|
pepe
|
If the US goes to war without the UN approval that will break the UN no longer has it a reason for excistence as its not respected and its natures law in world politics
as it is now the UN is a way for the smaller nations that doesnt have a standing army of x millions and/or nukes to make their voices heard and also a way to settle conflicts through negotiations
the UN has an important function and thats why i am against USA-GB going to war on their own
i dont oppose war as i see the need but if it comes to war it has to be with the UN seal of approval thet makes it a legit war otherwise its the attacking nation that is the offender here and strange as it may seem not iraq
its called folkr?tt in swedish wich would translate to something like people/populationlaw/bill and governs the international relations and the crimes commited by a goverment such as genocide and offensive war
the reason i got upsett in the first place was for the silly bashing of the french and germans from the US media
Clinton did bomb kosovo serbia but the french had troops on the ground as did a lot of other european countries but the clinton administration refused as american casulties would have been unacceptable for the public oppinion at home
much like the vietnam war and the opperations in somalia were it was the american public that protested and the goverment pulled the plug
saddam has to go yes and as much as weed like we cant assasinate him as that would make it ok for other countries to try and axe each others leaders of and weed have ww3 anyway
saddam is a mad hatter and his sons isnt any saner. beeing the son of a dictator with absolute power does give you a twisted moral compass
the roman emperors was quite a strange group aswell
whenever power is herreditary and you forgett to instill the propper values into the next heir youre gonna have problems sooner or later
i dont belive that saddam will give up or that the un-weapon inspectors will find anything as he had have lots of years to hide them all
the sanctions only punish the weak that are already suffering under saddam
should they have to suffr under both the UN and saddam they hardly deserve it do they?
i can understand the french trying to protect their economical interests in iraq and if the US had any they would have done the same thing basicly as they have done with israel when they have been way out of line
and yes i am aware of the history of the region and what actually happened after ww2 but its a bit long and off-topic for now
to pho: i agree with you that saddam has to go BUT not with anyone starting a "righteous war" without the approval of the UN
the sanctions and weapon inspections are worthless
bashing the french politicians is fine by me but their army has nothing to do with this as they are a capable fighting force not as large as the amercian granted but not just a gang of wussies either
the french had partisans in ww2 just like greece and the polish i belive
partisans = geruillas
i wont go into the racist debate or the USA beeing such a great country ill leave them to others that find them worthwile and/or amusing
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
lol
just found out something funny about the docs about the wapons america "says " they have
its actually some californian students endwork of 10 years ago and there are even typing faults in it ..
mwhahha bush doesnt have a pot to piss in for a war aginst Iraq
and hey 2 things
1) if the people are nhapp with sadam they just have to move out of the country .
2)who cares if sadams rocket flies 150 miles further then normal .
I donthave to tell you guys how far I can piss or anything else .
godamnit
war is like a pokergame , dont let the others look into your card .
and sadam doesnt have to tell bush if he has some kings or queens in his cards .
stupid asses ( talking about Sadam AND Bush)
ps scrapp he help of UK pho .
the people didnt want war in iraq and there was a iot.
the goverment of the uk had to low up there support in the war .
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
1) if the people are nhapp with sadam they just have to move out of the country i assume you mean not happy? they would, except for the fact that as soon as they try to leave they are generally shot.. along with pho, a nice little quote here : what is popular is not always right, what is right is not always popular.. Its kinda funny how a Dictator has managed to begin ripping the UN apart as Hitler a Dictator ripped the League of Nations apart ... in the sense that everyone is afraid to do anything, in WW2, America stayed out and we went to ww2, now were sitting here pulling our hair out trying to prevent Saddam from starting WW3 at a later date and everyones yelling at us.. funny how that works.. you get yelled at for trying to stop something, and if you do nothing and it happens you get yelled at for not doing anything.. i say, better safe than sorry.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Jones
|
who cares if sadams rocket flies 150 miles further then normal .
I donthave to tell you guys how far I can piss or anything else . the difference between saddam having a further-reaching rocket and you having a further-reaching stream of piss is that people don't die when you piss on them. also, saddam is not just trying to have a pissing contest, as it were. if he were, he'd be flaunting his chemical/biological/nuclear abilities, as well as the range of his rocket motors. instead he attempts to hide them, only revealing a few minor ones to appease the UN weapons inspectors. north korea is the one going for a pissing contest. they're openly flaunting their nuclear capabilities, and the range of their rockets. however, have you seen one fired yet? no. and you'll note that bush is (more or less) trying to maintain diplomatic relations with them. in fact, last i'd heard, we restored food aid to north korea. okay, so they want a pissing contest. we'll play pissing games with them to make them happy, but at the end of the day, no one is hurt, and there are no imminent threats of war, express or implied (overlooking the threat north korea once threw up regarding the food aid, which we averted in a non-military fashion). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
we would violate what little remaining trust the international community has left in us. Telling the UN that it has lost any credibilty, going in without international approval, and having a leader that is more or less acts like a dick to the international community. Negotiating with North Korea but not Iraq, Continuing 3 billion dollars in funding for Israel, not to mention the past indescretions of the US government. I think any trust anyone had in the US government vanished long ago, but the first 3 things i listed there will do far more damage than violating the Geneva Convention, especially considering the US already did that with the "POWs which aren't POWs" in Guantanamo Bay Cuba Its kinda funny how a Dictator has managed to begin ripping the UN apart as Hitler a Dictator ripped the League of Nations apart Who? Bush? At last check Iraq wasn't on the security council, thus doesn't have a voice like Germany did in the League |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-02-26, 20:52 by Devlar »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Atom235
|
Pho.. you missed one country of the list that helped Iraq to acquire much of it's arsenal it has today: US. This is a well known fact. Yes.. Saddam is quite a dictator, and has killed his own citizens (although a different racial group ones). I condemn that act. He might be a threat to the stability of the region, but doing what he did back in 1991 is not so probable anymore. It would be suicidal mission, and Saddam knows this. He has WMDs, and wants to acquire more of them. That's because A) Weapon inspections are a joke, cause US will attack to Iraq anyway. Saddam wants to have something to defend his country. The probable tactics used by British and US (disarm Saddam and then attack) is feeding this. Why do I think they use this tactic? Because US had all the proofs before weapon inspections started, and it could have revealed them before they started, and proved that Iraq broke the UN resolution xxx by acquiring, producing and stockpiling WMDs. B) Israel has nukes and all kinds of WMDs, and no-one has ever cared about them, although the Israelis are quite militaristic ppl, and they start to resemble Nazis more and more. They also have right wing extrimists in their government. If I were Saddam or any other Islamic country leader, I'd be very worried about this and started my own weapon programs. On a side note.. nuclear war in Middle East could solve the constant crisis in there.  Is war acceptable method for "liberating" Iraq from Saddam? I really don't know that. It might even a good thing for the Iraqii ppl in the long run. Immediate effects are horrid, of course, but let's say after a few years it will be quite different place to live. Then again.. it's something of an outragous act from US IF UN doesn't accept the war. It's always the ones who make the dirty work that get disrespect from others. Bush has proven to be a more than a retard stupid leader. He did give money to Hydrogen car development, which is surprising and refreshingly good act from Bush  . I do hope it's more than a theatre. Then again..US did withdraw from ABM agreement, and didn't want to ratify Biological arms reductment program. US continues to develop nuclear weapons, and wants to deny it from others that are keen to have such weapons. This makes it morally uncondemnable for Saddam and other non-WMD countries to have such weapons. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-02-26, 21:15 by Atom235 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
I still dont get it how stupid bush is that he was waving with a " document over enemy artelerie" wich was actually from a californian student who made that as endwork in university by this I wanna say something to bush till now all the countys who normally would help america has fallen of because the people where against the war . and if america was smart they would also come on the street and say " no more Wars !!" because at that moment your loosy president should look at his people and listen to them. and since its a democratie bush would have to recall his troops . if he doesnt you finally see what kind of idiotic president you have who doesnt listen to the people . after all its to people who make the country run . not the president . Pho for once your gonna have to agree with me . on this one  War is never good there is no true winner , only loosers no matter who is fighting . this includes every war exept star wars : Bart Simpson. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
devlar, you tottally misread what i meant, i meant that the UN is falling apart because everyone is afraid of a war with saddam... theres so much disunity that it might as well be called 'DisUnited Nations' ... Germany didnt have a voice in the LoN, if they did they wouldnt have ended up with the short end of the stick with the Treaty of Versailles. The league of nations fell apart because everyone was afraid of another war, the un will become the same if it doesnt start actually using force when its really necessary instead of only when it fits their agenda....
(now, you are going to say it fits bush's agenda to take out saddam because of oil.. i really dont think thats the case as much as the fact that bush might actually have it right that saddam should be gone..)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
McDeth
|
Saying that the french are wussies ignores almost all of their history with the exception of the 1900 to 1950s Let me point out that I said "Throughout history they have been these" I did not say that they are these all the time. In defence of the French, I'd like to say that they have a beautiful country, and that they produce(ed) some of the greatest minds in history. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Beer? I'm down.
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
i meant that the UN is falling apart because everyone is afraid of a war with saddam No one is afraid to go to war with Sadam, they just don't consider it their war. The only people Sadam is a threat to is Kuwait and Israel. Don't give me that connection to terrorism thing either, yes cause there's proof of that The league of nations fell apart because Germany Veto'd any international call to arms against it (So did Japan). The fact that everyone was equal was what destroyed the league of nations. I hope the US and its people are prepared to deal with the consequences of calling the UN irrelevant, since they could soon find themselves with the short end of that same stick. People will not tolerate Imperialism in this day and age. But then another cold war would be good for buisness right? and M.A.D. really wasn't an insane piece of political jargin that caused the entire world to live in fear. The only thing Bush is doing is telling the world that if you have nukes we'll leave you alone, but if you don't you'll end up like Sadam, so by all means get nukes quickly especially if your a dicator, like me. This type of policy will only end up good weapons makers, it will on the other hand totally screw the general population of the US who don't want anything to do with it but will ultimately be the casualties. Where is a Lee Harvey Oswald when you need one? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Arno
|
Saying that the french are wussies ignores almost all of their history with the exception of the 1900 to 1950s In defense of the french, the french weren't wussies at all during 1900-1950. They fought very hard in the trenches during WWI. When the americans joined WWI, the german army was already on its last reserves. And in WWII, like Pepe said, the german army that manouvered around the Maginot line was just impossible to beat. Also, during that period it was the british expedition force in France that quickly evacuated back to England when the germans were approaching. If the French army didn't hold off the germans as long as they could, these british forces would have been captured and made POW. IMO, all this rifle-dropping-stereotype-talking is just major bullshit. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
It should also be remembered that the French underground was very courageous, and very determined. It is only the current administration in France I think that needs to get their heads examined. Every country and every people has their faults, no?
Devlar, what are you suggesting, that someone assassinate the current US President? Have you completely lost your mind? Were 3,000+ deaths on this soil on 9/11 not enough, now you want to add another? Please tell me I'm mistaken in how I'm reading this! 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
games keeper
Elite
Posts: 1375
|
iM WITH DVLAR ON THIS 1 .
(already bought my sniperrifle on ebay)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dev/null
|
I seriously doubt that's a very good thing to imply games keeper. Even a small little comment like that would quickly be taken as a terrorist threat, they need all the scapgoats they can get you know.
/me remembers CNN trying to blame the space shuttle crash on terrorists :lol:
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-02-27, 18:37 by dev/null »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hedhunta
|
iM WITH DVLAR ON THIS 1 .
(already bought my sniperrifle on ebay) well, go ahead and try to assasinate him with your airsoft sniperrifle, ill be watching the news and itll be funny when the secret service blows you away with their REAL rifles.. only to find that your only shooting 6mm bbs cause ebay doesnt allow the sale of real guns on theyre site.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
No I have not, if it would help save the lives of thousands of iraquis, i believe it will be worth it. Unlike you Phoenix I am Machievellian in my poltics, Ends do justify means and in this case the one life of a extremist poltician is worth less than the thousands of lives he will destroy
Oh and for the record, my Lee Harvey Oswald remark is also directed at Sadam and Tony Blair. Although the way things are going for Tony, is we wont need an Oswald, just a guy who hands out pink slips.
What i find infinately more hilarous about Bush on the other hand is the fact that he claims that the americans will stay there until a Democracy is formed. Considering 80% of the people in Iraq are Muslim Fundamentalists who are very Anti-American and will see this as a Zionist lead occupation of their land, America will either be there indefinately or set up a puppet government which is far from democract *cough* Pinoche Ver. 2 *cough*
Oh GamesKeeper is lucky, he doesn't live in America, Or else Patriot Act II would have him kidnapped (arrested without charge) by the government
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
What? The ends justify the means? Alright then Devlar, if the ends justify the means, then the forced conversion of people to Christianity under pain of torture and death like in the inquisition is justified since it will in the end "save their souls". After all, eternal damnation in hell is far worse than any pain suffered here, and if they don't convert then they were damned anyway so let's remove the unbelievers so they can't corrupt the population.
If the ends justify the means, then the forced conversion of people to Islam under pain of torture and death is necessitated since it is the will of Allah to cleanse the world of infidels and bring all to the true religion.
If the ends justify the means, then it's ok for someone to murder another person since if it will make their lives better.
If the ends justify the means, then it's ok to steal whatever you want from the rich since you need it and they have more money than you.
If the ends justify the means, then it's ok to destroy the environment of the earth "in the name of progress" since it will increase the material standard of living for all mankind.
If the ends justify the means, then it's ok for the military to secretly experiment on the civilian population since it will better prepare them for the next conflict.
If the ends justify the means, then it's ok to torture animals in the name of industry and medical science to make things safe for humans.
If the ends justify the means, then mass execution of certain ethnic groups, people of certain political or religious persuasion, or with certain mental defects is acceptible and necessary to remove these potential criminal elements from society before they can cause a problem.
If the ends justify the means, then those born with certain genetic traits, along with those born with defects should be put to death so those traits cannot be passed down to future generations, thereby improving humanity and bringing it closer to perfection.
If the ends justify the means then the use of secret police, espionage on civilians, and secret arrests and abductions are permissible in order to remove the threat of terrorism and political insurgents before they can act.
If the ends justify the means then the use of a preemptive war against a potentially threatening country is acceptible in the name of national security. It's us or them, after all.
And lastly, if the ends justify the means then the invasion of Iraq and the killing of a few thousand Iraqi's is certainly acceptible if it means removing a tyrant dictator and his weapons of mass destruction before they can be used by terrorists on millions of Americans. After all, it's ONLY a matter of numbers, what are a few thousand compared to a few million?
If this is your philosophy then how can you possibly object to what the US is about to do? Is this what you really want? Are some people's lives worth more to you than others? That if you belong to a certain political persuasion somehow you're morally superior to others who aren't, and therefore more worthy to live? Let's leave a ruthless barbarian in control of a county since it's morally wrong to wage war for any reason, and if a few thousand die along the way, well, they're all Muslim extremists and they weren't worthy anyway! Why CAN'T we be more like the Nazi's, stamping out whoever we don't like or letting others oppress them for us! Or how about more like Iraq, Saddam's not such a bad guy after all, he's only murdered a few hundred thousand people, and there are too many people on this planet anyway so what's a few thousand more? Just so long as the US isn't doing it, we can't let those self-righteous Americans get their way now. Let's impose OUR will instead upon the whole world since OUR WAY IS THE RIGHT WAY and these common plebeians don't know how to run their own lives! It's ok for us to value one type of tyrant over another and cheer the cause of peace by supporting a murderer and proposing murder for another kind of "tyrant" since we don't like that one. Let's tell everyone else how it has to be, and then smack them down and accuse them of being intolerant when they do the same thing to us, since obviously we know better.
Of course, if the ends justify the means, you only mean that it is YOUR ends that are justified, and nobody elses. Yet you'll condemn anyone else who has this attitude, unless they agree with your political view. What kind of standard are you keeping? You think I somehow WANT a war with Iraq? No, I do not. Neither do a lot of soldiers over in the desert sand, but they have a firm grasp of what's at stake if they don't do their job. What I want is for Saddam to step down and give up the bad stuff he has and let his people go, or else for his generals to overthrow him and say to the world "here, come take these evil weapons away" but except by some divine intervention I see no way either of these situations will happen, so desired or not, war IS going to happen. It may not be right, but I do think it is necessary. I do not believe that the ends ever justify the means unless the means are just as well. Sometimes there is little choice in the matter when other alternatives fail. Sure the US may be wrong, but I know that Saddam isn't right. I do happen to believe in right and wrong, and yes, I believe in absolutes. What I do not understand is that when you say there is no absolute right why then do you treat everyone else who disagrees with you or differs in political or religious affiliation like they're absolutely wrong? Aren't they just as right as you since there is no absolute right as you've said? I really do not understand your view of things. I am trying to. 
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2003-02-28, 03:58 by Phoenix »
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Devlar
|
You say End Justifies the means but you forget the end I am refering to, the lack of loss of life is the end. So yes I would consider shooting Bush if it would create an end that causes less Iraquis to die, I would also do the same with Sadam. Two Ignorant lives or Thousands of Innocent ones, maybe Bush needs to rethink his End
The preservation of life is the end for a lot of individuals. I do not claim consensus, but in MY view that is the right way to go. The butchery of an entire generation of iraquis because of one man is ignorance in its finest hour and will not bring any stability to the region or to America itself in fact it just shows the Arab world that America really is out to get them
Yes you can claim that this type of mentality is what caused this issue in the first place, the idea of using premptive strikes for reasons of national security, but some people don't think through their ends. They assume everything works out, that is not what Machievelli ever had in mind when he wrote his Self Help book for rulers. If specify and narrow your end down to one single target and assume that everything will work out then Machievelli just rolls and extra time is his grave over your stupidity. If you take the holistic view, account of extrenious variables when deciding your end then you succede. The first is an example of American foreign policy, the latter is not.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
McDeth
|
Ok, I need to put in my opinion here. I am more right than left, mostly. In this case, I think Bush is just trying to accomplish what daddy couldn't do. Therefore, I stand next to Devlar in this matter.
Iraq hasn't made an aggressive move towards anyone, what right do we have to war with them. Honestly, give me one reason. And no, the U.S. government has proof isn't one of them because I haven't seen a shread of this fabled "proof".
This war is imperialism and I am not going to supposrt a war that is morally, socially, and politically unjustified. I just won't.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Beer? I'm down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
