whoa! just found this on pbnation!

[Trigger_Happy]

The UN is our puppet! We supply the vast majority of the UN's funds, and we frequently threaten to withdraw that funding when we don't get our way!

Is it a good thing that we control the UN? Probably not, but we WILL go to war. I think we can all agree that it would take a miricle to keep Bush from sounding the battle cry.

On the other hand, I'm not opposed to the war is the slightest, so that causes no problems for me.

Here is a question for......uh....everybody who doesn't want to go to war:

You say that we should get rid of Saddam, but not through war. How are we going to get rid of him? Last I checked, he was strengthaning his military, BSing about weapons programs, and erecting temples to his "victories" over Iran and the US

*NOTE* It's late, I'm tired. Don't flame my multiple grammer and spelling errors that I'm sure I made.

[pbstu]

actually right now it looks like the UN will be rejecting propositions to go to war and instead to do more investigation. this is being spearheaded by France, who is part of the Security council, but all other countries in the security council are said to agree with france to a degree. the US is trying to downplay the resistance but will almost definitaly not have UN approval should they propose war after the official report the inspectors are going to make in the next couple of weeks.

trigger happy i think a good portion of the people on here have said they dont think saddam should be removed. i havent heard anything about him strengthening his military but if he is he has good cause, last i heard there was 400,000+ americans troops massing on Iraqi borders, if the US was in Iraqs position Bush probably would have already struck by now. although he has BSed about his weapons programs it looks like the official weapons inspectors report will be leaning towards no military action, so its probably not nearly enough to go ahead and attack. i dont know what your talking about when you say erecting temples to his victories.

[joeyjoe367]

Originally posted by pbstu
last i heard there was 400,000+ americans troops massing on Iraqi borders,

Holy Shiznaks! we got that many dudes runnin our guns and stuff? I was under the impression that our millitary was a lot smaller, faster, and smarter...

[banzaimf]

Originally posted by irbodden



I'd be willing to bad he has a 'tad' better education than you

Apparently his grades at Yale were lower than Hillary Clinton's but higher than Bill CLinson's and higher than Al Gore (who apparently dropped out).

[banzaimf]

Please allow me to vent
1: North Korea. We will do nothing about them. Why? Because it's North Korea. They rattle sabers everytime they get hungry and someone sends them food anad they shut up. They have been using the "brink of war" card to get stuff from the international community for decades. Jr learned well from Daddy. NK not USA.

2 Iraq: Somewhere around 1.4 million people have died due to sanction relaated issues according to some reports I see. They point out that the US and GB are instrumental in keeping the sanctions in place while forgetting that the sanction hinge on the disarmament of a nation that has proven both ability and will to attack neighboring countries. IE, Johnny has hit his little brother in the head with a shovel and he is not going to get dinner until he puts down that shovel and apologizes.

3: I personally feel that US intel going into the UN ill occur when a few factors are met. 1, that their guy inside it out of Iraq and 2, there are enough inspectors to keep the Iraqis guessing. From 91 to 98, from what I recall, there were less than 75 inspectors in Iraq at any one time. Currently there are over 300 trained inspectors with the UN training more. Most of the 1st 300 are in by now I believe (according to original schedule).

4: the UN is not the US puppet. Notice the "food for oil" program? That as run by the UN. Where did all that money go???? The UN is setup in such aa way that the US ill have a voice, but not the only one. The US has managed to master the art of bribing, cajoling, haranguing, and threatening to get what we want from them. It doesn't mean that we run the UN, just that we know how to pull the strings to get some of whata we really want. Why did Russia suddenly capitulate on a new resoluton on Iraq? Cause we promised them the oil. Russia has been making deals with Irq for years on "future oil shipments". I truely think that the US guaranteed that oil to Russia to get them to buy off. France has screamed thata e shouldn't do this anad yet they send troops to the region as well. It's all part of the machine.


I guess this is enough rambling, but I leave you with this one thought.

International politics is like 5 year olds in a sandbox without supervision.

[aaron_mag]

Ah yes the oil issue. Finally someone brings that up. Also for everyone trying to compare this to Nazi Germany remember that people were trying to make peace with Nazi Germany after they invaded neighboring countries. Iraq invaded Kuwait and got his butt kicked. There was international support for the last war. This time he has invaded no one (not saying he is innocent but the cause isn't so blatant). Other Muslim countries supported us because they did not want to be invaded in turn by Iraq. This is a different situation.

Now lets discuss the oil bit. The previous post is right about future oil shipments being negotiated once the sanction is lifted. Oil is the reason we are interested in the region at all. If we weren't so oil dependent they could go back to the stone age for all we would care. Naturally being such an enemy of Iraq Bush is proposing that we reduce our dependendency on oil right? Wrong! He proposes giving tax breaks on SUVs the biggest gas guzzler of them all. Does this make any sense?

[FactsOfLife]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and MY thread gets closed for this!

Originally posted by Collegeboy


So because he is not shareing information that he deams meaningless (Which 11 EMPTY bombs are meaningless) he is then accused of hiding information. I am sorry but you are funny.

Well I am out of this discussion, if I say anything more I might say something that I can't take back. So I am out.

Do yourself a favor collegeBOY, and get a subscription to Jane's Weekly and READ IT before you comment on armaments.

Bio/Chem Weapons are loaded immediately PRIOR to use.

Thus the EMPTY casings.

I'm sorry but you are ignorant on this subject.

[alkafluence]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and MY thread gets closed for this!

Originally posted by irbodden


Sure George Washington ya mean? You realize he didn't intend for any political parties where as Hitler had a political party.

Well George Washington never directly said political parties, but consensus has subscribed that statement to his farewell address delivered in the Philadelphia "American Daily Advertiser" on September 19, 1796. [Note this was never delivered orally]

Washington stated:

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.


Now the first mention of party (does not refer to political parties, but in fact to minority groups). You might be able to make the case for the word "faction" too. However when he states "parties" that is where the parallel to today's political parties comes into play.

[Collegeboy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and MY thread gets closed for this!

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


Do yourself a favor collegeBOY, and get a subscription to Jane's Weekly and READ IT before you comment on armaments.

Bio/Chem Weapons are loaded immediately PRIOR to use.

Thus the EMPTY casings.

I'm sorry but you are ignorant on this subject.

I know I said I am done, but I am sorry man it is real mature to call someone a name when they said they are done with this conversation and can't respond back. I will not attack you. For being a BOY I seem to be more mature then you.

[Jack_Dubious]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: and MY thread gets closed for this!

Originally posted by FactsOfLife

Bio/Chem Weapons are loaded immediately PRIOR to use.

Thus the EMPTY casings.

I'm sorry but you are ignorant on this subject.

This is true. But mainly for Iraq, since thier chemical weapons technology is so poor, once the chemical is created it starts to deteriorate. IIRC, The US and Russia load thier munitions upon manufacture. (minus the fuses and burst charges)

I have heard a common opinion from different weapons analysts that Iraq doesnt have the technology to load thier shells. That they relied on russians and americans to load thier munitions.


JDub

[SyntaxError]

I completely agree with Polish, America has become ridiculous. The ACLU idiots at my school actually disagreed with Homeland Security acts, which are ridiculously lax as it is, and the ideas that "war is not the way" seem to be extremely prevelant.

#1, we as a people have been attacked. I don't care what anyone says, action HAS to be taken. Anti-war supporters should be treated as bad as the terrorists themselves. Obviously you can't reason with a terrorist! Its not quite in their job description, and until they're ALL DEAD, we wont be safe. It may not sound nice but it has to be done.

#2, Homeland security, such as the total information awareness act, is being beaten on by idiot, in my opinion ANTI-AMERICAN parties such as the ACLU, and compared to Orwellian proportions. Well pick up 1984 guys, the people were safe. I'd rather have someone listening in on a conversation than someone blowing me up while I'm taking a dump...or maybe thats just me?

#3, chemical weapons WERE found in Iraq, and they undoubtedly would use them if they could. I can't understand the "pansy" attitude taken by the government towards this. Obviously action has to be taken. When the president is sworn in to his office, his oath reads, "To PROTECT the people". In order to protect the homeland, he HAS to take action. It is a matter of national security!

Now, in my opinion the UN has done just as much harm as good. They have slowed the progress of military actions, and I'd be willing to bet that the death toll caused by UN screw-ups is pretty high. That's another argument though, I'm tired now.

[Koosh]

Originally posted by SyntaxError
Its not quite in their job description, and until they're ALL DEAD, we wont be safe. It may not sound nice but it has to be done.

THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN! I can personally guarantee you (not that that means anything, but...) that we will NEVER win a war on terrorism. At no point in time will we say "Yep, got 'em all, everybody loves us again..." what we are doing is scaring them a little, making their operations go underground for a few years, and just increasing the time inbetween attacks. Look at the first WTC bombing, what was that, 1993? We got riled up about our first attack. 5 years later, The embassy bombings in Africa... Nobody cared about that, I mean really, it was in Africa, thats 3000 miles away. I can't recall the exact number of dead (hundreds?) but there was next to nothing done about it. 3 years after that, the 9/11 attacks. We got at least a couple years until the next attack happens. No matter what we do, we won't be able to stop it. It WILL happen. We might have new restrictions, 1,000 new homeland security laws, but they'll find a way around it. Eventually the security will lax, then they strike again...

#2, Homeland security, such as the total information awareness act, is being beaten on by idiot, in my opinion ANTI-AMERICAN parties such as the ACLU, and compared to Orwellian proportions. Well pick up 1984 guys, the people were safe. I'd rather have someone listening in on a conversation than someone blowing me up while I'm taking a dump...or maybe thats just me?

Yep, its just you. Then what do we have? You want to take EVERY freedom Americans EVER had, and throw them down the toilet? Why? So you can just shove more hot dogs in your face-hole? Whats the point of even living then? They may be safe, but there is no point in existing in a society where nothing can be done without prior approval, IMHO...

#3, chemical weapons WERE found in Iraq, and they undoubtedly would use them if they could.

Thats the JOB of the weapons inspectors. They find the bad stuff, tell everyone about it, we do something abou it? If (according to you) they found chem weapons, it will all be revealed. If they havent (remember, they have only been in the country for about 2 months now... Iraq is a big place) then there should be no problem...

American lives ARE being protected by NOT going to war. How many service men's lives are YOU willing to trade for your the disarmament of Iraq? Don't you think we should know what we would be facing if there is a war? The inspectors are seeing ALL facets of Iraqi life. They know what could be used against US and UN ground forces... I know its the service men and women's job to do this, but I don't think anyone is EAGER for combat, it should be used as a last resort.

They have slowed the progress of military actions

THAT IS THEIR JOB! to PREVENT war. After the failure of the League of Nations, and the MASSIVE death in WWII, they set up to prevent war and create peace. The UN isn't a war-mongering council. They seek to preserve the peace in any way, without becoming another League of Nations.

I'm tired now

me too

[PolishSausage]

Originally posted by TheFlamingKoosh




Yep, its just you. Then what do we have? You want to take EVERY freedom Americans EVER had, and throw them down the toilet? Why? So you can just shove more hot dogs in your face-hole? Whats the point of even living then? They may be safe, but there is no point in existing in a society where nothing can be done without prior approval, IMHO...

I take it your against tracking incoming aliens to our nation as well then? Tracking student visas?

[pbstu]

and i suppose you think we should bring back TIPS, which was cut from the homeland security bill, and have 1 in 24 americans reporting all possible "terrorist" activity to a hotline. by the way 1 in 24 is more than the USSR had going in eastern germany during the height of the cold war, but hey, theres nothing wrong with that right? as long as your safe, you dont care. grow up, hopefully youll get some common sense in the process.



stu.

[irbodden]

Originally posted by PolishSausage


I take it your against tracking incoming aliens to our nation as well then? Tracking student visas?

TRACKING them?

We should have millitary on the borders so we don't have to deal with TRACKING. They are a plague on society.