Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 92 of 92
  1. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
       #81  
    It seems that US military missions within the UN framework were quite successful (e.g. Kuwait, former Yugoslavia, partly also the Korean War), while the independent ones did not go so well (Pig Bay, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq...). Or do you have other examples post WWII? Maybe the War in Afghanistan can make the list, it wasn't officially sanctioned by the UN, although it had broad and active support of many nations including France, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, etc.

    Why is Grenada considered a failure? Because the US didnt go to the UN to ask permission to protect its own citizens?
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It seems that US military missions within the UN framework were quite successful (e.g. Kuwait, former Yugoslavia, partly also the Korean War), while the independent ones did not go so well (Pig Bay, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq...). Or do you have other examples post WWII? Maybe the War in Afghanistan can make the list, it wasn't officially sanctioned by the UN, although it had broad and active support of many nations including France, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, etc.
    I see if you feel it was successful it was within the UN framework but if not it was outside the UN framework. Bay of Pigs was mishandled all the way around, Vietnam if you think about was going on long before the US went in even before the French got kicked out. Why did you include Grenada in your list? How many Iraqi people voted in the election?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Exactly! Just like last time with Saddam. Imagine the US hadn't taken away the WMD from him by invading Iraq! Those narrow-minded Germans, French, and the like, who just couldn't see the advantages of an invasion (a bit like the 70% Americans who can't see it now).
    Of course, the fact that France and Germany both believed that there were WMD also makes your whole point invalid and, well, more than just a little silly.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Exactly! Just like last time with Saddam. Imagine the US hadn't taken away the WMD from him by invading Iraq! Those narrow-minded Germans, French, and the like, who just couldn't see the advantages of an invasion (a bit like the 70% Americans who can't see it now).
    I love the way many on the Left see so much value in American public opinion when it benefits them. But, anyone remember when Bush had an extremely high rating? Yep, those same people were blasting the American public for being stupid sheep.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Why did you include Grenada in your list?
    Grenada was not a failure regarding the end result (it would indeed be difficult to imagine the US losing a war against a country the size of Martha's Vineyard), but the execution of the operation was poor, namely the Navy SEAL actions were quite frightening and led to a restructuring of Special Operations.
    How many Iraqi people voted in the election?
    I don't know, can you tell me? Maybe the more important question is, did it make their situation any better? It certainly doesn't look like it at the moment.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I don't know, can you tell me? Maybe the more important question is, did it make their situation any better? It certainly doesn't look like it at the moment.
    Two major factors to answer that:

    1) I guess the the answer often lies on the opinion and political bias of the one answering vs facts and reality.
    • Is it better that there are no more institutionalized rape rooms with gov assigned rapists?
    • Is it better there are not currently gov overseers of "free" elections making sure they note anyone voting for anyone except for Saddam and their party?
    • Is it better when there were gov ordered mass genocide and executions?
    • Is it better that vast majority of the provinces are not experiencing the violence that was happening just after Saddam fell?
    • Is it better that insurgents and terrorists have been given more opportunity to play our their own political agenda using Iraqi civilians as their pawns and fodder?
    • Is it better that the many places now have schools, hospitals, electricity, etc... that have NEVER had it until after the restoration efforts after the fall of Saddam?
    • Is it better that Iraqis....whether they take advantage of it or not....have the opportunity to offer themselves a democracy based gov or is no choice under a Tyrant preferred?
    • Is it better now that we know the reality of Saddam's WMDs rather than having that threat over our heads as we begin to come toe to toe with Iran nuke efforts?
    • Is is better to continue another 12 years of resolutions and failed responses on approved consequences, while giving Iraq more opportunities to bring about his proven plans to re-establish his WMD programs?


    2) The other key statement you made was "at the moment". I see this use a lot from all sides of the fence. When that day's or that month's situation fits their point of what they want to make...either for or against Iraq....they will point to that as it it is a all encompassing representation of 3 years situation, progress, failures, and successes. This is an ongoing situation that no one knows will end up as the single issue that saves the world from the next World War or may be the single point in history that triggers it. If you made the "at the moment" statement 35 days ago, it would have gone against the point you were trying make as it was in a strong 5 month trend of decreasing violence and terrorist activities.

    Snapshots at the moment to prove a point of long process is not a very accurate point of view.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/17/2006 at 06:07 PM.
  7. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Grenada was not a failure regarding the end result (it would indeed be difficult to imagine the US losing a war against a country the size of Martha's Vineyard), but the execution of the operation was poor, namely the Navy SEAL actions were quite frightening and led to a restructuring of Special Operations.I don't know, can you tell me? Maybe the more important question is, did it make their situation any better? It certainly doesn't look like it at the moment.
    OK, so I assume you would take Grenada off your list of failures then. I would hope every military action results in improving the operations for the next time they are called upon.

    Millions of people voted, I would call that a success.
    Can you really convince yourself that the Iraqi people (as a whole) were better off under Saddam and his henchmen than they are today? If you believe that I can not provide anything to change your mind. Have you ever been to that region of the world, or do you just buy into the media highlight of the day?
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  8. #88  
    Odd how someone is so in love with the UN, and insists that the US do nothing without them, when their own country wasn't even a full member until 2002.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Odd how someone is so in love with the UN, and insists that the US do nothing without them, when their own country wasn't even a full member until 2002.
    For a lot of people its not about supporting the UN. Its about supporting an alternative to the US domination.
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Exactly! Just like last time with Saddam. Imagine the US hadn't taken away the WMD from him by invading Iraq! Those narrow-minded Germans, French, and the like, who just couldn't see the advantages of an invasion (a bit like the 70% Americans who can't see it now).
    Public opinion changes. What's right stays right.

    And it had nothing to do with their being narrow minded. The French were wrong in taking Saddam's bribes, ignoring a dictator who defied weapons inspectors, campaigning against the US, preventing the UN from supporting the US action, and withholding support from Iraq after the invasion. The world and Iraq would have been better off if France hadn't sided with Saddam. And the UN would be stronger today if France hadn't been so divisive.
  11. #91  
    Interesting read of rumors, info from "sources", possibilities, actions of preparations being currently taken from the US, Brit, Israel, etc....

    U.S. seen stepping up war plans for Iran
    White House mulls military solutions for nuclear standoff, sources say

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12225188/
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 04/10/2006 at 01:30 AM.
  12. #92  
    For a little history of the last year with Iran, a chronology going back to when their 20 years of lies were blown into the public arena concerning their nuke program, it's turning an about face every 2 months or so, and it continually contradicting claims, see the other Iran thread here.....

    Clicky >>>> Iran...... <<<< Clicky
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions