Strange thing about Iraq

[lePobz]

Gotta love these attempts at maturity, I find them really funny.

seinfeldrules... you make me laugh.

 

[Korgoth]

I never understood the point of this. Isnt one exclamation point sufficent? Also, what is the deal with 'one', I dont really see the humor in it.

It wasn't supposed to be humorous, it is in fact meant to be a slap in the face of ever leet kiddy on the internet. And ya' know, if I can't even make a joke about pie without you coming around trying to piss me off and start another argument, ugh you are annoying. I give up.
Here is a proposition, how about you NEVER talk to me again, and I'll never talk to you again that way I can retain my sanity.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

I must admit... After being a part of this thread from close to the beginning, and reading all the responses till now I am rethinking which candidate I should vote for.
























































I have decided to vote for whichever of the two will ensure this thread gets closed.... :wink: lol

 

[seinfeldrules]

Gotta love these attempts at maturity, I find them really funny.

Well at least I still try where you fail.

 

[lePobz]

I don't try yet I manage to fail? Nice.

Well, your last post just kinda failed you, badly. Never mind, live and learn.

 

[Gajdycz]

saddam had no restrictions, he could kill/rape/torture whoever he wanted, his own sons killed/raped plenty of women, and now the iranians are planting mullahs to conjure up zealots, and thats the problem

 

[Cybernoid]

Were they really Finnish or don't I just remember such a thing?

They were. It was all over the news.

 

[CptStern]

saddam had no restrictions, he could kill/rape/torture whoever he wanted, his own sons killed/raped plenty of women, and now the iranians are planting mullahs to conjure up zealots, and thats the problem

so you're saying the coalition should invade Iran? how about Syria? they should invade Saudi arabia

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

so you're saying the coalition should invade Iran? how about Syria? they should invade Saudi arabia

I honestly think Iran will eventually take care of itself... Either the left wing students will get fed up with religious right or its government will do something so blatently stupid to keep them in check that the world will have to get invloved.

Not in the short term... But eventually.

 

[CptStern]

I honestly think Iran will eventually take care of itself... Either the left wing students will get fed up with religious right or its government will do something so blatently stupid to keep them in check that the world will have to get invloved.

Not in the short term... But eventually.

I too hope that sooner or later the fundamentalist government in Iran is overthrown and a democratically elected government was put in place. I dont however think their should be any outside interference; the last time they got involved in Iran they made a mess of things which in turn led to the formation of the fundamentalist regime that currently rules Iran today.

 

[Korgoth]

Well I figure if Bush is re-elected we will be in Iran in the next two years. Our troops, our ships, our planes they are all right there ready to go. They have been deemed (the axis of evil) so it won't be long And when that happens, we can all just kiss our asses goodbye, it will be to far gone by then.
It has been nice being a member of the human race... In fact my experience on this planet would have been perfect, if only there weren't jackasses like seinfeildrules... How sweet it could have been.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Well I figure if Bush is re-elected we will be in Iran in the next two years. Our troops, our ships, our planes they are all right there ready to go. They have been deemed (the axis of evil) so it won't be long And when that happens, we can all just kiss our asses goodbye, it will be to far gone by then.
It has been nice being a member of the human race... In fact my experience on this planet would have been perfect, if only there weren't jackasses like seinfeildrules... How sweet it could have been.

NK is the greater threat... Another example of botched UN go-no-go policies...

 

[CptStern]

NK is the greater threat... Another example of botched UN go-no-go policies...

this is what got us into trouble in the first place ..the US should have learned from it's mistake in iraq, global opinion will not tolerate another regime change ...just adding fuel to the fire

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

this is what got us into trouble in the first place ..the US should have learned from it's mistake in iraq, global opinion will not tolerate another regime change ...just adding fuel to the fire

If you're saying the UN got us in this trouble in the first place I couldn't agree more.

If Kerry started running on a plateform to disband the UN he'd get my vote no matter how much he wants to raise taxes.

 

[CptStern]

bah, the UN isnt to blame for this ..it's clear who's responsible

 

[Sprafa]

How can anyone say the UN got anyone in trouble.....


please, whoever you are, explain.

 

[blahblahblah]

How can anyone say the UN got anyone in trouble.....


please, whoever you are, explain.

I'm not taking a position on this subject, but I will briefly argue against the UN. Just for the sake of argument since you people enjoy arguing.

You can aruge the UN has been woefully ineffective at containing rogue nations. Saddam Hussein willful disobeyed UN directives. Not only did Hussein still possess Scud missles, he engaged in black market activities, sold more oil than what he was allowed too, did not properly allocate food to his citizens from the food for oil program, committed intentional mass killings, and even attacked other nations. The list of atrocities goes on and on. Yet, the UN was content to play games with him. The UN did nothing when he refused to appease the UN weapon inspectors. The UN did nothing to solve the economic, political and societal problems that Iraq had.

You say that Bush is a violent war monger. Yes, but at least he did something about the problem. If the UN lead the world, Hussein would still be in power trying still breaking those rules. What is better? Action that causes the death of innocent lives so the future can be changed? Or inaction that still causes the death of innocent lives with no change in the future?

What do you think the UN would have done if the US had never invaded Iraq? Nothing. At least the children in Iraq have the potential for a free future. They couldn't say that if Saddam Hussein was still in power.

Now, somebody is probably trying to go and flame the living daylights out of me. This does neccessarily reflect my opinions or beliefs. It is just "fuel for the fire" if you will.

 

[CptStern]

If the UN lead the world, Hussein would still be in power trying still breaking those rules.

yes but the people of the congo would have been saved, the sudan problem would have been settled and east timor would be free

 

[Sprafa]

I'm not taking a position on this subject, but I will briefly argue against the UN. Just for the sake of argument since you people enjoy arguing.

thank you

now let's argue

You can aruge the UN has been woefully ineffective at containing rogue nations. Saddam Hussein willful disobeyed UN directives.

right so far...

Not only did Hussein still possess Scud missles, he engaged in black market activities, sold more oil than what he was allowed too, did not properly allocate food to his citizens from the food for oil program,

still right on those points...

committed intentional mass killings, and even attacked other nations. The list of atrocities goes on and on. Yet, the UN was content to play games with him. The UN did nothing when he refused to appease the UN weapon inspectors. The UN did nothing to solve the economic, political and societal problems that Iraq had.

Attacked other nations....like in the Gulf War? When the UN striked him and left him nearly powerless?

You say that Bush is a violent war monger. Yes, but at least he did something about the problem. If the UN lead the world, Hussein would still be in power trying still breaking those rules. What is better? Action that causes the death of innocent lives so the future can be changed? Or inaction that still causes the death of innocent lives with no change in the future?

The future has changed, yes you're right about that. But is this impending anarchy in Iraq a better future?
As far as the people of Iraq say in the polls, they hated Saddam, but they hate the invasion even more.

What do you think the UN would have done if the US had never invaded Iraq? Nothing. At least the children in Iraq have the potential for a free future. They couldn't say that if Saddam Hussein was still in power.

Oh yes...the dead children will have a much better future, indeed.
And the children that are now being recruted to terrorist/rebel organizations in mass. Oh yes indeed....

Now, somebody is probably trying to go and flame the living daylights out of me. This does neccessarily reflect my opinions or beliefs. It is just "fuel for the fire" if you will.

Some quite bad fuel, might I add.


Thr truth is that without the Bush destruction of the UN international power, the world would be way better off.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

There has been no unilateral intervention in NK by the US... Everything that has been, and is today, are proud accomplishments of the UN. Good job on keeping a war going for 60 years Kopi.

 

[CptStern]

There has been no unilateral intervention in NK by the US... Everything that has been, and is today, are proud accomplishments of the UN. Good job on keeping a war going for 60 years Kopi.

it's Kofi not Kopi

the UN is only as strong as it's members, the war crimes tribunal(UN affiliated) tried to bring George Bush sr up on war crimes for the first gulf war but they were powerless to mete out justice

 

[Sprafa]

There has been no unilateral intervention in NK by the US... Everything that has been, and is today, are proud accomplishments of the UN. Good job on keeping a war going for 60 years Kopi.

WTF do you think you're talking about?

Do you know NK was perfectly peaceful until Big Bush cut the oil fund ?

Allow me to explain. In the 90's, the USA made a deal with NK. They gave up nuclear power, and the USA would supply them with oil to compensate the necessity of energy.

Bush thought that was too soft, and decided to cut the oil shipment. So, what could they do? they re-started the nuclear program. All the threats they make, all the bullshit they say is to make the USA get in back and make a new deal. But now, of course, they want something bigger and better. but now, under new admin., the USA refuses to do anything for them but demands them for the dismantling of their nuclear powerplants.

 

[blahblahblah]

the UN is only as strong as it's members, the war crimes tribunal(UN affiliated) tried to bring George Bush sr up on war crimes for the first gulf war but they were powerless to mete out justice

Regardless if you believe it is true or not you admit the UN is ineffective at everything it does?

Why am I supposed to support the UN if the Un is totaly incompetent at everything it does?

Disclaimer: Now, somebody is probably trying to go and flame the living daylights out of me. This does neccessarily reflect my opinions or beliefs. It is just "fuel for the fire" if you will.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

it's Kofi not Kopi

the UN is only as strong as it's members, the war crimes tribunal(UN affiliated) tried to bring George Bush sr up on war crimes for the first gulf war but they were powerless to mete out justice

In other words member states couldn't agree that it was the right thing to do... So in fact it wasn't...

Hopefully they will go the way of the league of nations soon.

I think alliances will someday provide future stability for the world... The EU for example... If they could stop bickering amongst them selves long enough to form a common thought they could be a strong force...

Rebuilding the Communist bloc countries... Same deal.

Or Nato getting a sharp focus but the geographic spread will make this nearly impossible.

 

[CptStern]

In other words member states couldn't agree that it was the right thing to do... So in fact it wasn't...

no ...they convicted him/them in absentia

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

WTF do you think you're talking about?

Do you know NK was perfectly peaceful until Big Bush cut the oil fund ?

Allow me to explain. In the 90's, the USA made a deal with NK. They gave up nuclear power, and the USA would supply them with oil to compensate the necessity of energy.

Bush thought that was too soft, and decided to cut the oil shipment. So, what could they do? they re-started the nuclear program. All the threats they make, all the bullshit they say is to make the USA get in back and make a new deal. But now, of course, they want something bigger and better. but now, under new admin., the USA refuses to do anything for them but demands them for the dismantling of their nuclear powerplants.

You've confused Bush with Clinton. Clinton agreed to build them a reactor in exchange for a halt to nuclear weapons development... Work was started on the reactor but the US dragged it's feet because Clinton didn't see NK living up to it's end of the bargain... (Clintons words not mine. And history would prove him right) The reactor was never completed and NK we now know never stopped developing nuclear weapons

Bush cut off the oil after NK annouced it had nukes...

NK was never peaceful... They have been held in check but the Korean war goes on.

 

[Sprafa]

It seems all Bush supporters / anti-UN / anti-EU ppl are plagued by the disease of ignorance.

 

[Korgoth]

We comlpain that Saddam violated resolution after resolution, yet we turned our back on the diplomatic process and the U.N. when we told the inspectors to leave and went in ourselves. Why should we expect other countries to follow U.N. guidelines when we don't even respect the orginization ourselves?

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

We comlpain that Saddam violated resolution after resolution, yet we turned our back on the diplomatic process and the U.N. when we told the inspectors to leave and went in ourselves. Why should we expect other countries to follow U.N. guidelines when we don't even respect the orginization ourselves?

Did you say the same about Clinton when he set the precedence for this in the Balkans?

 

[blahblahblah]

no ...they convicted him/them in absentia

The UN is so effective

The Members urge that the power of the United Nations Security Council, which was blatantly manipulated by the U.S. to authorize illegal military action and sanctions...

I want the UN to rule the world...

 

[Korgoth]

Did you say the same about Clinton when he set the precedence for this in the Balkans?

Sure, why not? Clinton gets the blame to.
And my point still remains...

 

[CptStern]

bah, it bothers me that you would ignore the charges and insult the integrity of the UN instead ...it boggles the mind


" The members of the International War Crimes Tribunal finds each of the named accused Guilty on the basis of the evidence against them and that each of the nineteen crimes alleged in the Initial Complaint, attached hereto, has been established to have been committed beyond a reasonable doubt. "

 

[Sprafa]

You've confused Bush with Clinton. Clinton agreed to build them a reactor... Work was started but the US dragged it's feet because Clinton didn't see NK living up to it's end of the bargain... (Clintons words not mine. And history would prove him right) The reactor was never completed and NK we know know never stopped developing nuclear weapons

Bush cut off the oil after NK annouced it had nukes...

NK was never peaceful... They have been held in check but the Korean war goes on.

Was never peaceful ? oh yes, of course, the Korean war is stil happening. oh c'mon, every 5 years there's an incursion. If that's a war, then half of the world is at war.

SEOUL, South Korea (Reuters) -- An oil tanker arrived in North Korea Tuesday carrying the last shipment of U.S.-funded fuel oil to the communist state unless it halts a banned nuclear weapons programme, South Korea said.






1994 agreement
North Korea promised to give up its nuclear weapons program and allow inspections to verify that it did not have the material such weapons would require. The country has yet to allow the inspections.

N. Korea nuclear facts
# North Korea launched a medium-range "test" missile over Japan in 1998.
# The 1994 Agreed Framework was signed by North Korea with the Clinton administration.
# In return, an international consortium is building new nuclear reactors in North Korea.

Washington and its allies decided last week to stop vital fuel oil aid to penalise Pyongyang for breaking a series of non-proliferation pledges. The cuts will hit North Korea just ahead of winter, which brings sub-freezing temperatures.

The United States, Japan, South Korea and the European Union agreed to suspend the fuel oil shipments to North Korea from December. But they allowed delivery of the 42,500-tonne November batch, which was already on the high seas.

North Korea has not yet responded to the decision to cut the fuel shipments -- a move Pyongyang envoys have said would be viewed as a hostile act.

Under a 1994 agreement, the North promised to freeze its nuclear weapons programme in return for fuel oil, paid for by Washington, and two light water reactors that cannot easily be converted to produce atomic weapons material.

The world's last Cold War flashpoint went from reconciliation to crisis prevention last month, when U.S. officials said North Korea had admitted pursuing a nuclear arms development programme, violating the 1994 accord, known as the Agreed Framework.

U.S. President George W. Bush issued a statement last week demanding North Korea dismantle its nuclear programme while reiterating the United States had no intention of invading the isolated and impoverished country.
'Nuclear entitlement'

The North has asserted that it is entitled to have nuclear weapons in the face of a U.S. government that has branded North Korea part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq and talked of preemptive military strikes against hostile states.

North Korea has demanded that the United States sign a non-aggression treaty and guarantee the impoverished country's sovereignty in order to resolve the nuclear row.

they "said" they might get nukes if the USA didn't back off and signed a non-agression treaty.

 

[Sprafa]

Did you say the same about Clinton when he set the precedence for this in the Balkans?

ah yes, the Balkans....when Russia used their veto option, but the rest of the world begged for the USA to go in.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

My point here is that both sides of this debate repeatedly point at in the ineffectiveness of the UN...

The Korean war was the first real test of the UN and look where we are today.

BTW we still have UN troops in the Sinai to. There's a long record of the UN bogging down in the middle of conflicts and never getting to a solution.

Bosina...

 

[blahblahblah]

bah, it bothers me that you would ignore the charges and insult the integrity of the UN instead ...it boggles the mind


" The members of the International War Crimes Tribunal finds each of the named accused Guilty on the basis of the evidence against them and that each of the nineteen crimes alleged in the Initial Complaint, attached hereto, has been established to have been committed beyond a reasonable doubt. "

Why was Saddam Hussein never arrested and tried for war/humanitarian crimes back then? Double standard perhaps? Maybe your hatred for Bush is a little to blind. Don't call him guilty unless you are willing to call everybody who has done something wrong guilty as well.

You should probably charge other countries for supporting the first Gulf War as well.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

ah yes, the Balkans....when Russia used their veto option, but the rest of the world begged for the USA to go in.

Why does the rest of the world expect the US to solve their problems? Seriously. I want to know.

There are 36,000 American troops still defending SK... Even though the conflict was declared by the UN and many other countries participated in the war. Why did the US get tasked with safe guarding the South?

Fl is getting hammered by a second hurricane this season while the rest of the world sits on its fat a$$ in a cafe sipping tea.

 

[Sprafa]

Why was Saddam Hussein never arrested and tried for war/humanitarian crimes back then? Double standard perhaps? Maybe your hatred for Bush is a little to blind. Don't call him guilty unless you are willing to call everybody who has done something wrong guilty as well.

You should probably charge other countries for supporting the first Gulf War as well.

Jesus, you are the greatest Bush cult member I've ever seen.

Saddam had thousands of charges, but no one would really get him would they?

Charge countries for supporting the Gulf War? The Gulf War has nothing to do with it. War crimes, not waging war is the point here.

 

[Sprafa]

Why does the rest of the world expect the US to solve their problems? Seriously. I want to know.

You volunteered, smartass. If you really want to pursue an isolacionist policy, then stop invading other countries.

Fl is getting hammered by a second hurricane this season whle the rest of the world sits on its fat a$$ in a cafe sipping tea.

ah yes.... the floods in Japan and Singapure, the bombs in Israel, the Chechen terrorism all over Russia.... the rest of the world is so well....

 

[blahblahblah]

Jesus, you are the greatest Bush cult member I've ever seen.

Saddam had thousands of charges, but no one would really get him would they?

Charge countries for supporting the Gulf War? The Gulf War has nothing to do with it. War crimes, not waging war is the point here.

You must be the greatest communist I have ever seen as well.

You are telling me it is more fair to charge Bush Sr. who has 19 crimes on his plate than Saddam who had thousands of crimes on his plate because he was more accessable?

The War Crimes were caused by the war. How do you know that no other country participated in a conspiracy to take down Hussein and willfully initiate military conflict?