Should people really be helping the situation in Iraq?

true

Saddam invaded Kuwait with what was then the fourth biggest army in the world. Saddams record of torture and human rights abuses, gassing the Kurds etc has parallels with Hitler : the main difference is one of scale. Bush jnr is finishing off the job that should have been finished at the end of Gulf war 1. The US and UK are not "mine", as you say. The US and UK do care about at least some other nations in the world. The UK has historically been the secend largest contributer to the EC since its foundation. The US helped Germany with the Marshall plan, for example.
Both the US and UK have accepted millions of immigrants from around the world, inc Ireland. Both UK and US put a lot of money in to Ireland, north and south, in many different ways. Its a bit rich for you to say they ( US and UK ) do not care about any other nation in the world. Halkar, you are like a little boy that gets his Christmas presents and then whinges that Santy Claus and his parents never gives anybody anything.

Sand

No one is going to rush to help the coalition in Iraq.

You could argue that this is because of the U.N. fracas and to an extent it is. If only the debate hadnt been so devisive surely the assistance would be pouring in to try and establish a functioning liberal democracy beset by Baathist throwbacks and fundmentalist terrorists. Not. Darfur is still waiting for any meaningful assistance, despite there being little in the way of division over the issues. Again, no one wants to get involved because its bad news.

Basically, in the selfish calculations of self interest it makes sense for nations to claim theyre in favour of peace, love and freedom blah blah. But when push comes to shove its cheaper politically and economically to be less....ambitious. U.N. peacekeeping missions, when they can actually find the troops, are usually based around a core of western military providing technical or other non-combatant support and then 3rd world troops to do the **** work. Nations arent generally inclined to making sacrifices on the behalf of other peoples. Iraq cant be expected to be any different.

From an even more cynical point of view the Iraq situation suits powers like China, Russia and France which are all traditionally suspicious of or hostile to American interests. Theyve managed to isolate the U.S. and several continental European nations to an extent unknown since the 1930s. The U.S. is tied up in Iraq fighting the insurgents there, which limits there ability to intervene elsewhere - rants about invasions of Syria, Iran or North Korea are just plain laughable. And Russia/China have exploited the bad feeling to draw closer to the E.U. states, which is amusing in the Russian case particularly given that Chechnya makes Iraq look like a tea party. Why any of these powers would want to help, or encourage others to help, the Coalition out is a mystery.

American and Britian did have somewhat of a vested interest in getting out there and fighting the germans/japanes.

What was Britains or Frances interest in the German-Polish border? Surely it would have been in their interest to unleash the Germans against the Russians and have to two "evil empires" knocking the 7 shades of crap out of each other, especially seeing as neither was militarily prepared for WW2? Hell, they could fuel their flagging economies by churning out supplies to either side.

And what was the American interest in the Germans? They could never seriously threaten the continental U.S? Surely theyd have been better off reaching some sort of accomadation with Hitler - I mean they found one with Stalin afterall? The Japanese, I agree was a different case - the Pacific was big enough for only one "sphere of influence" and a clash between the U.S. and exspansionist Japan was inevitable. But again, the Americans agreed that the Germans should be made the priority and the Japanese to be dealt with afterwards. Weird.

While convenently forgetting that the only foreign force that has oppressed the people of this island is the very force (britian) he says we now owe a debt!

Well, we do. If not for the British Armed Forces - which included many Irish volunteers as well, the traitors - and indeed the stubborness of Churchill (I dont like the man, and I think he was overrated but he got one thing right, appeasement leads to disaster) when Britain stood practically alone against the Nazis after the fall of France, then the prospects for liberal democracy in any corner of Europe today would be very, very dim.

Redleslie2

Please mods, for the love of the gods, make the schoolboy historians stop and sort of put the thread back on topic.

halkar

true wrote:

Saddams record of torture and human rights abuses, gassing the Kurds etc has parallels with Hitler : the main difference is one of scale. Bush jnr is finishing off the job that should have been finished at the end of Gulf war 1. .

Sounds like what is US doing right now. What a way to finish a job.

The US and UK do care about at least some other nations in the world. The UK has historically been the secend largest contributer to the EC since its foundation. The US helped Germany with the Marshall plan, for example.

Are we in the same planet? They wouldn't give a $hit about any nation unless it benefits them.

Both the US and UK have accepted millions of immigrants from around the world, inc Ireland.

Can you tell me how many Kurdish people they took while Saddam was driving them out of Iraq and gassing? Can you tell me how many people from Sudan or Africa US taking a year. Are they taking anyone from Iraq after destroying their homes and lives?

Halkar, you are like a little boy that gets his Christmas presents and then whinges that Santy Claus and his parents never gives anybody anything.

nevermind! have a nice year

true

Have a nice year yourself, Halkar. I recommend you travel to the middle east some time, and read a bit of current affairs / learn some facts about the middle east.

true

Sand wrote:

If not for the British Armed Forces - which included many Irish volunteers as well, the traitors - and indeed the stubborness of Churchill (I dont like the man, and I think he was overrated but he got one thing right, appeasement leads to disaster) when Britain stood practically alone against the Nazis after the fall of France, then the prospects for liberal democracy in any corner of Europe today would be very, very dim.

Your statement is correct Sand, except I think your reference to the 50,000 or so brave men and women from all classes and creeds who left these shores to fight Nazism should not be described as traitors. Many of them died so that you and I may live in peace and prosperity. They were anything but traitors.

Moriarty

I think you'll find the sarcasam level was increased for parts of Sand's post, for the benefit of our 'ra supporting fellow posters.