Peace in Iraq

<p>"Disrespect humanity"???</p>

<p>You mean...disrespect terrorism? Terrorists DONT deserve rights...and its not like we're killing them here. What did we do? So a couple of terrorists stood on a box for 5 minutes...now some American marine who is serving his country, protecting YOU, and risking his life everyday will go to jail...for what?...for offending a terrorist? You gusy would pick them over our own troops just to prove some stupid point...its ridiculous.</p>

<p>And to jrcho...."Like us, they feel the same innate instinct for life. Who wants to die? Nobody."???</p>

<p>Ummm...have we been in the same world for the past 20 years? Nobody is forcing these people to strap themselves up with explosives and kill themselves...they dont care about life. They're brainwashed slaves. If they all just died, there would be no impact on the world. US actions are not driving them to kill themselves. Theyre a bunch of cowards. They dont have the guts to pick up a gun and fight our troops out in the open like men. Instead, they resort to suicide tactics and killing innocent people.</p>

<p>"Like us, they feel the same innate instinct for life. Who wants to die? Nobody."</p>

<p>What I meant by the phrase above was that we're human; thus we want to live. They're human too, so they must want to live. They do not seem to want to live. It seems that they will sacrifice their lives to **** off the US in any way possible. Still, it does not mean that they are not human. There must be a reason for their behavior. I do not know the reason, but I know there is SOME reason. If not, than, are you suggesting that terriorists are inferior human beings with messed up brains that just want to die and take other people with them? That does not make sense. They're HUMANS. Humans under normal conditions do not act that way; therefore, that is why i was suggesting that there must be a reason. The reason, of course, may be a legit one or not.</p>

<p>then go frickin give them a hug or something, geez just because they're human doesn't mean we have to like them</p>

<p>usna if that post was directed towards me, then this is my answer.</p>

<p>If you read my post and comprehended it, what are you talking about?</p>

<p>I never said anything about liking anybody. ". There must be a reason for their behavior."</p>

<p>There you go. Explicitly stated, my point.</p>

<p>"of course, [the UN] didnt do their job in iraq as it relates to human rights and oil-for-food, or as it relates to enforcing their own resolutions, and theyre not doing the job now. shocking."</p>

<p>northrams, don't knock the united nations, especially when you have limited knowledge on the topic. many UN officials have DIED in iraq trying to restore any order left in the country, as well as Afghanistan (rememeber them, we were at war with them too). the only reason why the UN efforts haven't been as big or as publicised as they should be is because George Bush didn't want UN officials 'meddling' in Iraq at all at first. only after the casualties started mounting up did he call them up and ask for their help, and that was only a few months ago...
from someone who knows a lot about the inside of the united nations.</p>

<p>soccerguy, the reason that there will never be peace in Iraq is because, yes, some Iraqis (albeit a minority) are lesser human beings. I do believe that the majority of the Iraqis are grateful and want to be democratic, but there is such a strong minority of fantatics that will make this impossible.</p>

<p>first of all, dont tell me how much knowledge i have on the topic, or any topic for that matter. i was not referring to our allies in afganistan, or the peacekeepers on the ground in different areas of the world. they have made contributions and shown bravery. i am referring to the utterly corrupt and inept UN leadership. how would Bush be responsible for the UN's inability to direct the oil-for-food money to where it was supposed to go during the Clinton administration? </p>

<p>also, explain for me what the UN has done for the human rights disasters in Africa and elsewhere, and, if you can name a few things, explain why they couldnt have been done as well or better by a general international coalition rather than a corrupt beaurocracy run by diplomats with no accountability whatsoever.</p>

<p>the UN's own investigator just released internal audits that showed BILLIONS of dollars in graft and loss during the oil-for-food program. UN officials saw these audits as the scandal was going on. what did they do? nothing, they simply allowed companies to bilk the UN out of billions, and saddam to redirect funds from food and medicine to palaces and secret police. not only that, countless times when an inspector wanted to search an area in iraq, saddam would say no, the UN leadership would whine for a while, and a month later he'd let them in, with no penalties whatsoever. i am not arguing the desire of the low-level UN workers and inspectors to do their job, nor am i maligning their bravery. it is the design and leadership of the UN that is the problem.</p>

<p>jrcho88... just fyi, civilians work in the Pentagon too.</p>

<p>so im bored, so if we keep fighting we will kill the radicals, and then Iraq can be free, no? Not to mention, that the people still fighting in Iraq, aren't Iraqi for the most part. They're from other countries.</p>

<p>filmxoxo17.... what happened after UN officials died? THEY LEFT. And then Saddam doesn't listen. The only time he even pretended to follow the UN regulations was when the US threatened to bomb the **** out of him. The UN is a huge pile of crap, and a complete failure, from human rights abuses all over the world, from Africa to Bosnia, to having done nothing after 16 days for Tsunami victims except fly over big wigs in 1st class and put $70000 SUVs in the cargo areas of the planes so they can drive around in them, instead of filling it with supplies.</p>

<p>QUOTE:
Imagine a world in which there was no United States during the last 15 years. Iraq, Iran, and Libya would now have nukes. Afghanistan would remain a seventh-century Islamic terrorist haven sending out the minions of Zarqawi and Bin Laden worldwide. The lieutenants of Noriega, Milosevic, Mullah Omar, Saddam, and Moammar Khaddafi would no doubt be adjudicating human rights at the United Nations. The Ortega Brothers and Fidel Castro, not democracy, would be the exemplars of Latin America. Bosnia and Kosovo would be national graveyards like Pol Pot's Cambodia. Add in Kurdistan as well — the periodic laboratory for Saddam's latest varieties of gas. Saddam himself, of course, would have statues throughout the Gulf attesting to his control of half the world's oil reservoirs. Europeans would be in two-day mourning that their arms sales to Arab monstrocracies ensured a second holocaust. North Korea would be shooting missiles over Tokyo from its new bases around Seoul and Pusan. For their own survival, Germany, Taiwan, and Japan would all now be nuclear. Americans know all that — and yet they grasp that their own vigilance and military sacrifices have earned them spite rather than gratitude. And they are ever so slowly learning not much to care anymore.</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>The U.N., NATO, or the EU: These are now the town criers of the civilized world who preach about "the law" and then seek asylum in their closed shops and barred stores when the nuclear Daltons or terrorist Clantons run roughshod over the town. In our own contemporary ongoing drama, China, Russia, and India watch bemused as the United States tries to hunt down the psychopathic killers while Western elites ankle-bite and hector its efforts. I suppose the Russians, Chinese, and Indians know that Islamists understand all too well that blowing up two skyscrapers in Moscow, Shanghai, or Delhi would guarantee that their Middle Eastern patrons might end up in cinders.</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>he wealthy Gulf States pledge very little of their vast petrol-dollar reserves — swollen from last year's jacked-up gasoline prices — to aid the ravaged homelands of their Islamic nannies, drivers, and janitors. Indeed, Muslim charities advertise to their donors that their aid goes to fellow Muslims — as if a dying Buddhist or Christian is less deserving of the Muslim Street's aid. In defense, officials argue that the ostracism of "charities" that funded suicide killers to the tune of $150 million has hampered their humanitarian efforts at scraping up a fifth of that sum. But then blowing apart Americans or Jews is always a higher priority than saving innocent Muslim children.</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>The U.S. military is habitually slurred even though it possesses the world's only lift and sea assets that could substantially aid in the ongoing disasters in Indonesia and Thailand. Blamed for having too high a profile in removing the Taliban and Saddam, it is now abused for having too meek a presence in Southeast Asia. No doubt America should have "preempted" the wave and acted in a more "unilateral" fashion. Meanwhile we await the arrival of the Charles De Gaulle and its massive fleet of life-saving choppers that can ferry ample amounts of Saudi, Chinese, and Cuban materiel to the dying — emissaries all of U.N. and EU multilateralism.
CLOSE QUOTE</p>

<p>soccerguy, I know that most people who work in the pentagon are civilians, but I am just saying that IF it HAD to be a target, it would be more justifiable if it was a military target rather than a financial target that has nothing to do with military (i guess it sort of has to do with military in some viewpoints..)</p>

<p>If there was no US, than somebody else would be playing the current US' role.
Nobody is especially to blame for the nuclear buildup. I believe this current situation was inevitable.</p>

<p>Hitler worked hard to build nukes. The Allieds had to build it first to prevent a disaster. The US developed nukes and used it on Japan. The 2 superpowers of the world then began a nuclear race. Then, countries started adopting "if you have it, why not me" attitude. Here we are, nobody is especially to blame for this. On the way, the 2 superpowers each set up a puppet government in my home country, started a war which killed over 2 million Koreans and split up my country. I hate how US refers to North Korea as the Axis of Evil. The only reason why my country is divided is because of the US and the USSR. </p>

<p>Both the US' and Japan's metereology(sp) centers both were able to detect the Tsunami ahead of time. As soon as they found that the Tsunami will not affect their own country, they ignored it; no warnings to countries, no nothing. True, warnings would not have done much, but at least it could have saved some lives.</p>

<p>Now, they pile the country with donations and pretend they care. Of course, this will be used in something like "We helped you when your country was raped, now repeal any duties on our products".</p>

<p>Nobody in this world acts if they, as do'ers, do not benefit. This is a known fact.
The first paragraph of the quote makes it sound like US was an essential police officer of the world. In a way, they created the problems themselves. Nobody especiallly is to blame. The end of the planet draws near, but what can we do?</p>

<p>"Both the US' and Japan's metereology(sp) centers both were able to detect the Tsunami ahead of time. As soon as they found that the Tsunami will not affect their own country, they ignored it; no warnings to countries, no nothing."</p>

<p>thats not entirely true. the hawaiian monitoring center detected what they thought might be a tsunami (remember there arent any sensors in the indian ocean, so it wasnt certain) and they sent a communication to one of the countries, thailand i believe, which unfortunately went unread.</p>

<p>Oh that's a typo sorry, I'm pretty sure I meant to say Japan not US.</p>