honestly. America acts without UN approval and it's condemned. America acts with UN approval and the support of the entire international community and it's still condemned. Unbelievable.
    Sorry for stating the obvious, but perhaps America shouldn't act to start with. Leave it to the UN, that is what it is there for after all is it not?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Sorry, I've just torn you a new ******* for not being at the same point in the debate as me and Sire. You recognized it after I *******ed you! No offense!
    no worries, im with you now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Everything Sire posts is his onesided political veiws on everything. If only he knew as much as he thinks he does. If you think kuwait was over oil, then you are so badly wrong that even the stupidest liberal could see the errors. I`m so sick of you liberals yelling oil, for christs sake get over it. If we had wanted oil we could have made oil deals in backrooms. You are just another anti-war anti-american anti-freedom POS.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Sorry for stating the obvious, but perhaps America shouldn't act to start with. Leave it to the UN, that is what it is there for after all is it not?
    The US was acting for the UN in the 1st Gulf War however i agree with you if you are talking about the 2nd Gulf War.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Sorry for stating the obvious, but perhaps America shouldn't act to start with. Leave it to the UN, that is what it is there for after all is it not?
    The UN aren't really a military force. They have no military capacity in their own right.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FoxNewsRocks)
    Everything Sire posts is his onesided political veiws on everything. If only he knew as much as he thinks he does. If you think kuwait was over oil, then you are so badly wrong that even the stupidest liberal could see the errors. I`m so sick of you liberals yelling oil, for christs sake get over it. If we had wanted oil we could have made oil deals in backrooms. You are just another anti-war anti-american anti-freedom POS.
    Then why did the US drive out Iraqi's from Kuwait?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    The US was acting for the UN in the 1st Gulf War however i agree with you if you are talking about the 2nd Gulf War.
    Indeed, I must say you've clarified the point about the first Gulf War, Bush Snr does seem to have been justified. And also agreed on the second Gulf War. It was basically illegal for George Dubya to invade Iraq.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    The UN aren't really a military force. They have no military capacity in their own right.
    True, but they are the keeper of the peace, for lack of a better term.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Then why did the US drive out Iraqi's from Kuwait?
    Read my extensive contribution to the history of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait above!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FoxNewsRocks)
    Everything Sire posts is his onesided political veiws on everything. If only he knew as much as he thinks he does. If you think kuwait was over oil, then you are so badly wrong that even the stupidest liberal could see the errors. I`m so sick of you liberals yelling oil, for christs sake get over it. If we had wanted oil we could have made oil deals in backrooms. You are just another anti-war anti-american anti-freedom POS.
    Would you please go back to your toys or whatever it is you do? Howard, Speciez and myself are having a rather good discussion here, and they have both certainly helped me by doing so. Howards and Speciez. I thank you. FoxNewsRocks: here, have a Happy Meal toy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FoxNewsRocks)
    liberal liberals.
    Oh go and kiss George H.W. Bush's arse why don't you. I'm fed up of compassionate conservatism, evangelical, christian right *******s.

    'Liberal' is not an insult in the UK.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Read my extensive contribution to the history of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait above!
    yeah i acknowledge all that and agree totally, and as far as i can tell Sire agrees with you. I was only wondering what FoxNewsRocks thought on the issue and whether it might it be something alone the lines of "they were doing it for the people man!". He calls Sire's view onesided when Sire as far as i can tell has acknowledged other reasons. I was just wondering what FoxNewsRocks actually thought were the reasons were, and if they were different.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Then why did the US drive out Iraqi's from Kuwait?
    Geopolitics.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    True, but they are the keeper of the peace, for lack of a better term.
    But only through borrowing armies.

    Imagine the UN were to take over in Iraq tommorrow. What you'd likely see is the same American troops as we have there today. The only difference is that they'd be wearing baby blue berets instead of combat lids.

    That's because America is really the only country now with the money, technology, and political will to commit an army of any significance.

    The practical problem is how far a majority force is willing to hand over power and command to a body like the UN.

    Perhaps it's time that the UN had it's own armed forces made up of international volunteers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    But only through borrowing armies.

    Imagine the UN were to take over in Iraq tommorrow. What you'd likely see is the same American troops as we have there today. The only difference is that they'd be wearing baby blue berets instead of combat lids.

    That's because America is really the only country now with the money, technology, and political will to commit an army of any significance.

    The practical problem is how far a majority force is willing to hand over power and command to a body like the UN.

    Perhaps it's time that the UN had it's own armed forces made up of international volunteers.
    Yet, if the UN had done it, don't you think it would have been a little more just, and much better in terms of organisation? Also, I think the ratios of troops from countries such as America, UK, Spain Australia etc would be a little more even.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    yeah i acknowledge all that and agree totally, and as far as i can tell Sire agrees with you. I was only wondering what FoxNewsRocks thought on the issue and whether it might it be something alone the lines of "they were doing it for the people man!". He calls Sire's view onesided when Sire as far as i can tell has acknowledged other reasons. I was just wondering what FoxNewsRocks actually thought were the reasons were, and if they were different.
    Thanks Speciez. As for FoxNewsRocks, I have no idea. I've seen the user come up on a few threads I've been posting on and throw insults at me. If you can call them insults I mean.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    But only through borrowing armies.

    Imagine the UN were to take over in Iraq tommorrow. What you'd likely see is the same American troops as we have there today. The only difference is that they'd be wearing baby blue berets instead of combat lids.

    That's because America is really the only country now with the money, technology, and political will to commit an army of any significance.

    The practical problem is how far a majority force is willing to hand over power and command to a body like the UN.

    Perhaps it's time that the UN had it's own armed forces made up of international volunteers.
    its interesting you say that since in terms of the percentages of soliders working for the UN doing peacekeeping missions from the USA isn't particularly high. The national geographical society (good knows why it was in there) states that 15% come from Pakistan, 14% from Bangladesh, 8% from Nigeria, India 6%. Then Ghana, Nepal, Uruguay, Kenya, S.Africa, Jordan, Eithopia and Ukraine make up 29% with the remaining 37% from other countries. (these countires each make up less than 2%.)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Yet, if the UN had done it, don't you think it would have been a little more just, and much better in terms of organisation? Also, I think the ratios of troops from countries such as America, UK, Spain Australia etc would be a little more even.
    Possibly more just. Possibly less well organized. The UN is very good at delivering aid and setting up refugee camps. It has never had command of an army in a combat situation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Possibly more just. Possibly less well organized. The UN is very good at delivering aid and setting up refugee camps. It has never had command of an army in a combat situation.
    Hmm, I feel that would be easily solved though. The UN would effectively have its pick of commanders from supporting countries, and they certainly have the 'majority' vote to make it possible to use very little actual force if it is needed at all. Bit of a guessing generalisation there, but it does seem to make some sense.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.