Thread: Why Do People Not Take Iraqs Targeting Of U.S. Aircraft Seriously?

Originally Posted by Dayton3

I'm afraid of a world where the U.S. withdraws from its responsibilities and leaves a huge power vacuum.

Nature abhors a vacuum. If the U.S. doesn't exercise their power on the world stage, then other nations will. Most of which have no interests in protecting U.S. interests.

Foreign Policy magazine did a feature article once on what would happen if the U.S. adopted strictly isolationist policies.

The results were disastrous for the U.S. and the world.

what are these responsibilities?...where is it written that the US is responsible for the world?...by vacuum do mean less imperialism?...who will do all the invading and bombing if the USA doesn't...

as usual you reveal the real reason for USA concerns "US interests", corporate profits, there is no real humanitarian concern for the world that's just the story the USA hides behind to justify economic domination...

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Something like 75% of that force was American.

But either way, the no fly zones were morally the correct thing to do and Saddam Hussein was committing acts of war by violating them

I disagree. This is about enforcement of UN mandates. Since when are we the world's enforcers?

Originally Posted by Dayton3

That kind of post reaks with isolationist sentiment.

Isolationism is another word for loser.

or Isolationist is another word for "peace loving country that minds it's own business"

Originally Posted by Think for myself

I disagree. This is about enforcement of UN mandates. Since when are we the world's enforcers?

Since 1945

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Since 1945

Really? Then why have we not invaded Israel and made sure they are following all of the UN mandates that they have ignored? Do we just pick and chose which ones we like and go from there?

Originally Posted by wyly

or Isolationist is another word for "peace loving country that minds it's own business"

A nation of the size and wealth of the United States doesn't have the option of "minding its own business".

Everything the U.S. does has massive impacts around the world. And vice versa.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Do we just pick and chose which ones we like and go from there?

Of course.

We are not the world cop.

We're more like the world "strong man who has the biggest house and gets involved with helping the neighborhood when he takes a notion to"

Originally Posted by Dayton3

Remember, the U.S. and Britain set up the no fly zones because Saddam Hussein was using helicopters and aircraft to conduct massive air attacks against Iraqi Kurds and Shiites.

Whatever you think of the no fly zones, they were set up to save the lives of Iraqi groups oppressed by the Hussein govt.

A government that loses a war doesn't get to pick and choose the conditions it will agree to.

THe current facts, if you dig in properly, will tell you that; Saddam Hussein was failing. His sons proved incapable and his regime was nearing its end due to the collapsing economy. Just like the US policy of 'wait till he dies' in North Korea, the Iraqi regime was falling apart because of the economic sanctions. So war, despite my dislike of Hussein's political career, was not a very wise move. President Bush didn't suffer, the Iraqis and the American troops suffer.

Secondly, when he was in power, the Iraqis had every right to shoot down any 'hostile' elements they found threatening. Perhaps you aren't aware of the British and American planes actually firing and destroying their military infrastructure or anything they considered to be a threat or chemical weapon. I believe there were so many cases of civilians and their homes being bombed as attempted reprisal that they were in the news every other day. How much compensation are these people given should a kid die due to this? They should at least be given in the millions, if you ask me. It's a human life we're talking here and they aren't even part of the conflict because at that time, there was no declaration of war. So we forget about those who are killed because they are too poor to sue the US?

And on the war itself, this isn't Versailles where the French can bully the Germans into a treaty, these are the times of the Geneva Convention. Everyone is mature enough to understand that just because an administration makes the mistake, everyone in the system cannot be blamed. Apart from Hussein's execution (I always believed, despite his villainous deeds, he should have been shot and not hanged, it was an insult to the Iraqi system - and President Bush, of all people, was asleep...) everything done is in order. America went there not to free Iraq from Hussein but for its' own interests. It isn't their country, and the war was a collosal error in intelligence, amplified with a lack of proper plan or leadership for the post-war period. Right now, at least, things are properly managed as the forces are not invading forces but are officials sanctioned by a legitimate government in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Dayton3

That kind of post reaks with isolationist sentiment.

Isolationism is another word for loser.

Why does it have to be an extreme? Its either all out war or isolationism?

That language needs a rest.

War is another word for last resort. Iraq is a completely different extreme then "No nation building." And soldiers still fighting after Mission Accomplished is just a fake move. So you will have to excuse me if a nation under a no fly zone doesn't do what they are told not being as important as what WE DO.

How dare those Iraqis not living up to our requests!