Boy loses limbs!

Quote:

---

HT, this is bullshit. The U.S. never has started a war other than this one. Every other war that the U.S. has fought is because it has been dragged into it by another country or another country attacked us first.

---

Point 1 is that HT only said that the US has a history of sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. He didn't say anything about starting wars. Point 2: This article below gives a rather comprehensive listing of examples where the US has stuck its unwanted, world-policing nose:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bl...ns_WBlumZ.html

PowerToad: Conversely it is quite clear that the UN expects the USA to take the role of Police Officer when it suits them...... Now, tell me...... Is it not true that when you need a cop you can never find one..... But do something bad and you find their nose is stuck right there.

The USA is being the cop the UN wants them to be...... It's just that when the UN doesn't want them doing it the USA carry on and do the job as it should be done...... 'Cos then they catch all those UN countries breaking the laws they set..... quite ironic really....... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by schoolsucks779
. HT, this is bullshit. The U.S. never has started a war other than this one. Every other war that the U.S. has fought is because it has been dragged into it by another country or another country attacked us first. .

---

Are you on crack. How about Panama, Nicaragua, Spanish-American war, The Indian Wars? Is your memory so short that you don't remember that we just invaded Afghanistan? How about the very quiet war in Cambodia in the 70's. The US has started a hell of a lot of wars, generally they are over quickly but we still start them just about as much as anyone else.

Quote:

---

The USA is being the cop the UN wants them to be...... It's just that when the UN doesn't want them doing it the USA carry on and do the job as it should be done...... 'Cos then they catch all those UN countries breaking the laws they set..... quite ironic really.......

---

One example of the USA not carrying on and doing the job as it should be done:

Quote:

---

Consider the U.S. reaction to the Iraqi intifada, the mass uprising of Iraqis after the Gulf War, in response to a call by George Bush, Sr., to the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam. In February and March of 1991, at the peak of that rebellion, Saddam's regime was seriously imperiled.

In order to save Saddam's regime, the U.S. military deliberately lifted the existing no-fly zone, allowing Saddam to use his helicopter gunships against the rebels; it seized arms depots so the rebels couldn't arm themselves; and it even allowed the Republican Guards safe passage through its ranks to put down the uprising.

At the time, Richard Haas of the State Department explained, "What we want is Saddam's regime without Saddam." In 1996, on ABC, Brent Scowcroft explained further that the United States did not want a popular democratic movement that overthrew Saddam – it wanted a palace coup.

---

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13749

Well powertoad you are dead right on that one! I still dont know what the hell happend with that one, it was like we got Saddam out of Kuwait, we encouraged the Iraq's to rise up against Saddam and then a pullout. The most devastating mistake we made was to allow them to have their helicopter's(they need them for transportation my ass!!). When i saw some of the Iraqi's on tv being apprehensive toward the U.S troops this time i knew exactly why, they werent gonna try any uprise until they knew damn sure we got Saddam. Thank God we did. :thumbsup:

Powertoad: That was then..... This is now..... Back then Bush Sr. was "obeying" the UN's policies and had to stand by and watch. Fortunately, the combination of the UN showing themselves for what they really are, irrelevant, and President George W. Bush has changed the situation.

Don't you think it's a teeny tad funny that in the week since the devastating display of military prowess by the US and UK that N. Korea is suddenly all chatty with S. Korea and the US/China and Syria is bending over backwards to ensure that they aren't seen to be aiding and abetting the Iraqi regime any more than they already have. I would suggest that it is an affirmation of something I have always believed - The threat of appeasment and prevarication lacks the conviction of the threat of military action and will always be ignored by those who lack the common decency and humanity of others.

Peace through superior firepower!

Military jet noise - The sound of freedom!

Hmmmmm....... Finally, these things are ringing true........ ;)

This war will have the same effect as the first Gulf war, it will convince any country that isn't nuclear yet will do every thing they can to get nukes...its the only ay to keep the US from invading you. After the first Gulf war Pakistan relised this and worked to finish their nuke program, for any other nation out there Russia needs cash I'm sure they will help you out.

bballad: C'mon now...... Let's tell the truth here..... Pakistan's nuclear program is aimed at India because India's nuclear program is aimed at Pakistan. How can we tell this? Quite easy really, if Pakistan or India wanted to launch a missile at the US they would have to put it on a boat and sail it into San Diego harbor before they press the button.

Before you tell me that they would use them defensively within their own borders to stop US aggression think how counter-productive that would be. Firstly, in order to have an effect on the troops on the ground you need to concentrate them in an area. As we just saw in Iraq, we do not concentrate our troops until we reach cities. If you nuke the city to kill the troops you nuke a lot more of your own civilians and make your city un-usable, all for a relatively low gross effect on the enemy.........

OTOH, were hostilities to develop between India and Pakistan they can launch at each other's cities...... Much more profitable......

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tiger Shark
bballad: C'mon now...... Let's tell the truth here..... Pakistan's nuclear program is aimed at India because India's nuclear program is aimed at Pakistan. How can we tell this? Quite easy really, if Pakistan or India wanted to launch a missile at the US they would have to put it on a boat and sail it into San Diego harbor before they press the button.

Before you tell me that they would use them defensively within their own borders to stop US aggression think how counter-productive that would be. Firstly, in order to have an effect on the troops on the ground you need to concentrate them in an area. As we just saw in Iraq, we do not concentrate our troops until we reach cities. If you nuke the city to kill the troops you nuke a lot more of your own civilians and make your city un-usable, all for a relatively low gross effect on the enemy.........

OTOH, were hostilities to develop between India and Pakistan they can launch at each other's cities...... Much more profitable......

---

Umm we concentrated all of our ground forces in northern Kuwait. a relatively small target for a large bomb. We would have never staged their if Iraq had nukes. . infact we would have had to wait for international help if they had true WMD capabilities (all the tanks and troops in the world wont stop one nuke).

As for your first point this is somewhat true but note that after the first gulf war Pakistan started working on long range ballistic missiles including one with a range of ~1000 miles. Given its 6,600 miles to mainland US but that’s plenty of range to hit any staging base to hit Pakistan we have, and much more range then they would need to hit India.

Quote:

---

This war will have the same effect as the first Gulf war, it will convince any country that isn't nuclear yet will do every thing they can to get nukes...its the only ay to keep the US from invading you. After the first Gulf war Pakistan relised this and worked to finish their nuke program, for any other nation out there Russia needs cash I'm sure they will help you out.

---

bballad are you the poster-boy for nuclear proliferation ? This is the second thread in which you have suggested other countries get nuclear weapon's. This is the wrong direction to go in! If a country is democratic and responsible there is no need for nuclear weapon's! The only countries/people that want them at the moment are dictators and terrorist. And by the way we are allowed to have our's under the U.N's very own mandate.