or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong. - Page 5

post #161 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Ra
Geez, ok... let me clean it up a bit:

Nope. It's still irreverent drivel.

You jumped into a conversation that didn't involve you (which in itself is perfectly acceptable in a public forum) but you don't seem to have any grasp of what was being talked about.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #162 of 369
Quote:
bunge let loose:
Nope. It's still irreverent drivel.

You jumped into a conversation that didn't involve you (which in itself is perfectly acceptable in a public forum) but you don't seem to have any grasp of what was being talked about.



groverat: Containment kills tens of thousands of Iraqis every year.
I guess it's "working".


bunge: Well then you should have been rallying to make Bush and Bubba before him vote intelligently on the sanctions rather than letting them fester.

Statement 1: Containment kills tens of thousands of Iraqis every year.

Reply 1: then you should have been rallying to make Bush and Bubba before him vote intelligently on the sanctions

My question for you: Would that have changed anything? Maybe.
My point: it doesn't matter anymore. Arguing about such past events gets us nowhere.
post #163 of 369
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tonton
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>I do not care about opinion polls. If the world were suddenly run by opinion polls it would fall to crap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's democracy, baby. Move to China if you don't like it.

Opinion polls are democracy?:confused:

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #164 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Ra

My question for you: Would that have changed anything? Maybe.
My point: it doesn't matter anymore. Arguing about such past events gets us nowhere.

Of course it matters. Bush Jr. has been responsible for the sanctions ever since he took office. If they're truly killing tens of thousands erronously, he should be reshaping them.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #165 of 369
As far as the thread topic is concerned, some V.I.P. agree that action should only be taken with U.N. backing.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #166 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
Opinion polls are democracy?:confused:

The implication of your question is that an election is not an opinion poll. Is this your belief?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #167 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Curufinwe
Bush knows that war is the only way that he is going to get re-elected.

Just think about it. . . CNN spending all day covering the slow and agonizing implosion of the U.S. economy would not be good news for this son-of-a-Bush.

He is banking on converting Americans from unconscious imperialists who think they are making a better world into actual imperialists who don't give a sh*t.

Because a UN supported, wildly successful war did so well for his father?
How far up you ass was your head when you wrote that?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #168 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
This war is wrong. The arguments for this war are wrong because containment is working.

Or not.
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Inspections are working. [/B]

Again, not. Ispections are to verify the complete destruction of WMD, not to play hide and seek and hunt them down. They are not working.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #169 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
Or not.

Again, not. Ispections are to verify the complete destruction of WMD, not to play hide and seek and hunt them down. They are not working.

Again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #170 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
The implication of your question is that an election is not an opinion poll. Is this your belief?

Correct. I believe an election is a method for the populace to legally and systematically choose, select and empower a leader or leaders to govern and make decisions, carry out actions on behalf of the people.

I believe an opinion poll is an informal tool for people and organisations to gather data to estimated the current mood of other people. An opinion poll carries no legal weight, nor should it be used as anything more than a gauge of public opinion.

The implication of your question could be taken to infer that an election is an opinion poll. Perhaps in a very loose sense you could make that connection, but you can not also say that an opinion poll is an election.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #171 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas

The implication of your question could be taken to infer that an election is an opinion poll. Perhaps in a very loose sense you could make that connection, but you can not also say that an opinion poll is an election.

I'd say I agree.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #172 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.

The inspectors are there to supervise and verify the destruction of WMD and complete disarming or Iraq. The inspectors have said Iraq is not disarmed. The inspections have therefore failed.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #173 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
The inspectors are there to supervise and verify the destruction of WMD and complete disarming or Iraq. The inspectors have said Iraq is not disarmed. The inspections have therefore failed.

Again again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #174 of 369
Just read Cook's resignation. Like tonton said, pure brilliance. My favorite part?

Quote:
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

or how about:

Quote:
I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.

Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
post #175 of 369
That's pure rhetoric. A person in power who can supply money and/or deadly weapons to others is not necessarily a tough opponent.

And Israel is a tangent. That's akin to the "everybody's doing it" mentality.

But yes, it's brilliant.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #176 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Again again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.

In what way do the disagree with what I wrote?
The inspectors are there to verify and supervise the destruction of WMD and the disarming of Iraq. The SC disagrees with this? Funny, I thought they said it first. (1441)
Quote:
"UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof"

The inspectors have said Iraq is not disarmed. Again, the UN said (1441) :
Quote:
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,


1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council
9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

Since Blix did not report on March 9, 2003 that Iraq was in full compliance and was in fact stated that Iraq cooperation was neither immediate or unconditional, they are in obvious breach.

You are right, that in the forum of the UN, it is up to the council to decide, and not you or I. However, in an informal debate, such as this, is it perfectly acceptable to demonstrate certain obvious situations, such as Iraq not being in compliance, the actual role of inspections and hence their appearant success/failure.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #177 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas


You are right, that in the forum of the UN, it is up to the council to decide, and not you or I. However, in an informal debate, such as this, is it perfectly acceptable to demonstrate certain obvious situations, such as Iraq not being in compliance, the actual role of inspections and hence their appearant success/failure.

Of coures we can hypothesize about this stuff, I'm in favor of that. And in my own opinion resolution 1441 was breached.

But, we can't hypothesize that resolution 1441 was breached, therefore Bush taking action based on that supposition is legitimate. Once we cross into the real world, such as the imminent attack on Iraq, we have to account for the real world definitions.

So you were implying that the upcoming war is legit because Saddam breached resolution 1441. I'm saying that although in our opinion resolution 1441 was breached, that cannot be used for a precursor to war. Only the Security Council can make a decision to instigate a war or military action based on a U.N. Security Council resolution.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #178 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
That's pure rhetoric. A person in power who can supply money and/or deadly weapons to others is not necessarily a tough opponent.

And Israel is a tangent. That's akin to the "everybody's doing it" mentality.


I don't think Cook was trying to say that "everybody breaks UN resolutions, so Iraq should be able to as well." That's just not very reasonable, Eugene. I think he's exposing the hypocrisy of the United States. We allow our friend and ally, Israel, to break a UN resolution, yet we invade our foe, Iraq, for actually complying with a UN resolution just so we could change its regime. The implications are clear: we act upon foes who are in the process of disarmament, yet we allow friends to continue to break a UN resolution. I can't defend the United States' action here.

But I could supply money and/or deadly weapons to others. Should my regime be bombed too? Could we include the US in that category? Should they be bombed too?
post #179 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
The implications are clear: we act upon foes who are in the process of disarmament, yet we allow friends to continue to break a UN resolution. I can't defend the United States' action here.

But I could supply money and/or deadly weapons to others. Should my regime be bombed too? Could we include the US in that category? Should they be bombed too?

The implications are not clear. Israel is not Iraq. The two situations cannot easily be compared.

-

If bombs are what it takes to remove you from that position, then yes. And sure, you could include the US in that category, but that doesn't make Cook's statement less absurd. A regime doesn't have to be stable or powerful to be dangerous.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #180 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Again again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.

Actually it is you who are wrong. The U.S. and other countries retain their soveignty aside from the U.N. The U.N. is not the sole entity on the planet that can validly decide if military action is not necessary. In fact with the U.S. and Soviet Union on opposite sides in the past, there were dozens of valid instances where the U.S. had to take action and could not do so with the backing of the U.N. thanks to the ability of the Soviet Union (now Russia) to veto.

I suppose if the Soviet Union had vetoed the resolution calling for the removal of missles from Cuba, you would have condemned JFK and praised the Soviets. There never was a U.N. Security Council resolution on Cuba for just this reason. Yet the U.S. undertook a blockade under threat of nuclear annihilation from the Soviets.

The U.S. always right to determine whether they have the right to protect themselves from a clear threat. The president sought the approval of Congress and got a more ambiguios resolution passed by the U.N. He has sought to make his coalition as broad as possible and sought stronger resolutions from the U.N. However the fact that the U.N. and members in it at times cannot agree and pass resolutions does not mean the U.S. is misguided in destroying a clear threat.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #181 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge


So you were implying that the upcoming war is legit because Saddam breached resolution 1441. I'm saying that although in our opinion resolution 1441 was breached, that cannot be used for a precursor to war. Only the Security Council can make a decision to instigate a war or military action based on a U.N. Security Council resolution.

Correct...assuming the military action taken was a UN action.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #182 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I don't think Cook was trying to say that "everybody breaks UN resolutions, so Iraq should be able to as well." That's just not very reasonable, Eugene. I think he's exposing the hypocrisy of the United States. We allow our friend and ally, Israel, to break a UN resolution, yet we invade our foe, Iraq, for actually complying with a UN resolution just so we could change its regime.

You really, honestly beleive that Iraq is complying with the resolution?:confused: By the way, can you find for me the resolution calling for 'serious consequences' against Israel? Or a cease fire agreement that binds Israel to certain condition?

Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce

The implications are clear: we act upon foes who are in the process of disarmament, yet we allow friends to continue to break a UN resolution. I can't defend the United States' action here.

They are in the process of a hodge-podge half-assed disarmament. that itself puts the in violation. Israel is in a unique position, struggling for the life of every Jew in Israel against many nations that hate it. Yes, they will probably be treated differently..though it is still entirely unrelated to this issue...no matter how much Saddam, Osama, Cooke and you want to tie it it.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #183 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Oh come on, it was a pretty clean joke. By the community standards that was hardly notable and both of the parties mentioned have and ought to have thick enough skin to take a little prodding.

Are you sure that isn't just a phalluscy?
post #184 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
unilateral:

US
UK
Albania
Portugal
Spain
Italy
Poland
Australia
Denmark
Latvia
Lithuania
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Macedonia
Croatia
Bosnia
Montenegro

You should have put Australia right behind the UK. Australia is sending troops. Also you forgot Japan.
post #185 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
[BI suppose if the Soviet Union had vetoed the resolution calling for the removal of missles from Cuba, you would have condemned JFK and praised the Soviets. There never was a U.N. Security Council resolution on Cuba for just this reason. Yet the U.S. undertook a blockade under threat of nuclear annihilation from the Soviets.[/B]

The difference between that situation and the Iraq situation is that the Cuban Missile Crisis was an imminent threat on the United States. Iraq simply isn't.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #186 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

The U.S. always right to determine whether they have the right to protect themselves from a clear threat.

You know, I don't think anyone can take a post seriously that equates the threat during the Cuban Missile crisis with the threat from Iraq. That's just outrageous.

EDIT: Spelling & to say that I didn't see that BR had alread addressed the issue.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #187 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
Correct...assuming the military action taken was a UN action.

Good. But a military action taken in the name of a UN resolution, with UN support is illegitimate.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #188 of 369
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
unilateral:

US
UK
Albania
Portugal
Spain
Italy
Poland
Australia
Denmark
Latvia
Lithuania
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Macedonia
Croatia
Bosnia
Montenegro

Now cross out all those countries on the list where war is clearly opposed by its people.
Then cross out all the countries on the list that are poor and need improved relations with the King of the World.

Surprise. There's only one left.

UNILATERAL.
post #189 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton

Surprise. There's only one left.

UNILATERAL.

Why don't you just go ahead and remove that one too since there's as much proof that the majority of Americans are against the war as proof the majority of Macedonians are against it too?
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #190 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You know, I don't think anyone can take a post seriously that equates the threat during the Cuban Missile crisis with the threat from Iraq. That's just outrageous.

EDIT: Spelling & to say that I didn't see that BR had alread addressed the issue.

That wasn't the question, and you are intentionally throwing dirt in the air to get others to ignore your flawed statement.

You claimed that the U.N. security council would be the ones who could legitimately determine if Iraq constituted a threat and if the inspections were working.

I cited an example (Cuba) where regardless of overwhelming evidence (photos of the actual missles) the council could not pass a resolution authorizing military force or even a blockade because of the Soviet veto threat.

If anything you have substanciated my point. The Cuban Missle crisis was probably the most serious threat the United States has faced. We were all standing on the brink of annihilation and even with those threats on the line we could not get the full support of the U.N.

If we couldn't get it for Cuba with the charismatic and intelligent JFK leading the way. How could we possible get it with Iraq and George W. Bush? I am sure you opinion of Bush is much lower than JFK.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #191 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
The difference between that situation and the Iraq situation is that the Cuban Missile Crisis was an imminent threat on the United States. Iraq simply isn't.

Thanks, and now as you said with a clearly imminent threat on the United States how did the U.N. perform with regard to resolutions, inspections and support?

We couldn't get a resolution passed because of the Soviet veto. We couldn't even get support for the blockade where all we were doing is inspecting ships for weapons.

If anything Bush has accomplished more in this regard than JFK did. Bush got support for disarmament and inspections with "consequences." Whereas JFK simply had to act unilaterally with no support or multinational troops.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #192 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
I don't think Cook was trying to say that "everybody breaks UN resolutions, so Iraq should be able to as well." That's just not very reasonable, Eugene. I think he's exposing the hypocrisy of the United States. We allow our friend and ally, Israel, to break a UN resolution, yet we invade our foe, Iraq, for actually complying with a UN resolution just so we could change its regime. The implications are clear: we act upon foes who are in the process of disarmament, yet we allow friends to continue to break a UN resolution. I can't defend the United States' action here.

But I could supply money and/or deadly weapons to others. Should my regime be bombed too? Could we include the US in that category? Should they be bombed too?

Your right Shawn Israel should be held to the same standard. Those nice resolutions that said they shouldn't exist and that Zionism is racism should be enforced. I mean thanks for showing how elevated and intelligent the resolutions of the U.N. are with regard to the world.

You really are building my support for the U.N.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #193 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
Why don't you just go ahead and remove that one too since there's as much proof that the majority of Americans are against the war as proof the majority of Macedonians are against it too?

Oh believe me: the cable news networks have convinced every couch-potato that "war is good.?" (Cue fast paced, look at me graphics and sound effects)

SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ
post #194 of 369
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow.

1. "If Iraq were smart (and I bet they're smarter than some people think) they will have secretly destroyed any remaining WOMD and concentrate all of their efforts on catching invading forces trying to frame them with planted evidence."

---not going to happen. Also, they should first destroy all their weapons, then make it look as if we are planting evidence? What? Whose side are you on?

Wow. I didn't say they should make it look like we're planting evidence. I said they should try to catch us doing it, because in all likelihoodwe're going to do it.

I don't believe Iraq has WOMD. If they don't, Bush is f%cked. He would never let that happen. I actually wish, with all of my heart, that if evidence is manufactured, I hope we are caught.

Quote:
2. "Because Bush will plant WOMD. If Bush goes to war and no WOMD are found then Bush (and at this point, unfortunately, America) will look no better than Bin Laden. He can not and will not take that risk."

OMFG. You have no evidence that Bush will "plant" weapons. Saddam has already armed his forces in southern Iraq with these weapons. They are THERE. For God's own sake, you are blind. And...America will look no better than bin laden? What kind of thinking is this? you mean we will delibrately try to kill civilians? No.

They are there? Says who? Colin Powell? OF COURSE FOX NEWS AND BUSH AND POWELL AND "INTELLIGENCE" WILL REPORT WOMD. Idiot.

Quote:
3. "I can never be proud of being American again. Every time someone asks where I'm from I'll be hesitant to tell them the truth (incidentally, 99% of the people I meet are not American and 90% of those will hate Americans after this). I am ashamed to be associated with a country that thinks it IS God"

It is amazing you feel like this. Let me ask you...if not the US, then who? We are the only nation on Earth with the resources to take this guy out. Inspections have failed. I say again...FAILED. Sanctions, limited military strikes...everything else has failed. You cannot possibly be arguing that we DON'T disarm him, can you? Are you really arguing for containment? Head-in-the-sand liberals like you think the same way: "If Bush hadn't pushed this it wouldn't be a problem". Newsflash It WOULD be a problem. It would just be that no one would be paying attention to it, just as it was ignored for 8 years in the 1990's. Saddam would still be there with his weapons, pursuing nukes and chemical agents at will. There would be NO inspectors. Bush is the reason the world will finally get rid of this madman. Without his insistence on disarmerment, the UN would have NEVER have sent inspectors back in.

If we didn't provoke Saddam and the rest of the Arab world (including our Israel policy) Saddam would rot in Iraq until he died. You cannot prove otherwise. We cannot start a war because we are scared.

Terrorist attacks are going to happen from time to time. Countries may invade other countries. That's when we react. Not before. We punish AFTER an act is committed. Read Philip K. Dick. He proves why we cannot punish before acts are committed, even when we can predict them reliably.

And for your information, I don't oppose the disarmament of Iraq. I don't oppose the dethronement of the Saddam regime. But the world has spoken and the world has said "not yet". We MUST listen to the rest of the world. That is exactly what pisses me off. I live with people's hatred of Americans every day, even in a peaceful place like Hong Kong. The fact that you're all cozy in your little American city, separated from the rest of the world gives you the false belief that diplomacy doesn't matter it does. And lack of diplomacy is going to cast far more American lives and far more innocent lives around the world than would be lost otherwise, in all the unpredictable 9/11s and embassy bombing scenarios imaginable. Look to Israel for proof! Ignoring the Palestinians, how many Israelis have DIED since Sharon took hard line action compared to those who died during the age of diplomacy? Is this protecting the Israeli people? Hell no!

Because of this war, Americans will forever be afraid of terrorist attacks, but instead of unprovoked attacks, they will be very much provoked. We are provoking terrorism. This is scaring the shit out of people. Who are we afraid of? The terrorists. But people are ignorant to the idea of who created those terrorists in the first place.

If you slap your kid around for being bad he may fight back one day. If you give him patience and understanding, no matter how bad a kid he is, he will be far less likely to murder you in your sleep, and some day, he may realize the example you've shown of the difference between right and wrong.

To paraphrase Bush Sr., It's Good and Evil, Right and Wrong. I know the difference. Peace begets peace and war begets war.

Switzerland is one of the most resource rich, strategically well located countries in the world. How many times has it been attacked by terrorists? What about Qatar? They are rich beyond measure. They support trade with America. But they haven't been attacked. Kuwait? Well, (aside from those sadly killed in the Iraqi occupation) are they worse off now than they were before Saddam's unprovoked attack? Hell no. Some people were killed in Kuwait because they were unprepared for Iraq's attack. But had they provoked Iraq, they would have been eliminated.

Quote:
I for one am more proud than ever to be an American. We finally have a President that has the BALLS to do what needs to be done. You can pretend that Saddam is not a threat all you want. Just because it isn;t on the news doesn't mean it isn't happening. Go ahead...go back your little pre-9/11 world, where the US has no effective response to terror and madman because it is afraid of how that response might look. You feel badly about being an American? I feel bad for those that have had to live with Saddam for their whole lives.

Saddam is a threat. But we are under much greater threat after this action. Can you deny that? Even with Saddam out of the picture, can we ever feel safe again? You might say we never felt safe, but can we claim to feel safer with him gone after we have waged an internationally condemned war without provocation? No we do not feel safer. We will never feel safer again.

Quote:
All I hear is "Bush will...." and "Bush's war" and "Bush, Bush, Bush". Have you forgotten this list of nations that goverate posted:

[edit]

I suppose we threatened them all?

How many of those countries are acting as representatives of their people's moral beliefs? Have you never been a "yes man" to your boss? Do you deny that "yes men" exist? Do you think any of these nations are not acting as "yes men" here? This is a unilateral action.
post #195 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Your right Shawn Israel should be held to the same standard. Those nice resolutions that said they shouldn't exist and that Zionism is racism should be enforced. I mean thanks for showing how elevated and intelligent the resolutions of the U.N. are with regard to the world.

You really are building my support for the U.N.

Nick

Well, you're right trumptman. I mean why even have a multinational organization at all anymore? The US should just force its weight around, enforcing whatever it wants, whenever it wants. All in the name of democracy. *sigh*
post #196 of 369
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
Israel is in a unique position, struggling for the life of every Jew in Israel against many nations that hate it.

How the hell is that unique?

(Insert Muslim country here) is in a (!unique) position, struggling for the life of every Muslim in (that country) against many nations that hate it.

Muslims hate Israel because they take land, bulldoze houses in peaceful areas with people inside, kill children (more last week) and wage a war that kills civilians. I hate Israel too.
post #197 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

The Cuban Missle crisis was probably the most serious threat the United States has faced. We were all standing on the brink of annihilation and even with those threats on the line we could not get the full support of the U.N.

You don't need the support of the U.N. under these circumstances. The U.N. Charter already supports a response, like Israel in 1967.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #198 of 369
Because the UN Security Council is, by and large, a cluster****. A necessary evil.

Why no SC action against Israel's illegal settlements? US veto threat. Why no SC action against Milosevic? Russian veto threat. Why only 3 SC-sponsored wars out of 26 since '48? 15 different nations trying to agree on one real course of action is like herding cats.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #199 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Well, you're right trumptman. I mean why even have a multinational organization at all anymore? The US should just force its weight around, enforcing whatever it wants, whenever it wants. All in the name of democracy. *sigh*

Indeed, why have the UN when some people make up their minds before the others even start talking...ahem...vetoes...
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #200 of 369
Quote:
Terrorist attacks are going to happen from time to time.

This is an interesting argument, and not without merit. It goes something like this: "9/11 was just part of the cost of living in the modern world. It's a bearable cost, and we're better off absorbing it than trying to prevent it."

I think another way to put it is "If we just ignore them, they'll get bored with killing us. They can't kill us that fast, anyway."

I think the history of al-Qaeda suggests that both are false. They don't get bored, and they get better and better at it. Our options are to withdraw into a shell, afraid to piss anyone off, ever, and the world can go to sod; or to proactively prevent them from hurting us while we remain engaged in the world.

Quote:
Look to Israel for proof!

A great idea. You seem to forget, though, that the intifada started before Sharon took office. Sharon was created by the intifada. He is the evil baby of the intifada. He'd just be another right-wing crank if not for the intifada. Keep that causality in mind. And, keep in mind that Sharon appears to be "winning" the intifada - attacks on Israelis have plummetted in recent months. As a reward, Israel re-relected him with a rock-solid parliamentary majority. Israelis are surely better off now than in the early days of the intifada, and they know it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong.