Iraq . . . Decisions
And you don't think that article is a little one sided? Yeah we made mistakes. But I don't think some shit we did back in WWII era should be used to say that we want to commit genocide and wipe out swaths of people. Its the psycho terrorists who flew planes into our buildings that said they want to kill all americans. You may be content with sitting around and not doing anything until we get nuked or hit with biological weapons.. but if its obvious someone has both the means to harm us, and the intent to harm us then we should hit them first.
Eheh, Nazruth, that article is what makes the Internet so great isn't it? Nowadays anyone can disseminate their ideas to the whole world without being rich or powerful. Of course I have to admit that when I see articles with big loud-colored headlines spouting stuff about "the U.S. Corporate Mafia Government" I usually tend to take whats said with a grain of salt. But thats just me. I'm sure whoever writes that stuff has plenty of loyal readers... hidden in lonely Nebraska wilderness shacks... 
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rylan:
And you don't think that article is a little one sided?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Without a doubt. But the propaganda spread by the US government is little one sided as well, don't you think? This was especially apparent yesterday when the ex UN weapons instructor gave a very contradicting report on the state of Iraq's military capability.
So when is your government going to own up to those mistakes? When are you going to do anything to compensate the lives of millions of innocent civilians in the Sout East Asia and Middle East whose lives you have destroyed?
The war between Iran and Iraq was fought from 1980 to 1988, hardly a "WWII era" as you put it. The Riegle report confirms that the United States exported Class III biological pathogens to Iraq throughout that period (confirmed by the Center of Disease Control, CDC). The first claim of Iraq using chemical weapons against Iran were made in 1980. The first confirmed use of chemical weapons (according to SIPRI report) in Iran-Iraq war was in 1984 (coincidentally, both the CDC and the US principal supplier of the biological material do not have any records available that predates this date, CDC claims they did not keep track of exports before this date -- but I digress.)
You exported the material to Iraq with the full knowledge that they were using chemical and biological weapons against Iran. Hell, you were counting on it. You did want to "wipe out swaths of people" -- in this case a swath of Iranians who were following an "evil" religious leader.
And besides, it was just a bunch of towel heads gassing each other to death in Middle East, so who gives a fuck, right? You did not seem to have any qualms over it during the 80's. American hypocricy at its finest...
And your government was instrumental in creating these psycho terrorists. To fight both the "evil" islamic religion and the "evil" communist ideals.
You will never remove terrorism by bombing. The only way you can change the situation today is to admit to the atrocities you have committed in the Middle East and SE Asia regions and try to rectify those mistakes (and that does not mean more bombs). Until you do that, there will always be a segment of people (ordinary citizens) that a malicious person such as Saddam Hussein can leverage to get into the position of power.
/Naz
And you don't think that article is a little one sided?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Without a doubt. But the propaganda spread by the US government is little one sided as well, don't you think? This was especially apparent yesterday when the ex UN weapons instructor gave a very contradicting report on the state of Iraq's military capability.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Yeah we made mistakes.</font>
So when is your government going to own up to those mistakes? When are you going to do anything to compensate the lives of millions of innocent civilians in the Sout East Asia and Middle East whose lives you have destroyed?
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">But I don't think some shit we did back in WWII era should be used to say that we want to commit genocide and wipe out swaths of people. </font>
The war between Iran and Iraq was fought from 1980 to 1988, hardly a "WWII era" as you put it. The Riegle report confirms that the United States exported Class III biological pathogens to Iraq throughout that period (confirmed by the Center of Disease Control, CDC). The first claim of Iraq using chemical weapons against Iran were made in 1980. The first confirmed use of chemical weapons (according to SIPRI report) in Iran-Iraq war was in 1984 (coincidentally, both the CDC and the US principal supplier of the biological material do not have any records available that predates this date, CDC claims they did not keep track of exports before this date -- but I digress.)
You exported the material to Iraq with the full knowledge that they were using chemical and biological weapons against Iran. Hell, you were counting on it. You did want to "wipe out swaths of people" -- in this case a swath of Iranians who were following an "evil" religious leader.
And besides, it was just a bunch of towel heads gassing each other to death in Middle East, so who gives a fuck, right? You did not seem to have any qualms over it during the 80's. American hypocricy at its finest...
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Its the psycho terrorists who flew planes into our buildings that said they want to kill all americans.</font>
And your government was instrumental in creating these psycho terrorists. To fight both the "evil" islamic religion and the "evil" communist ideals.
You will never remove terrorism by bombing. The only way you can change the situation today is to admit to the atrocities you have committed in the Middle East and SE Asia regions and try to rectify those mistakes (and that does not mean more bombs). Until you do that, there will always be a segment of people (ordinary citizens) that a malicious person such as Saddam Hussein can leverage to get into the position of power.
/Naz
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>Eheh, Nazruth, that article is what makes the Internet so great isn't it? Nowadays anyone can disseminate their ideas to the whole world without being rich or powerful. Of course I have to admit that when I see articles with big loud-colored headlines spouting stuff about "the U.S. Corporate Mafia Government" I usually tend to take whats said with a grain of salt. But thats just me. I'm sure whoever writes that stuff has plenty of loyal readers... hidden in lonely Nebraska wilderness shacks...
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, you are certainly not acting unlike most american people -- closing your eyes from the facts and pretending they do not exist. I guess you have difficult time believeing the reports coming from your own Senate that were quoted on that page (The senate reports are available on the Internet for you to read. But then I guess you cannot be bothered to find out these facts yourself, right? It cannot possibly be true, because your country and government represents all that is good and right in the world, no?) Or maybe you think the senate reports are lying too? Maybe they were fabricated? Maybe the fact you exported the materials needed for biological and chemical warfare to Iraq is all a big lie? Maybe the biohazardous material that was gotten from Iraq in 1991 was never tracked back to the US? Maybe the CDC is lying as well?
And then you act all surprised when something like 9/11 happens and wonder how anyone can dislike you so much? All you want to do is good things for all people around the globe, right? You were never out there to oppress the people of Middle East right? Just as long as they do exactly as you tell them, and do not try to take advantage of the natural richnesses they possess, you can all be buddies, right? But as soon as they try to get a share of those natural resources to themselves (which is their right) you will make sure that the maniac next door (who you helped to get in power) has a sufficient supply of chemicals and nasty germs to frag their ass.
So please drop the "we are innocent" act, it is getting fucking tiresome.
a) It only serves to remind people what hypocrits you are.
b) Nobody is buying it (except a bunch of americans with severe gaps in knowledge what their country has been doing in South America, Asia and Middle East in the past decades).
/Naz
<B>Eheh, Nazruth, that article is what makes the Internet so great isn't it? Nowadays anyone can disseminate their ideas to the whole world without being rich or powerful. Of course I have to admit that when I see articles with big loud-colored headlines spouting stuff about "the U.S. Corporate Mafia Government" I usually tend to take whats said with a grain of salt. But thats just me. I'm sure whoever writes that stuff has plenty of loyal readers... hidden in lonely Nebraska wilderness shacks...
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, you are certainly not acting unlike most american people -- closing your eyes from the facts and pretending they do not exist. I guess you have difficult time believeing the reports coming from your own Senate that were quoted on that page (The senate reports are available on the Internet for you to read. But then I guess you cannot be bothered to find out these facts yourself, right? It cannot possibly be true, because your country and government represents all that is good and right in the world, no?) Or maybe you think the senate reports are lying too? Maybe they were fabricated? Maybe the fact you exported the materials needed for biological and chemical warfare to Iraq is all a big lie? Maybe the biohazardous material that was gotten from Iraq in 1991 was never tracked back to the US? Maybe the CDC is lying as well?
And then you act all surprised when something like 9/11 happens and wonder how anyone can dislike you so much? All you want to do is good things for all people around the globe, right? You were never out there to oppress the people of Middle East right? Just as long as they do exactly as you tell them, and do not try to take advantage of the natural richnesses they possess, you can all be buddies, right? But as soon as they try to get a share of those natural resources to themselves (which is their right) you will make sure that the maniac next door (who you helped to get in power) has a sufficient supply of chemicals and nasty germs to frag their ass.
So please drop the "we are innocent" act, it is getting fucking tiresome.
a) It only serves to remind people what hypocrits you are.
b) Nobody is buying it (except a bunch of americans with severe gaps in knowledge what their country has been doing in South America, Asia and Middle East in the past decades).
/Naz
<B>
So please drop the "we are innocent" act, it is getting fucking tiresome.
/Naz
</B>
we could easily say the same thing. i am sick of being told how evil americans are. at this point, i will drop any false niceties, and come out with how i feel at the moment.
shut the f. up. quit saying 'you americans' and then pretending that its an insult when we generalize other nationalities.
as far as i am concerned, i am sick of the countries squabbling over their 'religious' differences. are you childish enough to expect us to believe that the wars over there will stop if america owns up and says we are bad, we are sorry? do you really? because i certainly doubt anyone else believes that. as a matter of fact, i think that if we admitted to all the things that you conspiratists want us to admit to, the next thing out of your 'leaders' mouths would be 'oh, and another thing.'
bombing won't settle this you say? well, i certainly hope we will see about that soon enough. when american military moves out and wipes out a few hundred thousand lunatics, maybe the world will be a better place.
i'll certainly confess to that.
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
So please drop the "we are innocent" act, it is getting fucking tiresome.
/Naz
</B>
we could easily say the same thing. i am sick of being told how evil americans are. at this point, i will drop any false niceties, and come out with how i feel at the moment.
shut the f. up. quit saying 'you americans' and then pretending that its an insult when we generalize other nationalities.
as far as i am concerned, i am sick of the countries squabbling over their 'religious' differences. are you childish enough to expect us to believe that the wars over there will stop if america owns up and says we are bad, we are sorry? do you really? because i certainly doubt anyone else believes that. as a matter of fact, i think that if we admitted to all the things that you conspiratists want us to admit to, the next thing out of your 'leaders' mouths would be 'oh, and another thing.'
bombing won't settle this you say? well, i certainly hope we will see about that soon enough. when american military moves out and wipes out a few hundred thousand lunatics, maybe the world will be a better place.
i'll certainly confess to that.
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
OMG Nazruth just whooped the Corth camp of the battle... hi5.
There IS something fishy when the rest of the world thinks you're a hypocrit, whether you believe it or not. The worst thing to do is to remain adamant in your conviction that you are 'the beacon of all that is good and just in this world' and believe you are flawless, because others will only sneer more.
There IS something fishy when the rest of the world thinks you're a hypocrit, whether you believe it or not. The worst thing to do is to remain adamant in your conviction that you are 'the beacon of all that is good and just in this world' and believe you are flawless, because others will only sneer more.
I don't think you'll see our government admit to their mistakes, because then other countries will just want the same thing they always do... more money from my paycheck. I've gotten a little tired of my country being blamed for all these problems around the world, and I think its about time we stopped giving money to some of these 3rd world dictatorships, since the money never goes to who it is intended for.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if other countries started started getting planes flown into their buildings and terrorists wanting to kill every one of their citizens, that their attitudes would change.
[This message has been edited by rylan (edited 09-09-2002).]
I have a sneaking suspicion that if other countries started started getting planes flown into their buildings and terrorists wanting to kill every one of their citizens, that their attitudes would change.
[This message has been edited by rylan (edited 09-09-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
<B>OMG Nazruth just whooped the Corth camp of the battle... hi5.
There IS something fishy when the rest of the world thinks you're a hypocrit, whether you believe it or not. The worst thing to do is to remain adamant in your conviction that you are 'the beacon of all that is good and just in this world' and believe you are flawless, because others will only sneer more.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cherzra, while I do not intend to contradict your post . . . there seems to be a flip side of the coin. If these people lay all their problems at the feet of Americans . . perhaps there is something that THEY are not sharing or telling about. To blame America for something that had gone on for centuries before America stepped in seems highly ridiculous.
Also, Americans do NOT believe we are the beacon of anything. We know damn well what we are. We are lazy, spoiled, and rich. We are also damn proud of it. If anyone calls us a 'beacon of all that is good and just in this world,' then it is not because WE said so, but because someone else wanted us to take the role.
I pinky-swear to you - as an American, I hate most of the rest of the world. Not all, but a lot. I classify a lot of the world in the same group I put welfare mothers who continue having kids to get more food stamps. It wouldn't bother me if they fell off the earth yesterday. To assume that we, as Americans, want to influence/control/support these other countries is a belief that your media has obviously worked very hard to supplant.
If someone told me tomorrow that America said "F the world - no more support, no more foreign military bases, no more taking anything from anyone." I'd tap a keg and invite the whole damn mud. All we want from the rest of the world is for it to shut up, grow up, and stop asking us for money.
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
<B>OMG Nazruth just whooped the Corth camp of the battle... hi5.
There IS something fishy when the rest of the world thinks you're a hypocrit, whether you believe it or not. The worst thing to do is to remain adamant in your conviction that you are 'the beacon of all that is good and just in this world' and believe you are flawless, because others will only sneer more.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cherzra, while I do not intend to contradict your post . . . there seems to be a flip side of the coin. If these people lay all their problems at the feet of Americans . . perhaps there is something that THEY are not sharing or telling about. To blame America for something that had gone on for centuries before America stepped in seems highly ridiculous.
Also, Americans do NOT believe we are the beacon of anything. We know damn well what we are. We are lazy, spoiled, and rich. We are also damn proud of it. If anyone calls us a 'beacon of all that is good and just in this world,' then it is not because WE said so, but because someone else wanted us to take the role.
I pinky-swear to you - as an American, I hate most of the rest of the world. Not all, but a lot. I classify a lot of the world in the same group I put welfare mothers who continue having kids to get more food stamps. It wouldn't bother me if they fell off the earth yesterday. To assume that we, as Americans, want to influence/control/support these other countries is a belief that your media has obviously worked very hard to supplant.
If someone told me tomorrow that America said "F the world - no more support, no more foreign military bases, no more taking anything from anyone." I'd tap a keg and invite the whole damn mud. All we want from the rest of the world is for it to shut up, grow up, and stop asking us for money.
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
at this point, i will drop any false niceties, and come out with how i feel at the moment.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So again you are saying you will close your eyes from the facts and pretend they do not exist. You will justify this to yourself by creating explanations that are not based on facts.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
if we admitted to all the things that you conspiratists want us to admit to
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is not a conspiracy theory that the biological and chemical warfare technology in Iraq comes from the US. It is also not a conspiracy theory that the US backed Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. These are well documented facts. They were rationalized by the time and even later after the Gulf War by saying that officially Iraq was not a "hostile" country at the time (where as Iran was) and that the laws did not explicitly prohibit these types of actions at the time.
But maybe that is just too much for you to digest.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B> when american military moves out and wipes out a few hundred thousand lunatics, maybe the world will be a better place.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, because they gathered all the few hundred thousands lunatics all around the world, packed them up in a Iraq Airways plane and flew them in the middle of Bagdad where they now are having a picnic waiting for your military to move in and wipe them out. Now, who is being naive here?
/Naz
at this point, i will drop any false niceties, and come out with how i feel at the moment.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So again you are saying you will close your eyes from the facts and pretend they do not exist. You will justify this to yourself by creating explanations that are not based on facts.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
if we admitted to all the things that you conspiratists want us to admit to
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is not a conspiracy theory that the biological and chemical warfare technology in Iraq comes from the US. It is also not a conspiracy theory that the US backed Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. These are well documented facts. They were rationalized by the time and even later after the Gulf War by saying that officially Iraq was not a "hostile" country at the time (where as Iran was) and that the laws did not explicitly prohibit these types of actions at the time.
But maybe that is just too much for you to digest.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B> when american military moves out and wipes out a few hundred thousand lunatics, maybe the world will be a better place.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, because they gathered all the few hundred thousands lunatics all around the world, packed them up in a Iraq Airways plane and flew them in the middle of Bagdad where they now are having a picnic waiting for your military to move in and wipe them out. Now, who is being naive here?
/Naz
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rylan:
<B>I don't think you'll see our government admit to their mistakes, because then other countries will just want the same thing they always do... more money from my paycheck.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which they deserve, considering what you have done to them.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
I've gotten a little tired of my country being blamed for all these problems around the world,
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please do not dismiss the problem by saying you are always blamed for all the problems in the world. The case of Middle East, the events that lead to the Islamic Revolution in Teheran in 1979 and the events after that are very specific cases where the United States played a specific role. You were there, you committed acts that you today use as an excuse to attack others, and you do deserve to be blamed for those actions.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
I have a sneaking suspicion that if other countries started started getting planes flown into their buildings and terrorists wanting to kill every one of their citizens, that their attitudes would change.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're only "sneaking" around the real question here which is why is it that there is so much distrust of the United States in this region? What has caused it? People did not just wake up one day and decide to start hating the United States. You have been influental in the region ever since the WWII with an aim to protect the almighty buck at all costs (including the cost of lives of thousands and thousands of innocent people).
Until you admit to what has happend in the past few decades, you cannot hope to be able to solve the problem, and you will not be able to fully comprehend why is it that they want to aim the planes at your buildings.
/Naz
<B>I don't think you'll see our government admit to their mistakes, because then other countries will just want the same thing they always do... more money from my paycheck.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which they deserve, considering what you have done to them.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
I've gotten a little tired of my country being blamed for all these problems around the world,
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please do not dismiss the problem by saying you are always blamed for all the problems in the world. The case of Middle East, the events that lead to the Islamic Revolution in Teheran in 1979 and the events after that are very specific cases where the United States played a specific role. You were there, you committed acts that you today use as an excuse to attack others, and you do deserve to be blamed for those actions.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
I have a sneaking suspicion that if other countries started started getting planes flown into their buildings and terrorists wanting to kill every one of their citizens, that their attitudes would change.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're only "sneaking" around the real question here which is why is it that there is so much distrust of the United States in this region? What has caused it? People did not just wake up one day and decide to start hating the United States. You have been influental in the region ever since the WWII with an aim to protect the almighty buck at all costs (including the cost of lives of thousands and thousands of innocent people).
Until you admit to what has happend in the past few decades, you cannot hope to be able to solve the problem, and you will not be able to fully comprehend why is it that they want to aim the planes at your buildings.
/Naz
Nazruth,
Don't you think by getting the UN weapons inspectors into Iraq, or at least attemping to, is an attempt to correct the mistake of giving them chemical weapons in the first place? Don't you think that preparing to go to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power is another attempt to correct a wrong doing from the past?
Democracy is slow. It's often two steps forward, one step back. I do believe that our government is 'better' than it was in the 70's and 80's. We cannot be blamed for the faults of our forefathers, we can only try to correct them.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
Don't you think by getting the UN weapons inspectors into Iraq, or at least attemping to, is an attempt to correct the mistake of giving them chemical weapons in the first place? Don't you think that preparing to go to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power is another attempt to correct a wrong doing from the past?
Democracy is slow. It's often two steps forward, one step back. I do believe that our government is 'better' than it was in the 70's and 80's. We cannot be blamed for the faults of our forefathers, we can only try to correct them.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
Oh the hundreds of links one gets when searching for +american +hypocrisy!
Note that all articles express the opinion of their authors, not mine!
hypocrisy in dealing with the UN and middle east http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/60P4.htm
hypocrisy in the war on drugs http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomDrugs.html
hypocrisy in dealing with Afghanistan http://www.marxist.com/Asia/afghanistan_Zayar901.html
killing civilians to say killing civilans is wrong http://www.awitness.org/news/november_2001/hypocrisy_american_patriotism.html
anglo-american hypcrisy in the middle east http://www.middleeast.org/archives/02-13-98.htm
american state terrorism http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/
the colder war http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11574035&method=full
Note that all articles express the opinion of their authors, not mine!
hypocrisy in dealing with the UN and middle east http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/60P4.htm
hypocrisy in the war on drugs http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomDrugs.html
hypocrisy in dealing with Afghanistan http://www.marxist.com/Asia/afghanistan_Zayar901.html
killing civilians to say killing civilans is wrong http://www.awitness.org/news/november_2001/hypocrisy_american_patriotism.html
anglo-american hypcrisy in the middle east http://www.middleeast.org/archives/02-13-98.htm
american state terrorism http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/
the colder war http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11574035&method=full
Roll..
Thought we already had the US v. the rest of the world debate...
I guess jealousy is a very powerful emotion.
I'm gonna stop being hypocritical now and go read Nazruth's article about the American corporate mafia government again and again until i believe it...
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Thought we already had the US v. the rest of the world debate...
I guess jealousy is a very powerful emotion.
I'm gonna stop being hypocritical now and go read Nazruth's article about the American corporate mafia government again and again until i believe it...
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Rausrh:
<B>Don't you think by getting the UN weapons inspectors into Iraq, or at least attemping to, is an attempt to correct the mistake of giving them chemical weapons in the first place?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is, and I support any such policy. However, it seems this is the policy of the European Union and the United Nations but not the policy of the United States. The United States government with the lead of George W. Bush is very keen on honoring the 9/11 by attacking Iraq according to the latest news reports. To the United States restoring the weapons inspectors is not enough. They want a full out war.
I do not agree with a policy where correcting ones own mistakes leads to more loss of human life.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Don't you think that preparing to go to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power is another attempt to correct a wrong doing from the past?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No I do not. Having the weapons inspectors return to Iraq is not in any way comparable to waging a war with a country.
You will not be able to go to war against Saddam Hussein himself. You will not be able to walk into Bagdad and throw him out. You will have to fight your way in. You will have to kill people whose only choice in this situation is to either get shot by their own officers, or get shot by you.
You should remember that the war against Iraq in 1991, and especially the shift of military power in the region that followed afterwards was the spark for one Osama Bin Laden to start his deranged war against US. Ten years later this lead to the death of approximately 2900 people in New York. And now you want to go and make more war in the same region again? Because you think it is a solution to something?
You are doing nothing but continuing the vicious circle, you're like a mouse in a running wheel thinking you can beat the wheel if you run a little faster. But the only way to beat the wheel is to step out of it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B> I do believe that our government is 'better' than it was in the 70's and 80's.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry but the rhetoric from your government does not support this claim. You quickly label a nation, such as Iran, to belong to an "axis of evil" even today. Did you ever stop and ask what have the people of Iran ever done to you? What did they ever do so bad that justified the export of chemical and biological weapons to be used against them? What have they ever done so bad that justifices you calling them "evil" even today?
You say you cannot be blamed, yet you are blaming others at the same time. Oh, I believe there's a word that described that behaviour.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
We cannot be blamed for the faults of our forefathers
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh please. This was only 20 years ago. You cannot brush it off by saying it was the fault of your "forefathers". This is very much an issue with you as a nation today. The people who were influental and involved in politics in the 1980's are still involved and influental today. Take Donald Rumsfeld for example, he was part of Reagan's Administration in the 80's, he was Reagan's special envoy to middle east and we still see him today on TV explaining the reasons why you should go to war in middle east today.
I don't see anything changing here. It is much the same people, it is much the same kind of politics that landed you in trouble before. And the wheel keeps on turning. Another strike, another counter strike.
/Naz
<B>Don't you think by getting the UN weapons inspectors into Iraq, or at least attemping to, is an attempt to correct the mistake of giving them chemical weapons in the first place?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is, and I support any such policy. However, it seems this is the policy of the European Union and the United Nations but not the policy of the United States. The United States government with the lead of George W. Bush is very keen on honoring the 9/11 by attacking Iraq according to the latest news reports. To the United States restoring the weapons inspectors is not enough. They want a full out war.
I do not agree with a policy where correcting ones own mistakes leads to more loss of human life.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Don't you think that preparing to go to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power is another attempt to correct a wrong doing from the past?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No I do not. Having the weapons inspectors return to Iraq is not in any way comparable to waging a war with a country.
You will not be able to go to war against Saddam Hussein himself. You will not be able to walk into Bagdad and throw him out. You will have to fight your way in. You will have to kill people whose only choice in this situation is to either get shot by their own officers, or get shot by you.
You should remember that the war against Iraq in 1991, and especially the shift of military power in the region that followed afterwards was the spark for one Osama Bin Laden to start his deranged war against US. Ten years later this lead to the death of approximately 2900 people in New York. And now you want to go and make more war in the same region again? Because you think it is a solution to something?
You are doing nothing but continuing the vicious circle, you're like a mouse in a running wheel thinking you can beat the wheel if you run a little faster. But the only way to beat the wheel is to step out of it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B> I do believe that our government is 'better' than it was in the 70's and 80's.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry but the rhetoric from your government does not support this claim. You quickly label a nation, such as Iran, to belong to an "axis of evil" even today. Did you ever stop and ask what have the people of Iran ever done to you? What did they ever do so bad that justified the export of chemical and biological weapons to be used against them? What have they ever done so bad that justifices you calling them "evil" even today?
You say you cannot be blamed, yet you are blaming others at the same time. Oh, I believe there's a word that described that behaviour.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
We cannot be blamed for the faults of our forefathers
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh please. This was only 20 years ago. You cannot brush it off by saying it was the fault of your "forefathers". This is very much an issue with you as a nation today. The people who were influental and involved in politics in the 1980's are still involved and influental today. Take Donald Rumsfeld for example, he was part of Reagan's Administration in the 80's, he was Reagan's special envoy to middle east and we still see him today on TV explaining the reasons why you should go to war in middle east today.
I don't see anything changing here. It is much the same people, it is much the same kind of politics that landed you in trouble before. And the wheel keeps on turning. Another strike, another counter strike.
/Naz
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tesil2:
Oh the hundreds of links one gets when searching for +stupid +eurotrash! Enjoy.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Same old shit you always post. Nothing but inflammatory one line nonsense. I can't wait until the day some god decides they've read enough of your nonsense flames. Toddler.
Oh the hundreds of links one gets when searching for +stupid +eurotrash! Enjoy.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Same old shit you always post. Nothing but inflammatory one line nonsense. I can't wait until the day some god decides they've read enough of your nonsense flames. Toddler.
"To the United States restoring the weapons inspectors is not enough. They want a full out war. "
The United States is not of a single mind. Some people want war. Some people want sanctions, Some people want the Smurfs to return to Saturday morning cartoons.
I believe that leaving Saddam Hussein in a position of power will result in more people of the world dieing by violence than would occur by removing him by force.
"You quickly label a nation, such as Iran, to belong to an "axis of evil" even today. Did you ever stop and ask what have the people of Iran ever done to you? What did they ever do so bad that justified the export of chemical and biological weapons to be used against them? What have they ever done so bad that justifies you calling them "evil" even today?"
I have never labeled any nation, Iran or otherwise to belong to an "axis of evil". I have never asked what the people of Iran have done to me any more than a person in Iran asking themselves what Rausrh in the middle of the cow country in Wisconsin has done to them.
"You say you cannot be blamed, yet you are blaming others at the same time. "
Person A does something.
Person B is blamed.
Person B says 'I am not to blame, it is person A's fault.'
What word is that?
Since I can't seem to find Donald Rumsfeld on my speed dial, the only way I can change my government is to vote and write my congress rep. Because I have only been able to vote for the last 8 years, I will not be held accountable for decisions made before 1/23/1994. For some reason when I wrote my congressman in kindergarten I didn't change foreign policy much. All I can do about the past now is try to get my government to fix the mistakes they can, and avoid making them in the future.
What would you have me do? At least running on the wheel I'm getting my exercise.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
The United States is not of a single mind. Some people want war. Some people want sanctions, Some people want the Smurfs to return to Saturday morning cartoons.
I believe that leaving Saddam Hussein in a position of power will result in more people of the world dieing by violence than would occur by removing him by force.
"You quickly label a nation, such as Iran, to belong to an "axis of evil" even today. Did you ever stop and ask what have the people of Iran ever done to you? What did they ever do so bad that justified the export of chemical and biological weapons to be used against them? What have they ever done so bad that justifies you calling them "evil" even today?"
I have never labeled any nation, Iran or otherwise to belong to an "axis of evil". I have never asked what the people of Iran have done to me any more than a person in Iran asking themselves what Rausrh in the middle of the cow country in Wisconsin has done to them.
"You say you cannot be blamed, yet you are blaming others at the same time. "
Person A does something.
Person B is blamed.
Person B says 'I am not to blame, it is person A's fault.'
What word is that?
Since I can't seem to find Donald Rumsfeld on my speed dial, the only way I can change my government is to vote and write my congress rep. Because I have only been able to vote for the last 8 years, I will not be held accountable for decisions made before 1/23/1994. For some reason when I wrote my congressman in kindergarten I didn't change foreign policy much. All I can do about the past now is try to get my government to fix the mistakes they can, and avoid making them in the future.
What would you have me do? At least running on the wheel I'm getting my exercise.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
Same old shit you always post. Nothing but inflammatory one line nonsense. I can't wait until the day some god decides they've read enough of your nonsense flames. Toddler.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This was a statement of FACT...I knew you would cry and say it was a "flame".
Who was the one that lost an arguement and then signed up the person who owned him to a slew of mailing lists? And you're calling me a toddler? Get a life.
Same old shit you always post. Nothing but inflammatory one line nonsense. I can't wait until the day some god decides they've read enough of your nonsense flames. Toddler.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This was a statement of FACT...I knew you would cry and say it was a "flame".
Who was the one that lost an arguement and then signed up the person who owned him to a slew of mailing lists? And you're calling me a toddler? Get a life.
Lets review this exchange between cherzra and tesil..
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cherzra
Oh the hundreds of links one gets when searching for +american +hypocrisy!</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tesil's response:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tesil
Oh the hundreds of links one gets when searching for +stupid +eurotrash! Enjoy. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cherzra's response:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
Same old shit you always post. Nothing but inflammatory one line nonsense. I can't wait until the day some god decides they've read enough of your nonsense flames. Toddler.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess generalizing that Europeans are stupid is more inflammatory than generalizing that americans are hypocritical...
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 09-09-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Cherzra
Oh the hundreds of links one gets when searching for +american +hypocrisy!</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tesil's response:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tesil
Oh the hundreds of links one gets when searching for +stupid +eurotrash! Enjoy. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cherzra's response:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
Same old shit you always post. Nothing but inflammatory one line nonsense. I can't wait until the day some god decides they've read enough of your nonsense flames. Toddler.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess generalizing that Europeans are stupid is more inflammatory than generalizing that americans are hypocritical...
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 09-09-2002).]
Btw, just how infallabile are these weapons inspectors? The entire civilized world including Naz wants the inspectors back in Iraq, presumably because they fear that Hussein will get nuclear weapons. I want to hear someone tell me that these inspections will guarranty that Hussein will not obtain weapons of mass destruction. Can we be assured Hussein will be neutered if the inspections begin again?
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>Originally posted by Rausrh:
The United States is not of a single mind. Some people want war. Some people want sanctions.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Umm.. ok. Of course it is not. Not all people in Iraq think its ok to gas other people either.
But since you wanted to play it this way...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
I believe that leaving Saddam Hussein in a position of power will result in more people of the world dieing by violence than would occur by removing him by force.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
... then why don't you write down a list of names of the individuals you believe are acceptable collateral damage in the possible scenario where you do go and try to take Saddam out?
Remember, Iraq is not of a single mind.
/Naz
The United States is not of a single mind. Some people want war. Some people want sanctions.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Umm.. ok. Of course it is not. Not all people in Iraq think its ok to gas other people either.
But since you wanted to play it this way...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
I believe that leaving Saddam Hussein in a position of power will result in more people of the world dieing by violence than would occur by removing him by force.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
... then why don't you write down a list of names of the individuals you believe are acceptable collateral damage in the possible scenario where you do go and try to take Saddam out?
Remember, Iraq is not of a single mind.
/Naz
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>Btw, just how infallabile are these weapons inspectors? The entire civilized world including Naz wants the inspectors back in Iraq, presumably because they fear that Hussein will get nuclear weapons. I want to hear someone tell me that these inspections will guarranty that Hussein will not obtain weapons of mass destruction. Can we be assured Hussein will be neutered if the inspections begin again?
Corth
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I love how everyone says that the inspectors should return....tell me why? They were there for 7 years and couldn't do their jobs because Hussein interfered every chance he got...and blocked inspectors from sites till he was able to move out eq and info that he wanted to keep.
Renewed inspections will not guarantee anything....except more of the same. If Hussein had nothing to hide the inspectors would already be back there. Even if they do go back and find nothing....that doesn't mean there isn't anything left.....Hussein has had years to hide stuff very well.
And do you think he will use nuclear weapons when he has the capability to do so...of course he will...so does he need to go...absolutely...you would have to be pretty slow on the uptake to think otherwise.
Will people die if we decide to get rid of Hussein using our military....of course they will....will innocents die...in war...they always do. But, would you rather do nothing...let Hussein get nuclear capability and then kill millions....then be retaliated against and millions more die?
A lot of opions are flying here.....but I don't see anyone coming up with a solution to the problem....
<B>Btw, just how infallabile are these weapons inspectors? The entire civilized world including Naz wants the inspectors back in Iraq, presumably because they fear that Hussein will get nuclear weapons. I want to hear someone tell me that these inspections will guarranty that Hussein will not obtain weapons of mass destruction. Can we be assured Hussein will be neutered if the inspections begin again?
Corth
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I love how everyone says that the inspectors should return....tell me why? They were there for 7 years and couldn't do their jobs because Hussein interfered every chance he got...and blocked inspectors from sites till he was able to move out eq and info that he wanted to keep.
Renewed inspections will not guarantee anything....except more of the same. If Hussein had nothing to hide the inspectors would already be back there. Even if they do go back and find nothing....that doesn't mean there isn't anything left.....Hussein has had years to hide stuff very well.
And do you think he will use nuclear weapons when he has the capability to do so...of course he will...so does he need to go...absolutely...you would have to be pretty slow on the uptake to think otherwise.
Will people die if we decide to get rid of Hussein using our military....of course they will....will innocents die...in war...they always do. But, would you rather do nothing...let Hussein get nuclear capability and then kill millions....then be retaliated against and millions more die?
A lot of opions are flying here.....but I don't see anyone coming up with a solution to the problem....
If anyone actually believes weapon inspectors would be of any practical use, then I want some of what they're smoking. While it sounds like a nice idea, it will unfortunately end up being the same 'dog and pony show' that it was towards the end of when Iraq used to allow inspectors in. They couldn't have unplanned inspections, and they were only shown to certain areas and buildings which.. surprise surprise.. were totally clean of anything suspicious.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rylan:
If anyone actually believes weapon inspectors would be of any practical use, then I want some of what they're smoking. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe you should go ask Scott Ritter what brand he is smoking then.
Also the Center for Defense Information states in its recent May article:
"True, the UNSCOM inspections in the 1990swere constantly plagued by Iraqi concealment, deception, lies and threats, but the inspectors learned a lot, found a lot and destroyed a lot. The effort was worth it in the end."
These guys must be smoking some serious shit.
/Naz
[This message has been edited by Nazruth (edited 09-09-2002).]
If anyone actually believes weapon inspectors would be of any practical use, then I want some of what they're smoking. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe you should go ask Scott Ritter what brand he is smoking then.
Also the Center for Defense Information states in its recent May article:
"True, the UNSCOM inspections in the 1990swere constantly plagued by Iraqi concealment, deception, lies and threats, but the inspectors learned a lot, found a lot and destroyed a lot. The effort was worth it in the end."
These guys must be smoking some serious shit.
/Naz
[This message has been edited by Nazruth (edited 09-09-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nazruth:
<B> ... then why don't you write down a list of names of the individuals you believe are acceptable collateral damage in the possible scenario where you do go and try to take Saddam out?
Remember, Iraq is not of a single mind.
/Naz</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
War is not an act of virtue; it is an act of necessity. You do have a point, but if we are comparing this to history, I hardly think that every German was of the mind that Jews should all be gassed, for example...
The question is merely where people decide to draw the line.
------------------
Muma tells you 'schpank?'
<B> ... then why don't you write down a list of names of the individuals you believe are acceptable collateral damage in the possible scenario where you do go and try to take Saddam out?
Remember, Iraq is not of a single mind.
/Naz</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
War is not an act of virtue; it is an act of necessity. You do have a point, but if we are comparing this to history, I hardly think that every German was of the mind that Jews should all be gassed, for example...
The question is merely where people decide to draw the line.
------------------
Muma tells you 'schpank?'
Wow. Haven't read the boards for a few days and this has accelerated into a HUGE debate from Daz's original post.
Well.. as 9/11's 1 year anniversary draws near, I don't know about you, but I am not ashame to admit that I still sometimes feel like crying when I saw the look on the police/fire fighters' faces.
Terrorism sucks. There's no argument about that. It sucks worse than having to kiss W.Bush on the lips.
But if one tries to see things from both side...
I mean.. will US open up their weapon base and disclose ALL their weapon development scheme to the UN inspectors..? Not really.. so why would Iraq want to do what you don't want to do?
Some might argue that Iraq is developing weapons for the act of terrorism. Terrorism to where? You got it, USA and other 'DEVELOPED' countries (but mainly USA). Is that terrorism? Of course it is! Should that be stopped? Of course it should!! But that's just seeing things from our side of the world.
To the people in Iraq... after the Gulf war and all that, we, the US and the even the UN, are as much of a force of terrorism as 'they' are to us.
Do our lives somehow worth more than theirs? I would hope not. And those who think so, please slap yourself on the face.
So now.. can you spell it with me. D-O-U-B-L-E S-T-A-N-D-A-R-D.
It is true too, "Our law is the way to go because we have the money and the power." That's the message the USA government has been kinda hinting to the world for decades. Jealousy? Maybe for some. But I'm not so sure about that. Not ONE single foreigners I've met has ever expressed a SLIGHTEST hint of jealousy or envy upon knowing that I'm an US citizen.
I've spent most of my life in USA, and people in my neighbourhood are all nice, peace-loving and very friendly and kind. I because of my father's work. I have also had the chance to met people (refugees) from Iraq. They were well-spoken, humble and very nice as well...
I'm not saying people in USA are choosing to 'close their eyes' or what-not, but seldom would you see they show any anti-US or even US-criticizing show on TV. It is all nice and well to have pride for your country, but Chezra is right, when the rest of the world is wrinkling their noses at us, be it in our face or behind our back. We are not as innocent as what our media and government would like us to think.
I'm not saying we should sit tight and let them kick our ass, but do I agree with the way W.Bush is going at it? Can't say I do... Just remember, when we declare war to Iraq, we are just performing a form of terrorism to their people... To them, we are just their "Osama Bin Laden" and "al-qaeda"...
I can't foresee a good soluation to the situation we have. In a world where everyone is for themselves. I guess this is a war that is destined to happen.
[This message has been edited by Erthyne (edited 09-09-2002).]
Well.. as 9/11's 1 year anniversary draws near, I don't know about you, but I am not ashame to admit that I still sometimes feel like crying when I saw the look on the police/fire fighters' faces.
Terrorism sucks. There's no argument about that. It sucks worse than having to kiss W.Bush on the lips.
But if one tries to see things from both side...
I mean.. will US open up their weapon base and disclose ALL their weapon development scheme to the UN inspectors..? Not really.. so why would Iraq want to do what you don't want to do?
Some might argue that Iraq is developing weapons for the act of terrorism. Terrorism to where? You got it, USA and other 'DEVELOPED' countries (but mainly USA). Is that terrorism? Of course it is! Should that be stopped? Of course it should!! But that's just seeing things from our side of the world.
To the people in Iraq... after the Gulf war and all that, we, the US and the even the UN, are as much of a force of terrorism as 'they' are to us.
Do our lives somehow worth more than theirs? I would hope not. And those who think so, please slap yourself on the face.
So now.. can you spell it with me. D-O-U-B-L-E S-T-A-N-D-A-R-D.
It is true too, "Our law is the way to go because we have the money and the power." That's the message the USA government has been kinda hinting to the world for decades. Jealousy? Maybe for some. But I'm not so sure about that. Not ONE single foreigners I've met has ever expressed a SLIGHTEST hint of jealousy or envy upon knowing that I'm an US citizen.
I've spent most of my life in USA, and people in my neighbourhood are all nice, peace-loving and very friendly and kind. I because of my father's work. I have also had the chance to met people (refugees) from Iraq. They were well-spoken, humble and very nice as well...
I'm not saying people in USA are choosing to 'close their eyes' or what-not, but seldom would you see they show any anti-US or even US-criticizing show on TV. It is all nice and well to have pride for your country, but Chezra is right, when the rest of the world is wrinkling their noses at us, be it in our face or behind our back. We are not as innocent as what our media and government would like us to think.
I'm not saying we should sit tight and let them kick our ass, but do I agree with the way W.Bush is going at it? Can't say I do... Just remember, when we declare war to Iraq, we are just performing a form of terrorism to their people... To them, we are just their "Osama Bin Laden" and "al-qaeda"...
I can't foresee a good soluation to the situation we have. In a world where everyone is for themselves. I guess this is a war that is destined to happen.
[This message has been edited by Erthyne (edited 09-09-2002).]
-
Guest
To me it seems that the inspects (like last time) have become the pivotal 'exscuse' for the attack. Iraq knows they have very bad things that would be found if inspectors Really got under the covers, and will never allow them free access (or even 'tainted' access like last time). If they are allowed in, it will be like last time and they will have no real impact on Iraq's WMD program.
This being the case, all Bush has to do is raise enough stink about Iraq with rhetoric, come up with some 'proof' (either tangible or intangible), and that will be enough to get the UN's and the rest of the world's attention without ever actually lifting a finger or proclaiming a stance other than 'Sadaam is bad, sadaam must go.'.
I predict that Bush will 'accept' the UN threat of weapons inspectors again, and again just like last time, the UN will threaten force if Iraq denies the ability. I'm not sure how Iraq or Bush will play it this time, but if I had to guess, Bush will strike Iraq with or without UN support over this issue. The 'exscuse' will be Iraq's WDM program, and I'm sure Bush will pressure everyone else to either get on board or stand aside and let it happen.
I'm honestly concerned about this, because we don't have all the information yet and all the war rhetoric sounds 'unfounded'. However, Bush did Not react harshly after 9/11, he took his time, made the case, got totall support, and then beat the shit out of the Taliban. As a loyal American I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that the threat Iraq poses and the case Bush posses are both very real and valid.
I'm sure we will hear the details soon, I got a few peeks on CNN over the weekend on part of the case against Iraq, but until Bush formally makes the case and presents the facts, all anyone is doing is speculating and posturing. I just hope like hell that IF Bush attacks Iraq, that the facts and the UN support (or guide) the action, and I hope that if we go in, we actually find these WDM factories and that they're plastered all over the news to proove that Sadaam was preparing for horrific war. He has gassed his on people en-mass, there is no doubt that the man is a threat to the world.
In the immortal words of Shakespare, 'If the King's cause not be good, it will be a dark matter for the king.'
Miax
This being the case, all Bush has to do is raise enough stink about Iraq with rhetoric, come up with some 'proof' (either tangible or intangible), and that will be enough to get the UN's and the rest of the world's attention without ever actually lifting a finger or proclaiming a stance other than 'Sadaam is bad, sadaam must go.'.
I predict that Bush will 'accept' the UN threat of weapons inspectors again, and again just like last time, the UN will threaten force if Iraq denies the ability. I'm not sure how Iraq or Bush will play it this time, but if I had to guess, Bush will strike Iraq with or without UN support over this issue. The 'exscuse' will be Iraq's WDM program, and I'm sure Bush will pressure everyone else to either get on board or stand aside and let it happen.
I'm honestly concerned about this, because we don't have all the information yet and all the war rhetoric sounds 'unfounded'. However, Bush did Not react harshly after 9/11, he took his time, made the case, got totall support, and then beat the shit out of the Taliban. As a loyal American I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that the threat Iraq poses and the case Bush posses are both very real and valid.
I'm sure we will hear the details soon, I got a few peeks on CNN over the weekend on part of the case against Iraq, but until Bush formally makes the case and presents the facts, all anyone is doing is speculating and posturing. I just hope like hell that IF Bush attacks Iraq, that the facts and the UN support (or guide) the action, and I hope that if we go in, we actually find these WDM factories and that they're plastered all over the news to proove that Sadaam was preparing for horrific war. He has gassed his on people en-mass, there is no doubt that the man is a threat to the world.
In the immortal words of Shakespare, 'If the King's cause not be good, it will be a dark matter for the king.'
Miax
"... then why don't you write down a list of names of the individuals you believe are acceptable collateral damage in the possible scenario where you do go and try to take Saddam out?"
I'll get right on that. While I'm at it, why don't you make up your list of individuals among your friends and family you are willing to sacrafice in the possible senario nothing is done about Saddam?
Sometimes a lot isn't enoungh.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
I'll get right on that. While I'm at it, why don't you make up your list of individuals among your friends and family you are willing to sacrafice in the possible senario nothing is done about Saddam?
Sometimes a lot isn't enoungh.
------------------
Rausrh licks you.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Erthyne:
<B>
But if one tries to see things from both side...
I mean.. will US open up their weapon base and disclose ALL their weapon development scheme to the UN inspectors..? Not really.. so why would Iraq want to do what you don't want to do?
[This message has been edited by Erthyne (edited 09-09-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because Iraq lost a war and surrendered....and agreed to the inspections....there is big difference....
<B>
But if one tries to see things from both side...
I mean.. will US open up their weapon base and disclose ALL their weapon development scheme to the UN inspectors..? Not really.. so why would Iraq want to do what you don't want to do?
[This message has been edited by Erthyne (edited 09-09-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because Iraq lost a war and surrendered....and agreed to the inspections....there is big difference....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tesil2:
<B> Because Iraq lost a war and surrendered....and agreed to the inspections....there is big difference....
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then if we put it that way, wouldn't USA always have the final say in things then? (Not that they don't do that right now anyway). Because honestly, I don't think any country will fight a war against USA and win. It's just quite disconcerting to think about someone like W.Bush having a say in anything at all. Let alone the fate of the world.
Maybe that's why there are people in the world who harbor negative feelings towards the US. Because even -I-, as an American, do not like that idea one bit, and there's nothing we can do at all to stop it.
<B> Because Iraq lost a war and surrendered....and agreed to the inspections....there is big difference....
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then if we put it that way, wouldn't USA always have the final say in things then? (Not that they don't do that right now anyway). Because honestly, I don't think any country will fight a war against USA and win. It's just quite disconcerting to think about someone like W.Bush having a say in anything at all. Let alone the fate of the world.
Maybe that's why there are people in the world who harbor negative feelings towards the US. Because even -I-, as an American, do not like that idea one bit, and there's nothing we can do at all to stop it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Daz:
<B>Sometimes, like, every 4 years . . . we have elections. 'You' can vote, and have a say in it.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Have you ever seen a candidate that you truely want to vote for and believe that he/she will lead the USA into a better future? Or just a politician that has ever done what he/she promised to do? Plus, doesn't take 4 years to destroy the world if one is stupid enough..
<B>Sometimes, like, every 4 years . . . we have elections. 'You' can vote, and have a say in it.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Have you ever seen a candidate that you truely want to vote for and believe that he/she will lead the USA into a better future? Or just a politician that has ever done what he/she promised to do? Plus, doesn't take 4 years to destroy the world if one is stupid enough..
With an attitude like that, perhaps you should step up and make a run yourself. If you truly have such little faith in our country, then I am sure Canada would gladly provide the type of freedom and measure of choice that you are looking for.
There is no point in arguing with a write-protected mind.
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
There is no point in arguing with a write-protected mind.
------------------
-Daz "<^> (*¿*) <^>" Proudwolf
It occurred to me today what the best reason for going to war is. It doesn't matter if we hit the right people or not. The point is that it is imperative that the world know that there will be serious consequences if the US is attacked. Thats all. The world needs to know that serious shit will go down if something like 9/11 happens, and then maybe the governments that can control the militants will have a larger incentive to do so...
Its kind of like how the mafia would never kill clean police officers. They knew that there would be serious hell to pay if they fucked with the PD. They might be arrested and given due process, or a few people (maybe picked arbitrarily) might end up with a bullet in the head.
But The EU warns that starting a war in Iraq would destabalize the entire middle east. I think thats a great consequence. The leaders of those pissant countries have been placating their militants for years. It might serve some good for those assholes to have to worry about the monster they created... At the very least they'll know that it might be costly to tacitly condone extremism.
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Its kind of like how the mafia would never kill clean police officers. They knew that there would be serious hell to pay if they fucked with the PD. They might be arrested and given due process, or a few people (maybe picked arbitrarily) might end up with a bullet in the head.
But The EU warns that starting a war in Iraq would destabalize the entire middle east. I think thats a great consequence. The leaders of those pissant countries have been placating their militants for years. It might serve some good for those assholes to have to worry about the monster they created... At the very least they'll know that it might be costly to tacitly condone extremism.
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>It occurred to me today what the best reason for going to war is. It doesn't matter if we hit the right people or not. The point is that it is imperative that the world know that there will be serious consequences if the US is attacked.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes. It doesn't matter who you kill. As long as you get to kill. Killing is important.
You been taking lessons from Osama?
/Naz
<B>It occurred to me today what the best reason for going to war is. It doesn't matter if we hit the right people or not. The point is that it is imperative that the world know that there will be serious consequences if the US is attacked.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes. It doesn't matter who you kill. As long as you get to kill. Killing is important.
You been taking lessons from Osama?
/Naz
Naz, I got a pretty good idea who to kill and a pretty good reason why. Osama only has one of those. I suggest attacking countries that harbor and support militant islamic groups (who). The reason those countries should be attacked is that even if they didn't directly help Osama kill 3000 people, they created the conditions under which it could happen (why). Furthermore, it creates a disincentive for these princes and dictators for allowing it to happen again, and a corresponding incentive for them to crack down on the extremist factions within their jurisdiction (more why). Essentially, I am endorsing the clearest message that Bush sent to the American people after the attacks.. one that has been sadly diluted: You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. Coercing these princes and dictators into the solution camp seems to me an appropriate course of action...
Osama knows who he wants to kill too. Anyone who does not practice his extreme form of Islam. I don't pretend to understand the reason, but I'm sure its more arbitrary than the reasons I am driven to kill.
So you can make analogies between me and my country and Osama all you want.. it just comes off as stupid when challenged on its merits...
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 09-11-2002).]
Osama knows who he wants to kill too. Anyone who does not practice his extreme form of Islam. I don't pretend to understand the reason, but I'm sure its more arbitrary than the reasons I am driven to kill.
So you can make analogies between me and my country and Osama all you want.. it just comes off as stupid when challenged on its merits...
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 09-11-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Erthyne:
Because honestly, I don't think any country will fight a war against USA and win. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not that anyone actually "wins" in a war, but the USA didn't win the Vietnam Conflict or the Korean Conflict. We still have troops stationed in Korea patrolling the border making sure that North Korea's evil communist regime doesn't push into South Korea. Democracy lost in Vietnam plain and simple. The USA didn't do so hot in Somolia. We've been fighting in Afghanistan for over half a year now and all we've really managed to do is capture a few Taliban and Al Qada fighters, destroy what little was left of any Afghani infrastructure and ultimately drive the force of evil we sought to destroy from one country and let them escape to many others (mostly Pakistan).
Even in Operation Desert Storm we "won" by freeing Kuwait from the evil tyrant Sadam. But still Sadam remains in power firmly entrenched in his bunkers and still holding power over Bagdahd and the rest of Iraq, still striking fear into the hearts and minds of other countries.
While for the most part I do consider myself to be a Patriotic American, as it were, I also strongly believe that the USA sticks their nose into other people's and country's business all too often. I strongly support finding and bringing to justice(killing) those responsible for the attacks on the USA including the WTC, Pentagon, and PA Jetliner. I don't, however, support disrupting and destroying one country that already has enough problems by their own doing and driving these terrorists from said country to just allow them to roam free in other countries. Sending thousands of troops into a foreign nation to destroy a handfull of suspect characters doesn't sit well with me. Whatever happened to 'Cloak and Dagger'? Where are the CIA assassins these days? Why not instead of spending billions of dollars on aircraft, ships, soldiers, and weapons of mass destruction spend a few million on killing that single person that troubles us so.
All in all I think the USA as a whole needs to spend more time fixing the problems that lie within instead of trying to resolve everyone else's problems. Fix the economy. Help starving people right here in the US. Help people here in the US that can't afford healthcare. Give the citizens of the US back our freedoms instead of taking them away.
When we find that Iraq has nuclear capability it is one thing. Does he actually have the means to use these nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in direct attacks against the US? Does he have nuclear powered subs roaming the oceans capable of launching intercontinental balistic missiles at us at a moment's notice? Does he have long range bombers at his disposal? Does he have intercontinental ballistic missiles he can launch (SCUDs are not that long range)?
Basically what it comes down to is that I find it hard to believe that any established nation would be stupid enough to actually launch an attack on the USA. Sure terrorists are stupid enough, but they do not speak or convey the thoughts of one nation as a whole. The fighting in Afghanistan is not a war against Afghanistan, it is a mission to supposedly destroy the terrorist threats. In Iraq the terroristic threat is Sadam Hussien, not the entirety of Iraq, and therefore the US, the UN and the rest of the world should not go to war against the US. Instead we should covertly, quickly, and effectively remove Sadam from power, by putting a sniper's bullet right between his eyes.
------------------
Ruld Ragingbear
Because honestly, I don't think any country will fight a war against USA and win. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not that anyone actually "wins" in a war, but the USA didn't win the Vietnam Conflict or the Korean Conflict. We still have troops stationed in Korea patrolling the border making sure that North Korea's evil communist regime doesn't push into South Korea. Democracy lost in Vietnam plain and simple. The USA didn't do so hot in Somolia. We've been fighting in Afghanistan for over half a year now and all we've really managed to do is capture a few Taliban and Al Qada fighters, destroy what little was left of any Afghani infrastructure and ultimately drive the force of evil we sought to destroy from one country and let them escape to many others (mostly Pakistan).
Even in Operation Desert Storm we "won" by freeing Kuwait from the evil tyrant Sadam. But still Sadam remains in power firmly entrenched in his bunkers and still holding power over Bagdahd and the rest of Iraq, still striking fear into the hearts and minds of other countries.
While for the most part I do consider myself to be a Patriotic American, as it were, I also strongly believe that the USA sticks their nose into other people's and country's business all too often. I strongly support finding and bringing to justice(killing) those responsible for the attacks on the USA including the WTC, Pentagon, and PA Jetliner. I don't, however, support disrupting and destroying one country that already has enough problems by their own doing and driving these terrorists from said country to just allow them to roam free in other countries. Sending thousands of troops into a foreign nation to destroy a handfull of suspect characters doesn't sit well with me. Whatever happened to 'Cloak and Dagger'? Where are the CIA assassins these days? Why not instead of spending billions of dollars on aircraft, ships, soldiers, and weapons of mass destruction spend a few million on killing that single person that troubles us so.
All in all I think the USA as a whole needs to spend more time fixing the problems that lie within instead of trying to resolve everyone else's problems. Fix the economy. Help starving people right here in the US. Help people here in the US that can't afford healthcare. Give the citizens of the US back our freedoms instead of taking them away.
When we find that Iraq has nuclear capability it is one thing. Does he actually have the means to use these nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in direct attacks against the US? Does he have nuclear powered subs roaming the oceans capable of launching intercontinental balistic missiles at us at a moment's notice? Does he have long range bombers at his disposal? Does he have intercontinental ballistic missiles he can launch (SCUDs are not that long range)?
Basically what it comes down to is that I find it hard to believe that any established nation would be stupid enough to actually launch an attack on the USA. Sure terrorists are stupid enough, but they do not speak or convey the thoughts of one nation as a whole. The fighting in Afghanistan is not a war against Afghanistan, it is a mission to supposedly destroy the terrorist threats. In Iraq the terroristic threat is Sadam Hussien, not the entirety of Iraq, and therefore the US, the UN and the rest of the world should not go to war against the US. Instead we should covertly, quickly, and effectively remove Sadam from power, by putting a sniper's bullet right between his eyes.
------------------
Ruld Ragingbear
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dlur:
<B>
When we find that Iraq has nuclear capability it is one thing. Does he actually have the means to use these nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in direct attacks against the US? Does he have nuclear powered subs roaming the oceans capable of launching intercontinental balistic missiles at us at a moment's notice? Does he have long range bombers at his disposal? Does he have intercontinental ballistic missiles he can launch (SCUDs are not that long range)? </B> </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you suggest we wait around until Hussein acquires these capabilities?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Basically what it comes down to is that I find it hard to believe that any established nation would be stupid enough to actually launch an attack on the USA.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He was stupid enough to start two disastorous wars against neighboring countries (without UN approval I might add). But I agree. Hussein would never launch an attack against the the US himself (although he did try and assassinate George Bush Sr. years after he was out of office). But what about the islamic militants he is in bed with? It comes down to whether or not you want to do something about the problem or wait til it gets bigger...
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
<B>
When we find that Iraq has nuclear capability it is one thing. Does he actually have the means to use these nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in direct attacks against the US? Does he have nuclear powered subs roaming the oceans capable of launching intercontinental balistic missiles at us at a moment's notice? Does he have long range bombers at his disposal? Does he have intercontinental ballistic missiles he can launch (SCUDs are not that long range)? </B> </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you suggest we wait around until Hussein acquires these capabilities?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Basically what it comes down to is that I find it hard to believe that any established nation would be stupid enough to actually launch an attack on the USA.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He was stupid enough to start two disastorous wars against neighboring countries (without UN approval I might add). But I agree. Hussein would never launch an attack against the the US himself (although he did try and assassinate George Bush Sr. years after he was out of office). But what about the islamic militants he is in bed with? It comes down to whether or not you want to do something about the problem or wait til it gets bigger...
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
A Few Points about the United Nations...
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/04/un.us.chinareax/
The U.N. is an amazing colossal joke. The U.S. should drop out of it, and ask them to leave the country. America was kicked out of the 'human rights committee' by countries like Sudan - one of the few remaining placing in the world where human slavery continues.
I repeat: The United Nations should be dismantled. If the U.S. left the U.N., we would effectively make it pointless anyway. Just a bunch of diplomats chattering away while despots and tyrants continue to rule.
Rant over.
------------------
- Krogenar
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/04/un.us.chinareax/
The U.N. is an amazing colossal joke. The U.S. should drop out of it, and ask them to leave the country. America was kicked out of the 'human rights committee' by countries like Sudan - one of the few remaining placing in the world where human slavery continues.
I repeat: The United Nations should be dismantled. If the U.S. left the U.N., we would effectively make it pointless anyway. Just a bunch of diplomats chattering away while despots and tyrants continue to rule.
Rant over.
------------------
- Krogenar
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B> He was stupid enough to start two disastorous wars against neighboring countries (without UN approval I might add). But I agree. Hussein would never launch an attack against the the US himself (although he did try and assassinate George Bush Sr. years after he was out of office). But what about the islamic militants he is in bed with? It comes down to whether or not you want to do something about the problem or wait til it gets bigger...
Corth
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do think that something should be done. I don't think that the USA should be the deciding force in all world politics and problems. I don't think that the USA should just decide that we're right, everyone else is wrong and bomb the hell out of a country without support of a decent majority of other nations as well. I don't think that the USA should play god with the rest of the world.
If something is to be done, it should be done by with the support of more than just the USA and UK. If the U.N. for example votes to take out Iraq, then by all means go for it. But by that same token a good chunk of the nations that participate in the U.N. had better be right there beside our forces with their own providing support for that decision.
In the US we've allowed our government to become a vast bully for all intents and purposes that attempts to force other nations to see everything 'our way'. Why is it our place to say that Afghanistan shouldn't be a "pure Islamic state" when for the most part the current government is pushing for a pure Christian state in many ways. Why is it our place to say who can and cannot have weapons of mass destruction, when we in the USA have the largest assortment and collection of weapons of mass destruction on the planet.
I guess ultimately what I'd like to see is for America to become less pushy and more neutral in its stance in world politics. It seems as though that's what the majority of the rest of the world would rather we do.
And as for Sadam being in bed with Islamic militants, that's very likely, but as long as there is oil in the Middle East the entire western civilization will be in bed with Sadam and other leaders that allow millitant groups to thrive in their countries as well. After all most of the terrorists that were on the planes that flew into the WTC and Pentagon were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, not Iraq. Not to mention this quip, evidentally Mr. Hussein gets around a bit!:
------------------
Ruld Ragingbear
[This message has been edited by Dlur (edited 09-11-2002).]
<B> He was stupid enough to start two disastorous wars against neighboring countries (without UN approval I might add). But I agree. Hussein would never launch an attack against the the US himself (although he did try and assassinate George Bush Sr. years after he was out of office). But what about the islamic militants he is in bed with? It comes down to whether or not you want to do something about the problem or wait til it gets bigger...
Corth
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do think that something should be done. I don't think that the USA should be the deciding force in all world politics and problems. I don't think that the USA should just decide that we're right, everyone else is wrong and bomb the hell out of a country without support of a decent majority of other nations as well. I don't think that the USA should play god with the rest of the world.
If something is to be done, it should be done by with the support of more than just the USA and UK. If the U.N. for example votes to take out Iraq, then by all means go for it. But by that same token a good chunk of the nations that participate in the U.N. had better be right there beside our forces with their own providing support for that decision.
In the US we've allowed our government to become a vast bully for all intents and purposes that attempts to force other nations to see everything 'our way'. Why is it our place to say that Afghanistan shouldn't be a "pure Islamic state" when for the most part the current government is pushing for a pure Christian state in many ways. Why is it our place to say who can and cannot have weapons of mass destruction, when we in the USA have the largest assortment and collection of weapons of mass destruction on the planet.
I guess ultimately what I'd like to see is for America to become less pushy and more neutral in its stance in world politics. It seems as though that's what the majority of the rest of the world would rather we do.
And as for Sadam being in bed with Islamic militants, that's very likely, but as long as there is oil in the Middle East the entire western civilization will be in bed with Sadam and other leaders that allow millitant groups to thrive in their countries as well. After all most of the terrorists that were on the planes that flew into the WTC and Pentagon were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, not Iraq. Not to mention this quip, evidentally Mr. Hussein gets around a bit!:
------------------
Ruld Ragingbear
[This message has been edited by Dlur (edited 09-11-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Krogenar:
<B>The U.N. is an amazing colossal joke. The U.S. should drop out of it, and ask them to leave the country.
I repeat: The United Nations should be dismantled. If the U.S. left the U.N., we would effectively make it pointless anyway.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wait, I have a better idea! You can stop paying them, yet still be a member. Then you can exercize your veto against everything you don't like, and it will cost you nothing!
Oh, darn I forgot, you're already doing that.
Just like you don't give a shit about Kyoto, the international criminal court and many other things.
Gee, I wonder why the rest of the world thinks your foreign policy is hypocritical.
Excuse us for not jumping on your pachyderm president's bandwagon of war. Hell, Saddam didn't kill 3000 people in the WTC, Osama did. I guess chimp Bush jr. forgot all about catching him in his eagerness to play Quake in places he can't even point out on a map.
<B>The U.N. is an amazing colossal joke. The U.S. should drop out of it, and ask them to leave the country.
I repeat: The United Nations should be dismantled. If the U.S. left the U.N., we would effectively make it pointless anyway.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wait, I have a better idea! You can stop paying them, yet still be a member. Then you can exercize your veto against everything you don't like, and it will cost you nothing!
Oh, darn I forgot, you're already doing that.
Just like you don't give a shit about Kyoto, the international criminal court and many other things.
Gee, I wonder why the rest of the world thinks your foreign policy is hypocritical.
Excuse us for not jumping on your pachyderm president's bandwagon of war. Hell, Saddam didn't kill 3000 people in the WTC, Osama did. I guess chimp Bush jr. forgot all about catching him in his eagerness to play Quake in places he can't even point out on a map.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Krogenar:
<B>A Few Points about the United Nations...
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/04/un.us.chinareax/
The U.N. is an amazing colossal joke. The U.S. should drop out of it, and ask them to leave the country. America was kicked out of the 'human rights committee' by countries like Sudan - one of the few remaining placing in the world where human slavery continues.
I repeat: The United Nations should be dismantled. If the U.S. left the U.N., we would effectively make it pointless anyway. Just a bunch of diplomats chattering away while despots and tyrants continue to rule.
Rant over.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMG, Amen! I was just telling someone the other day that I hoped Bush's message to the UN in his speech this week would essentially be: Go fuck yourself.
I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abe Lincon, et al, would think if they heard that American Foreign policy must be conditioned on permission from some bumfuck country like Syria (current head of the security council).
Best idea i've heard in a while (courtesty of michael savage): Rebuild the WTC exactly as it was and relocate the UN to its top 40 floors...
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
<B>A Few Points about the United Nations...
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/04/un.us.chinareax/
The U.N. is an amazing colossal joke. The U.S. should drop out of it, and ask them to leave the country. America was kicked out of the 'human rights committee' by countries like Sudan - one of the few remaining placing in the world where human slavery continues.
I repeat: The United Nations should be dismantled. If the U.S. left the U.N., we would effectively make it pointless anyway. Just a bunch of diplomats chattering away while despots and tyrants continue to rule.
Rant over.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMG, Amen! I was just telling someone the other day that I hoped Bush's message to the UN in his speech this week would essentially be: Go fuck yourself.
I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abe Lincon, et al, would think if they heard that American Foreign policy must be conditioned on permission from some bumfuck country like Syria (current head of the security council).
Best idea i've heard in a while (courtesty of michael savage): Rebuild the WTC exactly as it was and relocate the UN to its top 40 floors...
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
is it true that most islamic country dont allow religion freedom? are there religious persecution in christian country by the government, their citizens, etc. did you know in countries being islamicize, if a woman is raped because she isn't worth a man, she must fine 4 islamic males to testify or else she would be guilty of having intercourse outside married. testimony of anyone but islam are worth 1/2 or can't even be used. i'm currently reading 'their blood cries out' anyone read it and has comments about it?
[This message has been edited by sok (edited 09-12-2002).]
[This message has been edited by sok (edited 09-12-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Krogenar:
<B>America was kicked out of the 'human rights committee' by countries like Sudan - one of the few remaining placing in the world where human slavery continues.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Had you actually read the article (I know I know, it can be a tough assignment) that you are ranting about, you would have noticed that the vote on the participating members of this committee is set by region. If this concept is difficult for you to comprehend let me illustrate it to you with an example: whether or not United States had been voted to this committee bears no effect on whether or not Sudan is selected. Unless you consider United States to be part of Africa (in which case you should complain directly to the UN Human Rights Committee -- and probably to many other organizations as well).
Now, the votes for the countries that represent West Europe and Other States (in which United States is included as is evident in the UNCHR page) were like this:
France 52
Austria 41
Sweden 32
United States 29
So if you think a democratic process is an "amazing colossal joke" (which you and Corth both seem to agree on) then you do have a point. I however do not see any reason why the three countries selected (France, Austria and Sweden) would not be able to do their job. Considering the amount of political abuse that the United States executes within the UN committees, I think it is probably for the better you do not have a counting vote in UNCHR.
I have to partially agree with this though. Having the United Nations headquarters in a country like the United States certainly mars its public image. United Nations represents international peace and security, human rights and humanitarian action, international laws and decolonization. The United States represents these values poorly. It does therefore have an effect on how the United Nations itself is perceived.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Rant over.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do recommed next time you spend some time reading the article before you go on with your mindless rant.
/Naz
<B>America was kicked out of the 'human rights committee' by countries like Sudan - one of the few remaining placing in the world where human slavery continues.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Had you actually read the article (I know I know, it can be a tough assignment) that you are ranting about, you would have noticed that the vote on the participating members of this committee is set by region. If this concept is difficult for you to comprehend let me illustrate it to you with an example: whether or not United States had been voted to this committee bears no effect on whether or not Sudan is selected. Unless you consider United States to be part of Africa (in which case you should complain directly to the UN Human Rights Committee -- and probably to many other organizations as well).
Now, the votes for the countries that represent West Europe and Other States (in which United States is included as is evident in the UNCHR page) were like this:
France 52
Austria 41
Sweden 32
United States 29
So if you think a democratic process is an "amazing colossal joke" (which you and Corth both seem to agree on) then you do have a point. I however do not see any reason why the three countries selected (France, Austria and Sweden) would not be able to do their job. Considering the amount of political abuse that the United States executes within the UN committees, I think it is probably for the better you do not have a counting vote in UNCHR.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> The U.S. should drop out of it, and ask them to leave the country. </font>
I have to partially agree with this though. Having the United Nations headquarters in a country like the United States certainly mars its public image. United Nations represents international peace and security, human rights and humanitarian action, international laws and decolonization. The United States represents these values poorly. It does therefore have an effect on how the United Nations itself is perceived.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Rant over.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do recommed next time you spend some time reading the article before you go on with your mindless rant.
/Naz
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
Naz, I got a pretty good idea who to kill and a pretty good reason why.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well you certainly have me convinced me now. You have a "pretty good idea" who you want to kill and why. Good. Then I have nothing to worry about. Because you are the pinnacle of intelligence. You are just. You are infallible. You are the ruler over life and death.
Perhaps the message got diluted because the "message" is stupid? Perhaps the rest of the world realizes that the world is not black and white? Perhaps we are not in the kindergarten anymore?
One important step from childhood to adulthood is to realize things are not black and white. The world is not black and white. The problems the world faces today are not solved by using the arguments of a six year old.
/Naz
[This message has been edited by Nazruth (edited 09-12-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Nazruth (edited 09-12-2002).]
Naz, I got a pretty good idea who to kill and a pretty good reason why.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well you certainly have me convinced me now. You have a "pretty good idea" who you want to kill and why. Good. Then I have nothing to worry about. Because you are the pinnacle of intelligence. You are just. You are infallible. You are the ruler over life and death.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Essentially, I am endorsing the clearest message that Bush sent to the American people after the attacks.. one that has been sadly diluted: You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. </font>
Perhaps the message got diluted because the "message" is stupid? Perhaps the rest of the world realizes that the world is not black and white? Perhaps we are not in the kindergarten anymore?
One important step from childhood to adulthood is to realize things are not black and white. The world is not black and white. The problems the world faces today are not solved by using the arguments of a six year old.
/Naz
[This message has been edited by Nazruth (edited 09-12-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Nazruth (edited 09-12-2002).]
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests