Iraq or N. Korea? Or neither?

Who should America strike first, Iraq, N. Korea, or niether?

  • Iraq

    Votes: 16 32.0%
  • North Korea

    Votes: 7 14.0%
  • Neither

    Votes: 12 24.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 6.0%
  • Who cares? They'll just end up bombing Canadians again anyway.

    Votes: 12 24.0%

  • Total voters
    50

Napoleon

Spaceman
Chrisreid im really appaled by your statements.

I didnt get the events mixed up at all, the us signed a treaty saying we would provide every bit of energy that they would have been getting out of those reactors. WE did send them a paltry amount, but no where NEAR what they were losing by not using their nuclear reactors, we were the ones in violation of treaty not them.

Also more importantly, they are the ones who announced their nuke capablities and they are trying to use them as a bargaining chip, just look at what they are asking shrubo for, food and energy. Thats all. THEY cannot feed themselves, they are only a threat as long as they cannot. They are currently desparate, they are hungry and freezing, and thus they are desparate, if we got rid of their desparation they would be fine.

Chris also: It sure as hell is hipocritical for us to do anything against them. We are the ONLY NATION IN HISTORY that was crazy and evil enough to use Nuclear weapons on another nation's CIVILIAN population. We have no right to attack another SOVERIGN nation because they have nukes. did we attack pakistan when they developed them? did we attack india? did we attack france? NO.

Hitler and North Korea have NO relation to each other WHATSOEVER. hitler could feed his people and since day one was trying to get TERRITORIAL increases. That was what he was appeased with, giving him territory. North Korea isnt asking for territory, they arent asking for empire, they are asking for food. they are asking for heat. that is all.

Maniac II: ITS THE US THAT WANTS PREEMPTIVE STRIKES. they have no food, the people are STARVING TO DEATH, so no they dont have "alot of rice feilds"

Philip: Yea thats what happened.
Also yes bush is an idiot, the man is just flat out stupid, have you even heard him talk, he doesnt know how to speak english. All his attempted solutions for the problems of the world are half a**ed that follow the standard idiot americentric idea of simple solutions for complex problems. It hasnt worked yet for bush, it wont in the next year, and it never will.

Just to note, bush wasnt elected, he was appointed by the US Supreme Court.

Also the amount of fuel used in attacking iraq would be tiny compared to the amount we would get by opening up their oil fields. To think otherwise is naive. They have some of the largest oil fields in the world and the fuel we'd use could be produced by them alone in under a year.
 

Happy

Spaceman
I didnt get the events mixed up at all, the us signed a treaty saying we would provide every bit of energy that they would have been getting out of those reactors. WE did send them a paltry amount, but no where NEAR what they were losing by not using their nuclear reactors, we were the ones in violation of treaty not them.
u have no idea do u.
we gave them more energy then they would have ever gotten out of the reactors in question. u obviously don't know u reactors, you are relatively famliar with the "friendly" reactors, the onces that produce electricity, by boiling water.
the reactors are not those kind of reactors.
theses reactor were built with the sole purpose for enriching fissionable materals for WoMD.
secondly, NK recieves nearly ALL its electricity from...CHINA!!!


Also more importantly, they are the ones who announced their nuke capablities and they are trying to use them as a bargaining chip, just look at what they are asking shrubo for, food and energy. Thats all. THEY cannot feed themselves, they are only a threat as long as they cannot. They are currently desparate, they are hungry and freezing, and thus they are desparate, if we got rid of their desparation they would be fine.
They didn't come out and say, "hey guess what world, we have nukes!!!," they didn't admitt it until we showed them satellite pictures and asked them nicely about the 100yrd blast crater in the pic.
as far as food, the only reason they are starving is the leader, Kim, has these places, that "expendable" people are force to goto, and work until they die, yes, im talking about death camps.
Kim is building WoMD with slave labor.
Sound familiar, where is history do i remember hearing about slave labor building vengance weapons....
then only way a person in NK is guaranteed to be feed, is in the military. and the only way to end their "desparation" is to topple the communist government, which you are soo passionately defending....

We have no right to attack another SOVERIGN nation because they have nukes. did we attack pakistan when they developed them? did we attack india? did we attack france? NO.
...yea, HELLO, all those nations were/ARE our allies. ie, on GOOD TERMS with, FRIENDS, not trying to kill "emperialist yankies"....

Hitler and North Korea have NO relation to each other WHATSOEVER.
this histroy this keeps nagging me, something about killing people who are "unnessicary".... HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS....

ITS THE US THAT WANTS PREEMPTIVE STRIKES. they have no food, the people are STARVING TO DEATH, so no they dont have "alot of rice feilds"
yes, the first task of the government of the UNITED STATES is to protect the rights, lives, and society of its citizenry, ie u, Chris Reid, me, form foregin agression, BLACKMAIL, and anything else that threatens the U.S.

Also yes bush is an idiot, the man is just flat out stupid, have you even heard him talk, he doesnt know how to speak english. All his attempted solutions for the problems of the world are half a**ed that follow the standard idiot americentric idea of simple solutions for complex problems. It hasnt worked yet for bush, it wont in the next year, and it never will.
by this comment, you have lost all credibility in this arguement, you have shown bias, and therefore forfiet. that said, I, YES PERSONALLY, have met President Bush, and I KNOW he is very a intelligent person. He is caring, and compassionate. as far stupid goes, sure he isn't as fluid and Clintion, but he speaks for the heart, so it doesn't come out of the mouth so smoothly.
and these are not complicated issues, they are really simple, Liberal democrats for the last fifty hears have made people believe that the average american can not think for themselves when it comes to matters of politics. I beg u, stop watching the nightly news, and read the news for urself, start thinking for urself, it is ur RIGHT in this country to think for ur.self DO NOT let other people think for u.

Also the amount of fuel used in attacking iraq would be tiny compared to the amount we would get by opening up their oil fields. To think otherwise is naive. They have some of the largest oil fields in the world and the fuel we'd use could be produced by them alone in under a year
this proves to me that you do not know ur facts, iraq is oil deficient when compared to its neighbors. that's whay they attacked iran in the 1980's, and kuwait. they wanted a bigger peice of the oil pie. thats also a reason why the US isn't espicially friendly toward them. there is more oild in Ohio and Pennsylvania than there is in iraq.

i'd like to call u a left wing liberal, but u are much more than that, by ur arguements, u come off as a communist/socialist.
u r so keen to protect other people's rights who do not even live here, and are so willing to give up ur own. i pitty u, and ask that u never seek political office.
i'd like to note a few things as well, NK is china's israel. nothing more than a puppet state from which china can voice its true opinions.
also, NK only has nukes, and the knowledge there-of, as china gave them the tech.
the physicists, chinese, the rocket engineers, chinese, and so on.
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
Happy you said it yourself, protect us from foreign AGGRESSION. We have signed the UN charter, we have signed all of the Geneva conventions and they all agree pre-emptive strikes are aggressive acts and are illegal as such. If we attack them before they attack us or one of our allies we are the warcriminals violating the rules of war. Not them.


Also happy, You are so totally wrong about so much as far as what is going on in north korea i am sickened. I offically declare you a lost cause.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Originally posted by Happy
this proves to me that you do not know ur facts, iraq is oil deficient when compared to its neighbors. that's whay they attacked iran in the 1980's, and kuwait. they wanted a bigger peice of the oil pie. thats also a reason why the US isn't espicially friendly toward them. there is more oild in Ohio and Pennsylvania than there is in iraq.
Wow, where on earth did you come up with such ridiculous ideas? Iraq has 10% of the world's oil - just as much as Kuwait. Probably more than all of the US, and certainly more than Ohio and Pennsylvania. They didn't attack Iran for oil, they attacked it for control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway.
 

Maniac II

Rear Admiral
Originally posted by Quarto
Wow, where on earth did you come up with such ridiculous ideas? Iraq has 10% of the world's oil - just as much as Kuwait. Probably more than all of the US, and certainly more than Ohio and Pennsylvania. They didn't attack Iran for oil, they attacked it for control of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway.
You might be right, but guess what America has MORE than enough oil to supply itself. If those enviromentalist bastard weren't so vicious we wouldn't have to worry about Iraq. and yes if anyone ask, i do have dislike for PETA, and yes i do eat animals, why the hell else would they be on earth. YES i would eat a pet before starving. ALL of those people who say " OH, NO THE ENVIROMENT!!!!" your the reason we have to put our troops in Iraq on the front lines in danger (well maybe not too much danger) SO if you BASTARDS werent so Arrogant, we would have no deaths in Iraq, But NO , lets worry about the poor little seals who might die in an oil spill, rather than the amount of blood that will be spilt in the war for Oil!!!!!!:mad:
 

TC

SubCrid
How the fuck can you blame the Iraq situation on PETA, or even environmentalism in general?

You, sir, are an idiot.
 

Maniac II

Rear Admiral
Because, we have a ton of oil in alaska. If we could drill there, would could tell Iraq to buzz off. But NO, lets keep the the little birdies and seals, and little fishies, and send our troops to die in Iraq instead. ARRRGGGHHH!!!! I CANT STAND ENVIROMENTALISTS!!!!!!:mad: !!!!!!:mad:
 

Dynaco

WildFire-
Dude, we built a big ass pipeline from Alaska to get oil yes, but we get more oil from other places. Iraq isn't that much of an oil provider because the UN limits what they can sell, just enough for food and stuff. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia provide more oil, Venzuela was the USs 4th largest oil provider but that national strike there cut off that oil supply. Russia provides us with a shitload of oil. We aren't really going to Iraq over oil, Saddam is a bad man mmmkay. Now once we oust him we have to figure out who is going to be in control of Iraq cause they will control a large chunk of the worlds oil, but we aren't going there specifically for the oil.
 

Maniac II

Rear Admiral
What ever it is, i think we should consintrate on N.Korea first. I mean nukes as bargaining chips??? Even if it is true, building nukes doesnt make people want to give you food, it just really pisses 'em off! So in all actuallity NK is a threat. If you dont get what i mean listen: lets suppose the whole idea of it just being a tool to get food is true. Well why a nuke. The US doesnt need nukes from a 2nd world countries, we've got our own. so that means that the nukes must be to threaten other countries to force them to give them food (and no, they wouldn't want to sell them to other countries, for one of two reasons--- one what if they give them to the other country and the other contry turns around with the same thing, only this time a threat. two ANYONE can make a nuke. yes that is right, just about any country can make a nuke) so in the end it is a weapon, or a tool, of terrorism, try to scare the crap out of someone to get them to give you food.
 

Dynaco

WildFire-
hehehe no not every country can make a nuke. Enriched weapons grade plutonium doesn't grow on trees, nor is it super easy to make. The Taliban were a bunch of evil sons of bitches and would have been nuking the northern alliance back to allah if they could have. The US Military happens to also be big, we can wack North Korea AND Iraq at the same time. Just think of it like the war in europe and the war in the pacific during WWII. We can do multiple fronts, hell they are talking about sending six carriers over to Iraq. Six carriers and their escorts can level the planet. Just send the 2 carriers near japan to Korea, ferry some troops over from Japan to beef up the ones already in south korea and have a go at it. I don't think they really have the stomach for it, they are talking loud to the press but begging at the bargaining table. Britain should have their troops in the gulf region in the next couple weeks so between Britain and the US, there should be enough to waste Baghdad. YAY! If the Iraqi republican guard watched the History Channel any the past week, they would flee the first time they saw a US flag :p
 

TC

SubCrid
Originally posted by Dynaco
Encriched weapons grade plutonium doesn't grow on trees
You've obviously never seen the Enriched-Weapons-Grade-Plutonium trees of South Africa!
 

Aries

Vice Admiral
Originally posted by Napoleon
Plus to attack north korea is about as stupid as possible, they dont want a fight, THEY WANT TO EAT. they are using their nuclear abilities as a bargining chip to try to get food and energy. The us under a 1994 treaty promised to provide them with their energy needs in exchange for them decommisioning a reactor. 8 years later we werent meeting the terms of the treaty so they reactivated the reactor. Likewise we promised them lots of stuff in exchange for them to not develope nukes. We havent fufilled our side of the deal, why should they?
as has already been said, the N. Koreans are using their reactors to build weapons, not provide electricity

North Korea is no threat, period. You want them to stop developing nukes, feed them, give them heat so they dont continue to freeze to death. that is how you win there.
so we're not the worlds cops, but we're the worlds welfare providers?


Iraq, 72% of americans according to a recent poll are against war in iraq with good reason. First off the united states are not the world's police, we have no right to do ANYTHING against any other country unless we are attacked first, if we do, we are engaging in an aggressive war which is a warcrime. If there is any action to happen in iraq (or north korea) it must be done with the full concent of the United Nations Security COuncil, or one of the two of them must strike first, otherwise it is an illegal war and we are the ones in violation of international law.
first, where in the consititution does it say that the public gets to choose when we go to war? we are just the citizens of our respective countries, not the gov. the gov. is the ones who have ALL the info, and no matter how good CNN is, the public will never (and when i say never, i mean that the details will be declassified when all our grandchildren are dead of old age) see everything. as for the the US being the worlds police, it IS our job, as the only remaining super power, AND the fact that the UN really can't do anything that requires force without the US's military support. and as for the UN, i wouldn't put much faith in them, for they couldn't support their own resolutions, even with the US's support. the UN has turned into the League of Nations (for those of you who don't know what that is, it was the first attempt at the UN, but it failed, because it couldn't back up anything it said), a big joke


More importantly, most of the people who will be killed are the civilians of these respective countries. Just look back to the first gulf war, we killed something near 50,000 iraqi civilians (that was the last count i heard at least). Look at afghanistan, we've killed more noncombatant civilians (so you dont misunderstandme i mean the average joe, who has no connections to al queda, the taleban, or any other military or paramilitary organization) than were killed in 9-11.
50,000 civilians? where did you get this number?

Murdering civilians isnt the answer. Violating international law isnt the answer. Screwing up our own economy isnt the answer (the united states has never been in any armed conflict that has not caused inflation), especially at a time when the government's debt is rising at an alarming rate and we are in a major deficit spending cycle.
all i will say is that it took WW2 to bring the US out of the great depression and give us the economic success we enjoyed in the '50s

The Chicago city council said it best, the cost of 1 cruise missile would solve their educational problems for the next year. The cost of deploying that battlegroup that just left san diego, would be enough to solve the educational problems of the state of Illinois for the next decade.
and if we stopped playing the world's welfare provider, we would have enough money to give everyone in the country a free college education

The world is against these proposed actions.
Morality is against these proposed actions.
Our own best interest is against these proposed actions.
Most americans are against these proposed actions.
the exact same thing could be said about the american revolution

If we do go to war, it will be vietnam part 2, it is foolhearty for any nation ever to go to war when it doesnt have an overwhelming majority of its citizenry to support the war.
vietnam only turned out the way it did because the gov. directly interfeared with the military (and i mean right down to selecting the targets). the gov learned it's lesson. as for the second part, even if the majority says no, there are times where the correct answer is yes.


Basically the only beneficiaries of this war are Bush's best friends, the oil companies.
and the iraqi people when we kick saddam out

don't be mistaken any attack on iraq has NOTHING to do with saddam, has NOTHING to do with WMDs, and has nothing to do with anything except black gold, oil.
so you know for an absolute fact what is going on, huh. no, of course you don't. oil being the reason is what your opinion. don't be mistaken. your opinion is not fact.

Also more importantly, they are the ones who announced their nuke capablities and they are trying to use them as a bargaining chip
which is exactly why they are dangerous

just look at what they are asking shrubo for, food and energy. Thats all. THEY cannot feed themselves, they are only a threat as long as they cannot. They are currently desparate, they are hungry and freezing, and thus they are desparate, if we got rid of their desparation they would be fine.
so again we are supposed to be the world's welfare provider

Chris also: It sure as hell is hipocritical for us to do anything against them. We are the ONLY NATION IN HISTORY that was crazy and evil enough to use Nuclear weapons on another nation's CIVILIAN population. We have no right to attack another SOVERIGN nation because they have nukes. did we attack pakistan when they developed them? did we attack india? did we attack france? NO.
so you would have preferred that we have invaded Japan and suffered a million casualties, to say nothing of the japanese deaths. the atomic bombs actually SAVED more lives than it took

Hitler and North Korea have NO relation to each other WHATSOEVER. hitler could feed his people and since day one was trying to get TERRITORIAL increases. That was what he was appeased with, giving him territory. North Korea isnt asking for territory, they arent asking for empire, they are asking for food. they are asking for heat. that is all.
if you give a mouse a cookie....he'll want a glass of milk

Also yes bush is an idiot, the man is just flat out stupid, have you even heard him talk, he doesnt know how to speak english. All his attempted solutions for the problems of the world are half a**ed that follow the standard idiot americentric idea of simple solutions for complex problems. It hasnt worked yet for bush, it wont in the next year, and it never will.

Just to note, bush wasnt elected, he was appointed by the US Supreme Court.
you're a Gore supporter aren't you

Also the amount of fuel used in attacking iraq would be tiny compared to the amount we would get by opening up their oil fields. To think otherwise is naive. They have some of the largest oil fields in the world and the fuel we'd use could be produced by them alone in under a year.
and if saddam had just complied with UN sanctions, the oil would be opened up too. and also, we wouldn't be facing this crisis, the people of iraq would be getting enough food, and most importantly, no one would have to get killed doing it. but hell, you already knew that, right?
 

Skyfire

Spaceman
Originally posted by Napoleon

Iraq, 72% of americans according to a recent poll are against war in iraq with good reason. First off the united states are not the world's police, we have no right to do ANYTHING against any other country unless we are attacked first, if we do, we are engaging in an aggressive war which is a warcrime. If there is any action to happen in iraq (or north korea) it must be done with the full concent of the United Nations Security COuncil, or one of the two of them must strike first, otherwise it is an illegal war and we are the ones in violation of international law.
I must question a few things in this....first off:

Despite what the UN may say about anything, without any branch to enforce them-they rely on...who? Oh yes, the US! Sorry, forgot that, like, 95% of the military force the UN uses is us...And the nature of declaring war, makes the whole concept of "viloating international law by attacking" stupid. The UN is a useless organization, entirley based upon bashing upon the United States. As we've now started to see a bit of this, I think we're well within our rights to do anything we damn well please. (Especially since this worked for centuries as effective method in the world, and I don't see the UN actually accomplishing anything.)

Originally posted by Phillip Tanaka

No, America does not have the right to parade around as the world's police force. But they are the only superpower left.
Exactly. I often hear the two different arguements: The US doesn't have room to do anything, and we are not the world's police force.

Yet, everyone who bitches about us, will also then turn and complain when we don't do anything as, "Your the superpower in the world, and if you want to act like it, you have to take responsibility for ensuring the protection/saftey of the rest of the world."

Everyone needs to get off their damn high horse about telling the United States what to do, excluding United States citizens. The rest of the world always get pissed by what we do, and what we don't do. To hell with them, as they aren't us-and a good portion of them wouldn't be around/have military and government stabilty if the United States had not acted in some point in history.
 

Ghost

Emperor
Originally posted by Skyfire

The rest of the world always get pissed by what we do, and what we don't do. To hell with them, as they aren't us-and a good portion of them wouldn't be around/have military and government stabilty if the United States had not acted in some point in history.
You forgot the 9/11/1973 (73 i think ,but could be wrong) and)
And others latinamerican civil-conflict promoted by the US
 

TC

SubCrid
Originally posted by Skyfire
Despite what the UN may say about anything, without any branch to enforce them-they rely on...who? Oh yes, the US! Sorry, forgot that, like, 95% of the military force the UN uses is us...
Would you like to find some numbers to support yourself? According to the United Nations, the US is ranked 19th in Peacekeeping personel contributions in December (pdf)... and going back before September of 2001, here's August (pdf) of 2001, where the US is ranked 17th in contributions...
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
Originally posted by Aries
as has already been said, the N. Koreans are using their reactors to build weapons, not provide electricity



so we're not the worlds cops, but we're the worlds welfare providers?




first, where in the consititution does it say that the public gets to choose when we go to war? we are just the citizens of our respective countries, not the gov. the gov. is the ones who have ALL the info, and no matter how good CNN is, the public will never (and when i say never, i mean that the details will be declassified when all our grandchildren are dead of old age) see everything. as for the the US being the worlds police, it IS our job, as the only remaining super power, AND the fact that the UN really can't do anything that requires force without the US's military support. and as for the UN, i wouldn't put much faith in them, for they couldn't support their own resolutions, even with the US's support. the UN has turned into the League of Nations (for those of you who don't know what that is, it was the first attempt at the UN, but it failed, because it couldn't back up anything it said), a big joke




50,000 civilians? where did you get this number?



all i will say is that it took WW2 to bring the US out of the great depression and give us the economic success we enjoyed in the '50s



and if we stopped playing the world's welfare provider, we would have enough money to give everyone in the country a free college education



the exact same thing could be said about the american revolution



vietnam only turned out the way it did because the gov. directly interfeared with the military (and i mean right down to selecting the targets). the gov learned it's lesson. as for the second part, even if the majority says no, there are times where the correct answer is yes.




and the iraqi people when we kick saddam out



so you know for an absolute fact what is going on, huh. no, of course you don't. oil being the reason is what your opinion. don't be mistaken. your opinion is not fact.



which is exactly why they are dangerous


so you would have preferred that we have invaded Japan and suffered a million casualties, to say nothing of the japanese deaths. the atomic bombs actually SAVED more lives than it took



if you give a mouse a cookie....he'll want a glass of milk



you're a Gore supporter aren't you



and if saddam had just complied with UN sanctions, the oil would be opened up too. and also, we wouldn't be facing this crisis, the people of iraq would be getting enough food, and most importantly, no one would have to get killed doing it. but hell, you already knew that, right?
Lets have at you.

Firstly that is flat out wrong, the reactors are breader reactors it makes nuclear fuel as a biproduct of producing energy, they do both energy and plutonium.

We agreed to be the welfare provider of north korea when in 1994 we signed a treaty saying we would be.

IT SAYS IT IN THE CONSTITUTION right where it says that congress has to declare war, not the president. The fact that the us govenrment has refused to follow the standard practices of civilized nations and actually declared war rather than skipping over the constitution through something that i would say is illegal.

I actually was wrong, it was morelike 100,000. Look up any information on the gulf war. I heard it on cnn and had it confirmed by an old article i found in the NY times.

WW2 did not help the economy. we were naturally comming out of the depression, in fact it is suspected that the war slowed down the recovery. Recall that all the factories had to be retooled in 1940-42 in order to make war machines. That slowed down the recovery. Plus the debt the government incurred during the war has been raising all our taxes for the last 50 years.

First off we are by no means the worlds welfare provider, we give a smaller portion of our per capita income than ANY OTHER industrialized nation. More importantly it is a mater of human rights. How long will it be until all you nationalists realized that a human is a human no matter what flag he lives under the oppression of.

By god man, no. The US has no right to act as the bullys of the world, or as the popos. We are required to fight where the UN needs us though, as the reverse. It happens to sanction action where it is actually needed, instead of every where bush doesnt like the color of the skins of the people, which is what the US would like. Its a little something called honor and decency, concepts that you have made clear in your post that you have no clue about.

Yes it could about the american revolution, something which was a bad idea. We at the very least quickend if not caused the fall of french monarchy, we caused england to retain its monarchy, and we have since been nothing but bad for the world.

What are you on, i dont mean the fact that we did win, and the reason why we didnt win and couldnt win is because we would have had to massachred the entire population of viewnam to do it, and sometimes national pride isnt worth all the lives that would die for because of it.

The iraqi people wouldnt be happier. We have already announced that after we go in we will appoint a general so and so as the emir of iraq. The iraqi people unanimously elected Saddam, and are being ruled by an iraqi, no nation wants to be turned into a puppet rule of another nation.
Japan was going to have surrendered anyway, but if we had been a moral nation we could have invaded while inflicting a minimum of civilian casulties, by only killing those who are acceptable to kill, ie the soldiers, while leaving the civilians unharmed. SUre more americans may have died, but by god we claim to be the land of the brave, it is by no means brave to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians as a primary target.


Ok saddam has never once threatened the united state, not once. more importantly, we have WMDs, Pakistan does, india does,russia does, ISRAEL does. there are alot more important places to be concerned with there being WMDs then in iraq. We are going to iraq for oil and to get peopls minds of the economy and bush's inadequacy as a human being plain and simple, anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you something.


No it means that they have told us what their prices are, they want to eat, they want to have heat.

Yes we should feed them and provide proper drink, but they are human beings, not mice.

if by gore supporter you mean a little thing called the Democratic party, you know the guys who won the populist vote in 2000? then no. Im a libretarian, but seeing as how the only people who would be silly enough to not call shrub and appointed idiot are the republican party members, i can say i dispise bush just as much as anyone.

YOU HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IRAQ HASNT COMPLIED WITH SANCTIONS. they are letting the inspectors do their thing, they gave a full and as complete as possible report as to everything that they were asked for. The only stuff we have is some vague comments by the administration saying that they have some evidence, but we are never told what the evidence is.
 

Napoleon

Spaceman
Originally posted by Skyfire
I must question a few things in this....first off:

Despite what the UN may say about anything, without any branch to enforce them-they rely on...who? Oh yes, the US! Sorry, forgot that, like, 95% of the military force the UN uses is us...And the nature of declaring war, makes the whole concept of "viloating international law by attacking" stupid. The UN is a useless organization, entirley based upon bashing upon the United States. As we've now started to see a bit of this, I think we're well within our rights to do anything we damn well please. (Especially since this worked for centuries as effective method in the world, and I don't see the UN actually accomplishing anything.)



Exactly. I often hear the two different arguements: The US doesn't have room to do anything, and we are not the world's police force.

Yet, everyone who bitches about us, will also then turn and complain when we don't do anything as, "Your the superpower in the world, and if you want to act like it, you have to take responsibility for ensuring the protection/saftey of the rest of the world."

Everyone needs to get off their damn high horse about telling the United States what to do, excluding United States citizens. The rest of the world always get pissed by what we do, and what we don't do. To hell with them, as they aren't us-and a good portion of them wouldn't be around/have military and government stabilty if the United States had not acted in some point in history.
First off yes we are the might of the UN, but by god, that is the entire point, sure whateve we fight when they ask us to, thats because we spend so much on keeping a military 10 times too large. Thats because we are the ones who should be doing it, but only when the world community agrees with our action you americentric jingoistic prick.
And we SIGNED THESE TREATIES and our entire reason for wanting war with iraq is becuase they arent following UN regs, and now you say we dont have to but they do? more importantly we signed the geneva convention, meaning that if we attack them in an aggressive war we will be in violation of international law and will be war criminals. Even if we were to drop out of the convention, we would still be shunned by the entire world.

Not to mention that aggressive warfare is wrong.


YES YES YES. why the fuck shouldnt they hate us when we intervene without permission, and like us when we interven with a request. Acting as the world's superpower should be acting in a responsable way, which means only intervening in the internal affairs of other nations when our help is requested by them. To do otherwise is once again dishonorable and extremely irresponsable of us.
 

Cam

Spaceman
Napoleon: You're the most responsible American I've ever heard! I've read everything you've said and I support every word of it. I have never heard any American accept so much responsibility for their nation.

Well said dude!
 

Happy

Spaceman
WOW, Napoleon, u've said everything right out of the socialists handbook 101, with the exception of the line "WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDERN!!!???"

u go on about what is right or what is wrong, but what about the other people's of the world?
i know u've enjoed all the rights and priviledges u r guaneteed in this country, but u over look the fact that these countries don't give a damn about rights, or individual freedoms.
when u have grand kids, and they ask you about the death camps of north korea, how could u look them in the eye and say "I fought against our own government from saving MILLIONS of innocent people. I let them die as i never saw them, so they never exisisted..." i could go on, but i think my point has been made.

as for the polls saying that 72% of citizens being against the war,
a pew pool shows the opposite,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,75827,00.html

but anyone can get the answer they want out of a poll, it's how the question is asked.

oddly enough, im argueing over a topic i really don't care about. I am by nature an isolationist, I really think we should pull out of south korea, they don't want us there. i say FUCK the middle-east
they can do whatever they want, fight each other, kill eachother, just leave the US out of it. and inturn, we only buy the things we need, and give nothing, no foreign aid, at least no gov.'t sponcered aid. the only thing keeping me from openly voicing this opinion often, is simple, WE WERE ATTACKED, AND IT WASN"T OUR FAULT, anyone who argues against that is unamerican, and can go straight to china and join ur chi.-com. little buddies. :) :p :rolleyes:
 
Top