Should the US bother being in the UN?

I like the UN and what it should be. But I'm sick of the US fighting wars for other people and on behalf of other nations. giving millions for UN relief funds etc.., Then we get talked about like we are a disease in the UN. I think we should go back to Isolationism and tell the rest of the UN and thier countries/citizens have fun without us!

that's waht my dads theory is.. basically FUCK EM let em go kill themselves all they want. but then we will get bitched at for not helping. damned if we do damnd if we don't being american is an interesting thing to be. and all those outside of our country find it so easy to judge because they dont understand this nation fully or at least not in the same way that we do.

-GTi-VR6_A3

I agree 100%.

Dear oh dear...yet again the right wing Nationalists are complaining how"nobody else understands America".Trouble is,we do.What other reasonable nation would begrudge spending money on aid,but rain a few million dollars' worth of ordinance down on another country without once wondering if there is a connection between having a massive military and having virtually no public healthcare?What would you rather have,enough extra missiles to destroy the world over,or some classroooms and textbooks for your children?I won't try to appeal to your humanity any more,it would appear that the pro-bush supporters in this forum have absolutely no reservations about killing unarmed civilians as an act of self-defence....Let's talk in terms that Republicans can relate to...wars cost a lot of money.One U.S. source put the projected cost of this grubby little piece of arab-bashing at up to$20,000 per household.If the U.S.weren't so keen to use dirty weapons such as depleted-uranium shells, and didn't routinely target essential civilian supplies such as clean water and power,the cost of aid to the whole world would be much less.

As for the tired old whining about the U.N. not performing,it's hogwash.Despite the best efforts of the power-crazy clowns in charge of U.S. foreign policy,war has still not broken out in Iraq.If it wasn't for the fact that the U.N. is doing an excellent job of keeping the peace,U.S.tanks would probably be patrolling the shattered ruins of Bagdhad right now,looking desperately for non-existant evidence to justify their claims that the action was justified.

And Lord have mercy, the leftists are saying the military is a bunch of baby killers, etc, etc. Well, remember, people die and kill so you and I can say what we say, except you call those who fight for you brutal killers practically. That's fine though.....

Now how does this $20,000 cost per household for the war figure? I barely make that much in a year.....before taxes. And once again, if the US or even Bush didn't respect the UN we wouldn't have gone there in the first place. If we were such big bad bullies we would have told the UN to mind thier fucking business unless they want some of this too.

Case in point, the newest resolution called for "FULL co-operation" and what is the most recent report stating? Co-operating in some areas while not in others. What does the UN do? Looking the other way while appointing nations that don't practice good human rights to head the exact same thing within the UN and stuff to that effect. You know what I'm talking about.

Doesn't sound much like a functioning group to me. And if we are so damn bad then why does the UN ALWAYS call on US TROOPS to do thier work? We foot most of the bill in that area plus what we contribute monetarily.

And where do you get this "large military" from? No disrespect but don't make me laugh. Join up or actually talk to someone in the military and ask about the manning in thier job. See what thier response is, I leave the choice of branch or job to ask about to you.

And those "extra missles to destroy the world over" is what is helping to keep the people at bay who will do harm to the kids in the classrooms. I want a good education program too and I don't even have kids. But if you don't want to get your hands dirty to protect the country and the people in it then God help you because nobody else will.

Good post Darth Cypher. Problem is these people think they know what were about they have no clue. The UN works... if you think it's the UN stopping us from war and not the US government you live in fantasy land. If this war was something the US was really into then there is nothing anyone in the UN or anyone else would do about it or do to stop us. We'd go in with the middle fingers up and guns blazing.

so very true gtstang. but i would liek to say to naki just kuz i like my country doesnt make me a rightist nationalist. i just think the rest of the world is hating WAY too much on the us. i am mostly liberal with a few conservative points just like the us. based on 80% liberalism and 20% conservatism. im taking a political science class right now and it is making this whole scene alot more clear to me. it doesnt make sense but its clearer. you all need to read the book my teacher wrote. american governt ment by lou (louis) chubert. the subtitle is 1=-1. to understand american govnt you have to understand that equation. where two opposing views can work together.

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
And Lord have mercy, the leftists are saying the military is a bunch of baby killers, etc, etc. Well, remember, people die and kill so you and I can say what we say, except you call those who fight for you brutal killers practically. That's fine though.....

Now how does this $20,000 cost per household for the war figure? I barely make that much in a year.....before taxes. And once again, if the US or even Bush didn't respect the UN we wouldn't have gone there in the first place. If we were such big bad bullies we would have told the UN to mind thier fucking business unless they want some of this too.

Case in point, the newest resolution called for "FULL co-operation" and what is the most recent report stating? Co-operating in some areas while not in others. What does the UN do? Looking the other way while appointing nations that don't practice good human rights to head the exact same thing within the UN and stuff to that effect. You know what I'm talking about.

Doesn't sound much like a functioning group to me. And if we are so damn bad then why does the UN ALWAYS call on US TROOPS to do thier work? We foot most of the bill in that area plus what we contribute monetarily.

And where do you get this "large military" from? No disrespect but don't make me laugh. Join up or actually talk to someone in the military and ask about the manning in thier job. See what thier response is, I leave the choice of branch or job to ask about to you.

And those "extra missles to destroy the world over" is what is helping to keep the people at bay who will do harm to the kids in the classrooms. I want a good education program too and I don't even have kids. But if you don't want to get your hands dirty to protect the country and the people in it then God help you because nobody else will.


Some of your comments make it clear that you are totally committed to your ideas regardless of the facts.which is a shame,but a common trait among right wingers from George Bush downwards.

If you stripped aside all the rhetoric and looked at the bare bones of the situation,Bush is a useless President and should be dumped.Using your argument,the U.S. is current in a huge financial deficit,why spend a fortune on a war with Iraq?Using my argument,the rest of the world is working on a diplomatic process to resolve the issues permanently,any unilateral invasion by the U.S. will cause massive civilian injuries and infrastructure damage,leading to more support for the terrorist mentality that Bush claims to oppose.....

here's an item on what this fool's outing will cost the U.S.


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26197721

Here's an item on troop numbers

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=16D46F81-B2AD-4F45-9FDA33EF175388AD

Her'es a list of Navy vessels..

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/news/.www/status.html

I'M HAPPY TO BACK MY ARGUMENTS WITH FACTS.

Ask any military man what he thinks about troop numbers and he will always opt for more.Makes his job easier,and less risky.I still don't understand why,even though the U.S built enough missiles to destroy the world single-handed,they continued to build more,and more,and more.Please,Darth,explain to me what the hell they were thinking of because these presidential sandpit toys have cost U.S. citizens BILLIONSwithout adding a single thing to their protection.

The UN is functioning well.So far it has prevented a war in Iraq,which is something of an achievement when the principal aggressor is one of the strongest members of the U.N. Thankfully,Bush doesn't have the balls to fly in the face of world opinion,much as he would like to assure his continued occupation of the White House with this phoney war.So far,he has offered no reasonable pretext for invading the Middle East,but as long as the opinion polls swing far enough for him to stay in the Oval Office,he'll keep talking war and to hell with the consequences.

yeah i am very pissed with bush's spending and tax changes myself. clinton almost had our deficit gone and we were actullay gaining a suprlus and what did bush do but blow the thing off wiht a stupid 300 dollar check to everyone and wasste it. STUPID BUSH DOESNT UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS.

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
yeah i am very pissed with bush's spending and tax changes myself. clinton almost had our deficit gone and we were actullay gaining a suprlus and what did bush do but blow the thing off wiht a stupid 300 dollar check to everyone and wasste it. STUPID BUSH DOESNT UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS.

-GTi-VR6_A3

Bush bought his way into power.He has nothing left in the economy with which to buy himself a second term,so he has to look to the blood of Iraqis to pay for his re-election.If he invades unilateraly,the U.S. economy will go further into the shitcan.Do yourselves and the world a huge favour,dump the idiot as soon as possible.

Originally posted by taranaki


Bush bought his way into power.He has nothing left in the economy with which to buy himself a second term,so he has to look to the blood of Iraqis to pay for his re-election.If he invades unilateraly,the U.S. economy will go further into the shitcan.Do yourselves and the world a huge favour,dump the idiot as soon as possible.

i plan on it. too bad our alternatives suck just about as much. i cannot stand gore. i just hate bush more. we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. i sure hope we get something better in 2 years....

GTi-VR6_A3

I could say the same about your commitment to your left wing views too, taranaki.

We have left the Middle East alone and it got us into a lot of shit regardless. Despite our differing opinons on clinton, we can both agree that he didn't go much for conflict. Well, what did we get, good 'ol Sept. 11. I'm NOT linking Iraq with those attacks however I'm saying that a problem will not go away if we look the other direction. We look the other direction and we will find that we get knifed in the back.

I take you didn't ask about the manning. Well, let me provide some facts first. During the clinton administration even though he avoided conflict, we were still engaged on three fronts (or possible fronts). The Balkans, Middle East and of course another ordeal with N. Korea. His administration looked at these engagments and realized (after all those cutbacks) that we could not effectively remain committed on those fronts. Well no fucking shit genius, what did they think when they forced LOTS of experience out the door?

Yes, ANYONE will ask for more help. But what you don't realize is that we NEED IT. We still get it done but you have NO IDEA of the stresses of a soldier.

About the missles, I didn't like it either. Don't think for a minute (though I'm sure you do) that I'm some brainless rightwing retard. I didn't like it but saw it as a necessity for survival in the Cold War. We wouldn't touch Russia and Russia wouldn't touch us. It kept us both safe from each other since we were both very much out to defeat the other. After a while we both started to downsize our aresenal. Then of course we have this fiasco after the fall of the Soviet Union of them selling some of thier arsenal on the black market. Well, we have to retain our current deterrance now. Especially since we have nations like N. Korea getting thier hands on it and possibly (notice I siad POSSIBLY) others too.

Now about the functionality of the UN. Yes, I believe in the peace process (a soldiers wish is for peace after all). But when they pass resolution after resolution and instead of backing them up they want to pass more of the same, it is time they get thier hands dirty. I think the fact that the most recent resolution stating FULL co-operation was very clear to the Iraqis. All this feeding us little at a time is not full co-operation. One thing about them (and this is fact) is that they only understand one thing and one thing only. FORCE. saddam didn't take us seriously when we gave him the deadline to remove his forces from Kuwait in the Gulf War. The deadline passed and he regretted it. He's doing similar to the UN. Feeding us enough to keep them in a debate.

I was not getting upset at your views despite how much I disagree with them. I believe I made that clear when I first registered here. However this junk about how the military is going to kill innocents MASSIVELY is out of hand. Yes, it will happen, it is unfortunate. It could happen to me even. But it was something I knew about when I signed the dotted line. But regardless of the friendly fire that will result, we are the most accurate nation with our ordinance. Why? Because we "waste" money on our military tech.

Hating Bush is fine in my opinion, I do too my only problem lies in which people hate Bush equate that to hating America. That's what I feel is unfair and also how quickly people what to forget all the good thing the US does do. Spending billions on foriegn aid doesn't help budget problems and right now no1 but americans wants to mention that but americans.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
I could say the same about your commitment to your left wing views too, taranaki.


...........but you have NO IDEA of the stresses of a soldier.



What makes you assume that?

I served with the Royal Navy from 1979-1982.We had inadequate ships with inadequate defence systems.We had a class-riddled chain of command,and our deployment was at the whim of a crazy right-wing leader who could see re-election through war.

I know exactly what you are facing.I've been there.And I have learned the realities of armed conflict the hard way.Any action that averts a war is better than the toxic reality of the battlefield.

its really good to see that people can argue without getting overly stupid. thing is i am about in between both sides. i realised when i was about 13-14 i am prety liberal but i have my conservativeness. and i hate both the far right and the far left (american) and the far left (rest of the world[communism/socialism])

-GTi-VR6_A3

If the U.S would leave the U.N it would look very bad, even though there is no proof to back it up, all the other countries would be like there goes the U.S doing whatever it wants whenever it wants to without caring about what anyone else thinks(meaning other countries). Even though the U.S doesnt need any help from other countries they dont want to look like they arnt interested in what other countries think or feel. If Bush would pull out of the U.N, he would be just like Saddam, only worried about himself and noone else. The U.S has always policed the world, if you need aid, help, protection, the U.S is the place to go. So even though the U.S is the country who always takes care of the worlds problems, the U.N is still needed to keep all the other countries happy.

Don't know how things are in the Royal Navy so I cannot really comment. But I do apologize for the earlier statement. But still though, if you did serve in the military why do you say things like ours is going to kill massive civilians when that is the very thing we try to avoid?

Also, I can't remember why I think this but I thought you were an American or at least lived in the US somewhere.

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
yeah i am very pissed with bush's spending and tax changes myself. clinton almost had our deficit gone and we were actullay gaining a suprlus and what did bush do but blow the thing off wiht a stupid 300 dollar check to everyone and wasste it. STUPID BUSH DOESNT UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS.

-GTi-VR6_A3

I think you have been somewhat misinformed. Clinton managed to eliminate an annual deficit by plundering every social program the US had. The national debt continued to skyrocket, and the US can't even make the interest payments on it anymore.

Bush understands economics quite well. He was put in power by extremely rich people, mostly in the oil and arms industries, who expected two things from Bush once he was in power, large tax cuts, and a war for oil. Clinton wasn't willing to go to war with Iraq, because he didn't feel the time was right. After 9/11, Bush had the "war on terror", which is the greatest tool a politician could ever ask for. A vague war, in which you can target anyone you want to label a terrorist, or a "rogue nation", or someone who harbours and supports terrorism, etc.

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3


i plan on it. too bad our alternatives suck just about as much. i cannot stand gore. i just hate bush more. we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. i sure hope we get something better in 2 years....

GTi-VR6_A3

The biggest problem I see with the US political system, aside from the lack of a real choice of ideology, is that people concentrate on the PR of the figurehead. Regardless of what the canidate says, appears to do, or looks like, he's going to take orders from the back benchers who come up with the strategy.

You think Dick Cheney and Richard Perle let Bush make any decisions? Of course not! The man can't even say "strategy". I used to think the Dubya was a cunning politician, who just put on the dopey face so people would relate to him. I have a very different opinion today.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
I could say the same about your commitment to your left wing views too, taranaki.

We have left the Middle East alone and it got us into a lot of shit regardless. Despite our differing opinons on clinton, we can both agree that he didn't go much for conflict. Well, what did we get, good 'ol Sept. 11. I'm NOT linking Iraq with those attacks however I'm saying that a problem will not go away if we look the other direction. We look the other direction and we will find that we get knifed in the back.


I think Clinton went for conflict when he had to, and didn't go around provoking it when he didn't have to, ala Dubya.

The US never "left the Middle East alone", through one way or another, the US has had an active hand in almost everything that has happened in the region in the last 40 years, and I don't believe any of it benefitted the people of the region. Well, at least not the Arabs in the region, the Israelis saw great benefits from it. How does the US get "knifed in the back"? The US acts like a bully all over the world, and finally gets a bloody nose.

Now don't say that I'm a leftist anti-american, because I'm not. I'm a logical, objective Canadian, with a view of the US not clouded by some patriotic vision of a great freedom loving nation. What I see is a nation of people of all walks of life, and a select group of incredibly rich and powerful people working them like cattle for their own greed. I will sum up my view of the US. 280 million good people, and 1 million greedy monsters giving them a bad name.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher

Now about the functionality of the UN. Yes, I believe in the peace process (a soldiers wish is for peace after all). But when they pass resolution after resolution and instead of backing them up they want to pass more of the same, it is time they get thier hands dirty. I think the fact that the most recent resolution stating FULL co-operation was very clear to the Iraqis. All this feeding us little at a time is not full co-operation. One thing about them (and this is fact) is that they only understand one thing and one thing only. FORCE. saddam didn't take us seriously when we gave him the deadline to remove his forces from Kuwait in the Gulf War. The deadline passed and he regretted it. He's doing similar to the UN. Feeding us enough to keep them in a debate.

I was not getting upset at your views despite how much I disagree with them. I believe I made that clear when I first registered here. However this junk about how the military is going to kill innocents MASSIVELY is out of hand. Yes, it will happen, it is unfortunate. It could happen to me even. But it was something I knew about when I signed the dotted line. But regardless of the friendly fire that will result, we are the most accurate nation with our ordinance. Why? Because we "waste" money on our military tech.

Saddam is not threatening anyone, the UN is doing it's job, and Bush wants a war. Bush wants to support his friends in the oil and arms industries, and he doesn't care what it takes. He already made massive tax cuts, and coincidentally, if you talk to any economist or even a stock broker who DOESN'T work for a major media source, he/she will tell you that is the worst thing Bush could have done for the economy. The fact is, those cuts are going to take far more out of the pocket of the average citizen than it will put back in. By cutting government services, the average person will have to spend that money directly, and will have to spend much more. That average person is what the economy is built on, the consumer. The food they buy, the products they use, all of it. If they don't have the money to buy those products, the economy dies. If you give someone who makes $20K a year an additional $5K a year, they will spend it. If you give someone who makes $20 million a year and additional $5 million a year, they will not spend it, because they are already spending as much as they want to spend. They're just going to keep it.

Now Bush is going to start a war, so he can get the oil, and use more expensive munitions. The arms industry is a big business, and one with a lot of lobby, and connections to the Bush administration. That's why they get away with $150 hammers, and why the US spends so much money on their military. Coincidentally, how does the arms industry make its money? WAR.

This war is not necessary by any means. War is a very ugly thing, peope die. Realistically, the US is not going to march into Baghdad peacefully, they are going to relentlessly bomb the city for days, and more likely weeks. The city will be blockaded, and no food will be going in or out. The few water and power facilities that are still left today will be the first facilities to be bombed out after the air defences. Hundreds of thousands will die in Baghdad, unless the US allows Saddam to keep it. That is where the majority of casualties are expected to take place.

When I said, left alone, I was trying to compare the current administration to the last one. And Israelis don't benifit from it alone. The Arab nations feared Iraq. I think they all benefited from yet another form of US intervention.

The knifed in the back comment was from how the people we helped fight off their Russian occupiers flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. We didn't bully them, we helped them fight off a common enemy. That's what I'm refering to.

The US used them as a tool to fight the Russians, and then left them to deal with the consequences. The Russians wanted Afghanistan for oil, and the biggest reason they pulled out was it wasn't worth the trouble for the little oil that was there.

The Arab nations fear Israel a great deal more than Iraq, I would suspect. A nation that openly shows hate for them, with every kind of weapon of mass destruction known to man, protected from the UN by the US...

The Israelis and Arabs hate each other for religious reasons. When we helped the Mujahadeen fight off the Russians, we never made a deal to fix their country. We knew they hated us anyhow but the Cold War took precedence at the time so we helped them to help us. Though it only created (or help out in this case) another enemy that will cause us trouble later on.

the american govnt has really never done very good by giving other people guns. im in favor of a ban on our arms companies selling to other places but of course that would be un -constitutional. but its really gotta suck being shot by a gun made by an american company

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by GTStang
I like the UN and what it should be. But I'm sick of the US fighting wars for other people and on behalf of other nations. giving millions for UN relief funds etc.., Then we get talked about like we are a disease in the UN. I think we should go back to Isolationism and tell the rest of the UN and thier countries/citizens have fun without us!

Well, the US got itself into this by always jumping into help all the time. Then since they became the richest and most powerful country, they are expected too. But then Vietnam came, we waited to long and yes...got bitched at. What fun that was for them. Now, it feels like an obligation for the US to help despite the fact that if we ever went to war with someone or something, it better involve the whole world like an aliean invasion 'cause I doubt anyone will help the US. "Yes, we will support the US in any involvement here in the Middle East but we can not help militarily..." the prme minister once said a little after the 9-11 attacks. Here's something else, in the beginning we weren't even in the UN!!! actually, it was called the leauge of Nations but after Wilson's push og getting it established, we didn't even joined. It failed after 10 years then the UN came. Now, the UN is actually a Democrate idea, not Republican but that's another story. The reason i bring this to your attention is because a Democrtae likes the UN, or most do and they believe that the UN actually solves a lot more than we know, and I'm sure they do...but how much more? I'm not saying do away with it or keep it, or that the US should be involved at all. But right now, screw the UN! It's the US's war and they shopuld deal with it how they won't. When the rest of the world gets off their lazy a$$e$ and want to help or get involve somehow, then they can talk all they want. Thank you for listening...

-Blu Zircon

This war is necesary for the prosperity of the US, it will bring us out of the recession, just like WWII brought us out of the depression. Sustaining my lifestyle is much more important than the survival of some arab selling vegetables in the market, I could lose my SUV if this war does not go through, all he will lose is his petty life.

Oh, I forgot to add, NUKE THE UN!

Is this war inevitable? No I don't think so. Should Saddam be removed from power? Absolutely. He's gassed his own countrymen. I'm a former USAF Officer. I enjoyed every minute of my military tenure. If called on to go back to the way of life for a couple years I'd go without hesitation. I voted for and still support Bush. Afterall its my right and obligation to vote for or against whom I choose. Does the other side have a good point? Sometimes but normally its something I'm in disagreement over. At my age (40) I've learned alot more about the "real world" then my younger motorhead breathren. I'm always available to put my thoughts in on such subjects as well as listen to the other sides arguements. Now with this said I've got to change the transfer pump out of my 318i.

Originally posted by Ringo
This war is necesary for the prosperity of the US, it will bring us out of the recession, just like WWII brought us out of the depression. Sustaining my lifestyle is much more important than the survival of some arab selling vegetables in the market, I could lose my SUV if this war does not go through, all he will lose is his petty life.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA HAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA HHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH AHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHH AHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH AHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHA

you are fucking insane

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
The Israelis and Arabs hate each other for religious reasons. When we helped the Mujahadeen fight off the Russians, we never made a deal to fix their country. We knew they hated us anyhow but the Cold War took precedence at the time so we helped them to help us. Though it only created (or help out in this case) another enemy that will cause us trouble later on.

Well, for the thousand years the Muslims were running the entire region, they were quite tolerant of the Jews. This is not some deep rooted hatred for the Jews harboured by the Muslims, because if it were, the Muslims would have killed them a thousand years ago, or at any time in the last 1000 years they have controlled the region.

The real animosities here are a result of the 20th century, and the meddlings of the Christian western nations in the affairs of an Islamic land, and the empowering of the Jewish Israelis to do whatever they see fit in Israel.

Now Israel has nuclear weapons, and it's too late to do anything about it.

Originally posted by Damien


Well, the US got itself into this by always jumping into help all the time. Then since they became the richest and most powerful country, they are expected too.


Actually, the US got into this by jumping in to defend US interests, not to help any other nation, except for Israel, but that is part of defending US interests I suppose.

Originally posted by Damien

But then Vietnam came, we waited to long and yes...got bitched at. What fun that was for them. Now, it feels like an obligation for the US to help despite the fact that if we ever went to war with someone or something, it better involve the whole world like an aliean invasion 'cause I doubt anyone will help the US. "Yes, we will support the US in any involvement here in the Middle East but we can not help militarily..." the prme minister once said a little after the 9-11 attacks.


You do understand that the Vietnam war was the US intervening in the revolution of another nation.

The rest of that statement I couldn't actually make any sense out of... You're going to have to explain that to me.

Originally posted by Damien

Here's something else, in the beginning we weren't even in the UN!!! actually, it was called the leauge of Nations but after Wilson's push og getting it established, we didn't even joined. It failed after 10 years then the UN came. Now, the UN is actually a Democrate idea, not Republican but that's another story. The reason i bring this to your attention is because a Democrtae likes the UN, or most do and they believe that the UN actually solves a lot more than we know, and I'm sure they do...but how much more? I'm not saying do away with it or keep it, or that the US should be involved at all. But right now, screw the UN! It's the US's war and they shopuld deal with it how they won't. When the rest of the world gets off their lazy a$$e$ and want to help or get involve somehow, then they can talk all they want. Thank you for listening...

-Blu Zircon

The rest of the world doesn't want to be a part of Americas war. You will get this impression if you pay attention to the news at www.un.org instead of listening to what you hear in the American media.

The UN won't approve Dubya's war, but they aren't likely to mount an armed opposition, so they are of no consequence to Bush. They aren't likely to do anything, this time. The operative statement being, this time. This is a new century, and from the looks of things, it's not going to be the century of the US, like the last one was. Thats the deep underlaying agenda of this war, carrying the US as a superpower into this century.

U know, our only viable reason for attacking Iraq is because they are violating UN treaties (weapons inspections and such). If we quit the UN, then that means that we have no legit reason to attack Iraq.

They are violating non proliferation treaties, but not to one tenth the extent Israel is. Israel is also gassing their own people, barring Palestinians from voting, and shooting children in the street when they violate curfews.

Of course, Saddam is an evil man!

Um, the French also asked for help in the Vietnam war and we gave it to them. Sure, it served us two fold as preventing the spread of Communism and helping an ally. It's not really a sin.

I got one question to ask though. How many of you that are opposing this war with Iraq felt about how clinton dealt with them back in '98? You know, in "Desert Fox".

Originally posted by Cbass


Well, for the thousand years the Muslims were running the entire region, they were quite tolerant of the Jews. This is not some deep rooted hatred for the Jews harboured by the Muslims, because if it were, the Muslims would have killed them a thousand years ago, or at any time in the last 1000 years they have controlled the region.

The real animosities here are a result of the 20th century, and the meddlings of the Christian western nations in the affairs of an Islamic land, and the empowering of the Jewish Israelis to do whatever they see fit in Israel.

Now Israel has nuclear weapons, and it's too late to do anything about it.

not exactly the romans had israel before the palistinians or the jews. and before that i have no idea. but we all know that the nation of islam is not as old as the roman empire. ao we ahouls reallt give the land to the italians. kuz it was thier ancestors first... :rolleyes: which reminds me. african americans ask for reparations for past slavery. so as a german person i would like reparations for the german ancestors put into slavery by the romans...:finger:

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by Cbass


The rest of the world doesn't want to be a part of Americas war. You will get this impression if you pay attention to the news at www.un.org instead of listening to what you hear in the American media.

I know they don't, that's what I was sayin'. They jump on for them but no one for them. Also, I do realize about Vietnam. But the US still yelled at because they took so long to help. It all started after WWII because the US didn't want communism sprouting up anywhere else and NATO was established so now the US has a pride agreeemnt to help spread democracy and stop any other form of government pretty much. Darnit...must depart from this. At school! :D

Originally posted by Damien

Darnit...must depart from this. At school! :D

always a good place to stop thinking:D

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Um, the French also asked for help in the Vietnam war and we gave it to them. Sure, it served us two fold as preventing the spread of Communism and helping an ally. It's not really a sin.


France left Vietnam in 1954, and left the Vietnamese to do as they pleased. It just so happened what they it pleased them to do was continue a communist revolution, and the US didn't want to see that.
Interfering in another countries revolution just because you don't like the form of goverment they are leaning towards is despicable in my eyes.

The US was protecting their own interests in Vietnam, and fueling the US arms industry.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher

I got one question to ask though. How many of you that are opposing this war with Iraq felt about how clinton dealt with them back in '98? You know, in "Desert Fox".

I think Clinton wanted to avoid a war, and he did just that. I certainly don't think he was "too soft" on the issue as I hear a lot from right wingers, as it seems to have worked fairly well up until Dubya came back beating the war drums.

Clinton violated international law by enforcing those "no fly zones", and continually bombing the industrial and civil infrastructure of Iraq. Clinton just had good enough PR to have everyone gawking about an intern he slept with.

Originally posted by Cbass

Clinton violated international law by enforcing those "no fly zones", and continually bombing the industrial and civil infrastructure of Iraq. Clinton just had good enough PR to have everyone gawking about an intern he slept with. The United States and Britain carry out patrols of no-fly zones set
up after the 1991 Gulf War in northern and southern Iraq with the
stated intention of protecting Kurds in the north and Shiite
Muslims in the south from the Iraqi military.

Iraqi officials insist that the zones violate the country's
sovereignty and territorial integrity, and they refuse to recognize
them.

U.S. officials have cited U.N. Resolution 1441 -- the latest
disarmament resolution -- to back up the no-fly zones and
coalition response to hostile activity from the Iraqis threats against coalition aircraft monitoring compliance of the No Fly Zone.


United Nations Security Council set up the NO FLY ZONES, the US was not violating international law and this isnt the 1st time I have told you this!

To give a quick history lesson on the past empires. The muslim Empire was one of the greatest empires of all time. The conquered much land over a small amount of time. Anyone that wasn't Islamic, was converted or killed. Well, then they came along the jews and Christians. They were new to them. They let them live by paying a tax since both were People of the Book (Qu'ran) Well, yeah...so they lived in peace kind of. this just supports what Cbass said, now onto the Qu'ran. (this is kind of off-topic of the thread title...oh well) The Qu'ran was written by Muhammud (sp?) and only 10 people had the ability to read the Qu'ran ,'cause it was wrong for anyone else too, and decipher it since it was written in...well, guess you could call it dialect. Anyhow, that lasted til', well this day as far as I know. Unless someone spilt the truth of the Qu'ran, there's no way of deciphering it's true meaning so who knows? What this is all about, could actually be written in there as the thing to do.

Enough about that though. Any Americans watch Bush tonight? Why aren't we at war yet? Oh right, N. Korea. The thing is, N. Korea is scary because they will use what they got and we know what they got. Nukes. The only way to negotiate with them is sneak nukes over there and take them all out or actual diplomacy. Then there is Iraq and we know what they got somewhat because we gave them what they got back when they were fighting Iran and we didn't like Iran. Of course, they may have farworse and more and since the UN inspectors are so great in thier inspections, we still know nothing. But hey! Will find out once we start to bomb them won't we?

The reason I have such opinions on this and knowledge, I'm in Model United Nations. Anyone hear of it? It's interesting. Now, we are "just kids" so what we do doesn't matter 'cause we don't know anything. Well, some of us. There's no defense for the UN though in us since we all are Americans and some can't distinguish themselves from it. I do though, mainly because I am an American and I can have bad opinions of it all I want since I live here. Like only blacks can insult blacks and samething with anyone else. Not sayin' America is bad, just, well, another story. Anyhow, I get to represent the Arab League this weekend so now I'm Quatar and lookin' at this as them. Fun, I know. And I want to thank you all for actually halping me gettin' opinions of people in other nations on this. Doesn't help me for my country, but still.

Sorry the last part doesn't have much to pertain to this topic, but I thought I'd put it in since we were talkin' about the UN and I'm in MUN. Thank you for listing though.

-Blu Zircon

Until you have seen the atrocities commited by the Saddam then do not take his side. Muslims,Christians or whomever have every right to worship as they see fit. We're talking about a dictator. Until you actually go there and see what has happened and hear from his own soldiers about what they have been forced (not simple as ordered) do not think you know it all or what is happening. Until you have been there and seen the destruction, The loss of life and the lack of humanity do not put down the reasons why we must rid the world of Saddam. He is no better then Adolf Hitler, He may in fact be worse. Does Isreal go overboard? Yes at times. But considering the suffering placed on their people can you actually blame them? Our planet lacks compassion, understanding and one day unfortunately probably not in our lifetimes might fix all the problems that we all face today. Until then we need to remove people like Saddam. Yes innocent people will die. American and British Soldiers will die. At this time we may be the only two nations that choose to actually fight and while war is deplorable right now it may be our only choice. Again I only speak my own opinion and I do not attempt to upset any others but until you have seen what I have do not make assumptions unless you have first hand knowledge. Now does anyone know a good aftermarket supplier of bodyparts for BMW? I hit a deer tonight and now I need to replace my front clip

That kills me. France intervened in our Revolutionary war against Britain. Is that not dispicable? Well maybe to you it is. Besides, people would hold it against us that if we stayed out of the conflict that we could have done something to help out anther country. Again, damned if you do, damned if you don't. And you know it's true. And yeah, so we didn't want Communism to spread. Communism didn't want Democracy to spread either.

In "Desert Fox", clinton did not have UN approval. Bombs were dropped at a moments notice. No debates in the UN like what we have now. Nada. But nobody said anything bad about clinton. He didn't even go to the UN and use diplomatic channels. He wanted a media diversion from his trail. Bush on the other hand, goes to the UN, asks them to back up thier own resolutions that they voted on UNANIMOUSLY, tries to convince them of our goal, and even gives them several chances to basically wake up and grow a spine. But he is the "warmongering idiot"?!

And "PR" is not what I like in a politician. I like to be given a no bullshit statement on a situation and so far Bush has held up to that a lot better than clinton ever did.

NOTE: saddam does not even care for his own troops. We returned the thousands of POWs and saddam refused them. So they had to join with the Kurds and Shiites. It's sad really.

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913

U.S. officials have cited U.N. Resolution 1441 -- the latest
disarmament resolution -- to back up the no-fly zones and
coalition response to hostile activity from the Iraqis threats against coalition aircraft monitoring compliance of the No Fly Zone.


United Nations Security Council set up the NO FLY ZONES, the US was not violating international law and this isnt the 1st time I have told you this!




http://slate.msn.com/id/2074302/

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp


The UN never set up those zones, the US, Britain and France used resolution 668 as an excuse to enforce them, although they were never mentioned in R668. Don't you think if the UN had anything to do with the no fly zones, they'd be calling for action against Iraq?

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Until you have seen the atrocities commited by the Saddam then do not take his side. Muslims,Christians or whomever have every right to worship as they see fit. We're talking about a dictator. Until you actually go there and see what has happened and hear from his own soldiers about what they have been forced (not simple as ordered) do not think you know it all or what is happening. Until you have been there and seen the destruction, The loss of life and the lack of humanity do not put down the reasons why we must rid the world of Saddam. He is no better then Adolf Hitler, He may in fact be worse. Does Isreal go overboard? Yes at times. But considering the suffering placed on their people can you actually blame them? Our planet lacks compassion, understanding and one day unfortunately probably not in our lifetimes might fix all the problems that we all face today. Until then we need to remove people like Saddam. Yes innocent people will die. American and British Soldiers will die. At this time we may be the only two nations that choose to actually fight and while war is deplorable right now it may be our only choice. Again I only speak my own opinion and I do not attempt to upset any others but until you have seen what I have do not make assumptions unless you have first hand knowledge. Now does anyone know a good aftermarket supplier of bodyparts for BMW? I hit a deer tonight and now I need to replace my front clip

By the same logic, why doesn't the US go after half of the governments in the world, one by one? Or maybe they plan to?

As for the comparison to Hitler, I don't remember quite where I read it, but it was a humourous article on "the changin face of Hitler", and how the US has applied his image to every leader they wish to demonize in the last 40 odd years, starting with Stalin. I find it much easier to draw parallels between Bush and Hitler, they have far more in common than Saddam does. Although they were both quite fashionable dressers ;)

As for the BMW parts, go to www.roadfly.org, and check out the boards there :)

Originally posted by Damien
To give a quick history lesson on the past empires. The muslim Empire was one of the greatest empires of all time. The conquered much land over a small amount of time. Anyone that wasn't Islamic, was converted or killed. Well, then they came along the jews and Christians. They were new to them. They let them live by paying a tax since both were People of the Book (Qu'ran) Well, yeah...so they lived in peace kind of. this just supports what Cbass said, now onto the Qu'ran. (this is kind of off-topic of the thread title...oh well) The Qu'ran was written by Muhammud (sp?) and only 10 people had the ability to read the Qu'ran ,'cause it was wrong for anyone else too, and decipher it since it was written in...well, guess you could call it dialect. Anyhow, that lasted til', well this day as far as I know. Unless someone spilt the truth of the Qu'ran, there's no way of deciphering it's true meaning so who knows? What this is all about, could actually be written in there as the thing to do.


I assume you haven't taken history yet :) I think you've gotten the Muslims confused with the Persian, or as we call them now, Arabs. They mostly call themselves Western Asians. Islam is the latest of the Judaic religions, first becoming a religion in early 600 AD, and steadily spreading up until recently.

Muslims historically have been quite tolerant of the beliefs of others, but are required to defend their faith from insult. The Qu'ran is written as it was in it's original form, as it is considered blasphemy to translate or reword the text. It was nearly the cause of great bloodshed when the Iranians translated it into Farsi.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Bush makes a better comparison to Hitler than people like Stalin and saddam????? Are you kidding me? I thought you to be a little smarter than that.

I didn't say better than Stalin, I said better than Saddam, and I stand by that statement.

http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article232.html

Um, we were talking about Bush a better comparison to Hitler, not Sharon.

My apologies, that was the front page of their site I linked the story from originally a few weeks ago, and they have updated since. Here is the original.

http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article232.html

<edited previous link>

Um, right. Nevermind the "Axis of Evil" have been a problem for the US for a long time. The UK doesn't even want to get involved with the EU (I suppose that is our fault too). We didn't touch any extra oil after the Gulf War. Didn't touch Afganistan's either (wether they have any or not). This oil crap is really cliche.

I was thinking about another "Bush is Hitler" link. Where it talked about how Bush somehow orchastrated the Sept. 11 attacks to rally the people to his side (a similar tactic Hitler used when he was in power). Which is b.s.

I was expecting to hear about how Bush is carrying out a "war against the Muslims". Nevermind that we deal and help them on a daily basis.

Well, at least the link spared me that drivel. But people are hating this "resistance" to the US because the UN is not backing up a resolution that it voted unanimously on. How many lines do we have to draw in the sand?

But it's so much easier to say that Americans simply hate the Germans turned pacifists. Nevermind we hate the French (hell who doesn't?) too. For reasons I stated above.

Bottom line, I fail to see how that link compares Bush to Hitler by any means.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
This oil crap is really cliche.



So is this pre-emptive defence bullshit.What Bush is doing is invading another country in order to recreate its government in the U.S.' own image.

Frankly,he should stay the fuck out of politics.He's completely clueless as far as foreign affairs are concerned.

Not really because if you look at our history people tend to strike us first. You know, like the old karate rule. Well, maybe it's time for new tactics. Everyone else can do it but it seems that God forbid the US does to ensure future safety.

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
Everyone else can do it but it seems that God forbid the US does to ensure future safety.

This argument is completely indefensible.The only other country that routinely breaches international law in the name of self-defence id Israel,and no doubt you are familiar with the consequences.Bush's designs on the Middle East are not defending the average American,they are painting a target on the back of every civilian in the United States.Expect more terrorist attacks to hit the U.S. and it's allies soon.Bush has all but invited them.

And your argument is "indefensible" as well. They are going to attack us no matter what. And if that is the case then we hit them first. And after all is said and done, and people still want to attack us with terrorism. Well, let them come. They will go the way of the al-quada network.

Yeah, except now they're going to attack us more often, and with more fury than ever before.

Originally posted by Steel
Yeah, except now they're going to attack us more often, and with more fury than ever before.

Yes, now the US is invading a sovereign heavily Islamic nation, and will kill hundreds of thousands in the process. This is in addition to the US proposed UN sanctions, that the US has engineered so that they couldn't be lifted.

Can anyone say Jihad? I bet a lot of muslims can, and will.

actually saddam is heavily anti religion...

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by GTi-VR6_A3
actually saddam is heavily anti religion...

-GTi-VR6_A3

You'll find most religious Iraqis are muslims.

Originally posted by Cbass


You'll find most religious Iraqis are muslims.

i know that too. thats why it would make sense if muslims would want to help overthrow him but hey whatcha gunna do.

-GTi-VR6_A3

Originally posted by Darth Cypher
And your argument is "indefensible" as well. They are going to attack us no matter what. network.

If I thought that you could back that cold-war mentality with a single fact,I'd listen to it.What you are saying is equivalent to "look,a wasp nest,we're sure to get stung anyway,so let's go hit it with sticks."


Perhaps what you should be saying is"look, a wasp nest - let's leave it the hell alone and go play in our own backyard"

Originally posted by taranaki


If I thought that you could back that cold-war mentality with a single fact,I'd listen to it.What you are saying is equivalent to "look,a wasp nest,we're sure to get stung anyway,so let's go hit it with sticks."


Perhaps what you should be saying is"look, a wasp nest - let's leave it the hell alone and go play in our own backyard"

That actualy makes sense. DC did have a point though. The thing is...the longer you wait to take out the nest, the bigger it gets and soon to big for you to possibly handle.