Al Gore -- what a joke.

[A Soldier]

Anyway whilest you are beating the dead horse: Afghanistan harbored terrorists -- end of that discussion

No, this is not the end of the discussion. We pointed many times the fact that the US backed up thoses terrorists. You don't agree? Read previous posts.

 

Iraq was suspected of harboring terrorists, funding terrorism against the US and its allies (yes, your country too), constructing or in the development of WMD's for offensive tactics, and its leader was killing its own people.

If I suspect the US of the same thing, does it grant me the right to invade it? WMDs??? Okay, let me remind you that no Weapons of M!@#$%^&* Destructions have been found in Iraq. Yes, Saddam killed his own people, a very wrong thing to do. I hate him for that. But did you know that they are legal ways to come to a solution before going to war?

 

Onward

 

I would however love to see a new US policy. We should let small countries be invaded by larger ones, allow major catastrophies to go unaided in foreign countries, and close up technological advances made by the US to any other country. [...]

You act like there is only the US who helps the rest of the world! -*BAD WORD*-o??

 

Let's face it, it's one earth, only one, and we all have to live here in these current times. Things don't always go as planned - matter of fact they rarely do, and people are faced with tough decisions.

This is one earth where we should act peacefully and not attack our neighborhood because he possess oil. Tough decisions? Like what?

 

The UN was CREATED BY and ESTABLISHED BY the US. Show me the UN laws stating that any nation cannot act in the interest of its own security.

I would like to conclude with that statement. If this is going to make you shut it for a while, then you must be awared that the UN has a charter for members who joined up (and that includes the US)?

 

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war' date=' which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

 

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

 

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

 

 

 

AND FOR THESE ENDS

[b']to practice tolerance and live together in peace [/b]with one another as good neighbours, and

 

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

 

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the ins!@#$%^&*ution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

 

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

 

 

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives !@#$%^&*embled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

This is not exactly what I was looking for.. but it gives you an idea. What I was looking for was something where they say you can't attack a country who is a UN member along with other rules.. Well, Iraq is and will still be in the future believe me.

Can anyone help me with that?

[Tascar]

Seems like all those remarks are the very dead horse issues. You're -*BAD WORD*-bent on finding WMD's when obviously the security of the USA was the primary concern while you attempt to avoid the fact that there are many valid reasons for the US action there. I'm terminating my discussion on this any longer as you are over the top and simply showing nothing but hatred. Regards.

[A Soldier]

Tascar... when did you ever prove me wrong?

All you seem to be saying is

Seems like all those remarks are the very dead horse issues.

Great. Why? Valid reasons for invading Iraq? Which ones? You see, I demand nothing but the truth. Tell me then if I am that wrong.

 

I'm out of my mind? For stating my point? lol, wee!

Hatred? Okay let me re-read my post. Umm... where do you see hatred? But then, while we are at it, could it be possible that you are somehow frustrated?

 

I have asked you questions, and the only answer I got, pitiful, may I add, was:

Seems like all those remarks are the very dead horse issues.

.

 

Waiting for your thoughts

[Tascar]

You are posting simply to see your posts. Not wasting my time with you.

[Dav]

QUOTE 

The UN was CREATED BY and ESTABLISHED BY the US. Show me the UN laws stating that any nation cannot act in the interest of its own security

 

That couldnt be more wrong.

 

The UN is a replacement to the league of nations and was created by the allies after WWII to attempt to bring peaceful solutions. The UN HQ just happens to be in the US and you may also like to know that any leader can go there even if they are not allowed in the US because the UN is a world organisation for the world.

[Tascar]

On 1st January 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, supported by the representatives of 26 countries, published the Declaration by United Nations, a do-*BAD WORD*-ent that pledged their governments to continue fighting together against Nazi Germany and Japan during the Second World War. The forerunner of the United Nations was the League of Nations, an organization conceived in similar cir-*BAD WORD*-stances during the first World War, and established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security." The International Labour Organization was also created under the Treaty of Versailles as an affiliated agency of the League. The League of Nations ceased its activities after failing to prevent the Second World War.

 

Well, look at that boys and girls, a US PRESIDENT re-established the idea of the league of nations by creating the UN. Have a nice day.

[Trigger Happy]

This is one earth where we should act peacefully and not attack our neighborhood because he possess oil. Tough decisions? Like what?

hahahahhaah oh that was great sorry.

 

Well first off I find it rather ironic for someone named "A Soldier" to be bashing the government, which is against the UCMJ but its amusing.

 

Next, The day your Inteligence Department is the size of that of the entire Military and that of the other US Agencies then you can talk about how we coudn't find WMD. I have no doubt in his reasons and I highly doubt that he came out and lied to us outright. Given Intel might have been mistaken, or where they?

 

We need to ask where are the weapons now? We need to keep a close eye on many countries and keep a keen eye out for terrorists.

 

Oh I forgot that other countries thought there where WMD to.. Thanks Moma England

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/0...lair/index.html

 

Great. Why? Valid reasons for invading Iraq? Which ones? You see, I demand nothing but the truth. Tell me then if I am that wrong.

Really? Neat, Yes. I'd like to know the truth as well, however doubting one's "Parents" persay isn't goign to get it. Trust in the elected leaders and vote your way in the election. If he is reellected, obvoiusly someone believed him. But of course I'll hear "it was rigged" and all that -*BAD WORD*-.

 

I'm not saying this is you necessarily, this pisses me off more than anything. You have the right to PROTEST and NOT SUPPORT the war politically. However, this does not give you the right to be unappreciative of those fighting it and supporting it. I was in Texas and there was a Purple Heart Convention? I don't know what for, someone came by and bashed every car that had a Purple Heart Emblem on it. (A LOT of Cars) I found this discusting and would honestly destroy that individual.

[A Soldier]

Well first off I find it rather ironic for someone named "A Soldier" to be bashing the government, which is against the UCMJ but its amusing.

Well first, a soldier is someone who fights for a cause, not necessarly with weapons or is enlisted in the military. Second, this is a nickname, and it has nothing to do with my real life.

 

So...

 

Next, The day your Inteligence Department is the size of that of the entire Military and that of the other US Agencies then you can talk about how we coudn't find WMD. I have no doubt in his reasons and I highly doubt that he came out and lied to us outright. Given Intel might have been mistaken, or where they?

Wow, saying my country has a big Intelligence Department sure gives me something to brag about. Personnally, I don't believe in the "virtuousness" (sp?) of your Intelligence, nor your military. Again, this is only my opinion. But so far, it has been critisized so many times about things they did wrong, things they refused to clear up on the motives of invading Iraq, so many things that it pisses me off. How will you react if you find out that the true motives weren't exactly about taking Saddam off power and because of WMDs? Do you think that on the beginning of the war Iraqis _really_ saw the coalition as their "liberators? Do you believe everything you see on TV?

 

Oh I forgot that other countries thought there where WMD to.. Thanks Moma England

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/0...lair/index.html

Honestly, I don't believe in CNN's credibility in political stories. Other than that, Great Britain has to admit they are WMDs because they were the first to join up US's coalition and send out massive troops in Iraq. If it happens that it wasn't for WMDs but for oil, for exemple, ramifications in GB will be huge.

 

Yes. I'd like to know the truth as well, however doubting one's "Parents" persay isn't goign to get it. Trust in the elected leaders and vote your way in the election. If he is reellected, obvoiusly someone believed him. But of course I'll hear "it was rigged" and all that -*BAD WORD*-.

I don't get your second sentence... Yes, the 2000 elections were rigged. I will not argue with you on that unless you insist but just take the Florida case... Gore was supposed to win.

 

I'm not saying this is you necessarily, this pisses me off more than anything.

You don't piss me off either, as long as we stay sport All I ask is that you try to at least understand my point of view. That's it.

 

However, this does not give you the right to be unappreciative of those fighting it and supporting it. I was in Texas and there was a Purple Heart Convention? I don't know what for, someone came by and bashed every car that had a Purple Heart Emblem on it. (A LOT of Cars) I found this discusting and would honestly destroy that individual.

Indeed, it was wrong.

 

To Tascar:

You are posting simply to see your posts. Not wasting my time with you.

This is the most pathetic excuse I've seen from you for now. I bet you read it, and you got frustrated to a point of skipping the rest and posting this crap. Refrain from writing or even posting in the political board if you can't accept other people points of view. Thank you.

[Tascar]

I really have no frustration at all. Matter of fact, here's a recap of your "truth"....

• bin laden called up a djihad on americans decades ago...
  
• we should act peacefully and not attack our neighborhood because he possess oil.
  
• when the two planes crashed into the twin towers, he (speaking about Donald Rumsfeld) suggested Bush to immediatly attack Iraq, as the world's attention would have been elsewhere.
  
• your country (speaking about the USA) is still imperialist.
  
• did you know that they are legal ways to come to a solution before going to war?
  
• the US backed up thoses terrorists.
  

To summarize here, you asked me to listen to your "truth" but there is little truth in what you say.

 

Where is your proof that Bin Laden called for war against the US decades ago? Decades? If I'm not mistaken, wasn't it Bin Laden who desperately needed US support to retaliate against Russian aggression? (1987?)

 

Where is your proof that we went to war for oil? Where is your proof that WMD's were not being produced? Why is it that UN peacekeepers were not given full access to conduct their search in Iraq? Were you sleeping during those days?

 

The world's attention on something else - with as many enemies as you claim the USA has, I'm sure that most countries were ready to print new friendly neighbor policies until Rumsfeld forced them all to print the 9/11 news on the front page of every -*BAD WORD*- country in the world.

 

I didn't know the correct term for the USA was actually the US Empire. Did you dub that too?

 

You seem to have forgotten so much, and have so little truth to much of what you say. This is why I got tired of looking at your posts. Kudos.

[A Soldier]

Where is your proof that we went to war for oil?

http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

Of course, there is no 100% sure proof, because if you ask the government if he went for oil, he'll automaticly deny it. Read above link.

 

Where is your proof that WMD's were not being produced?

I haven't completly read nintendo's FAS website due to a lack of time, but from what I could, they said they weren't any.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html

Again, read it for yourself.

 

Why is it that UN peacekeepers were not given full access to conduct their search in Iraq? Were you sleeping during those days?

Are you refering to Gulf War I ou II? If you mean the second one, Bush ordered inspectors to go away because he was ready to invade (correct me if I'm wrong, that was some time ago). And no, I was not sleeping during thoses days.

 

The world's attention on something else - with as many enemies as you claim the USA has

Where did I ever say that?

 

I didn't know the correct term for the USA was actually the US Empire. Did you dub that too?

Remember neocolonialism?

 

You seem to have forgotten so much, and have so little truth to much of what you say. This is why I got tired of looking at your posts.

*Cleary*, I do.......

[A Soldier]

oh yeah, forgot to put a link about the "Rumsfeld case":

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon' date=' Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

[...']

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/...ain520830.shtml

 

ON the day of the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington on September 11' date=' Donald Rumsfeld urged George Bush to retaliate imme diately by bombing Iraq.

Richard Clarke, then the White House counter- terrorism co-ordinator, said: “Defence secretary Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq. We all said, ‘But no, no, al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan.’ They were talking about Iraq on 9/11.”

 

Rumsfeld responded by saying that “there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq”.

[...']

http://www.sundayherald.com/40723

[Tascar]

lol it just gets sillier...

 

you take quotes from ratical.com and fas.org sites? lol, better entertainment can be found at Disneyworld.

 

Bush ordered inspectors to go away because he was ready to invade? back the train up and you'll realize that the security of the USA was in question. Oh wait, we should have taken Saddam's word for it right? lol, talk about being in denial.

 

I need to find a new board. This is just haphazard silliness.

[A Soldier]

you take quotes from ratical.com and fas.org sites? lol, better entertainment can be found at Disneyworld.

Why? FAS's website is credible and the essay was very coherant and made more than enough sense to me. You're just saying it's wrong yet you read nothing... again

 

Bush ordered inspectors to go away because he was ready to invade? back the train up and you'll realize that the security of the USA was in question. Oh wait, we should have taken Saddam's word for it right? lol, talk about being in denial.

Okay, so the story was correct? You're just trying to revive the old debate about ethics of declaring war to a country for whatever purposes. Why not use the UN if the USA hardly believed they were in danger because of Iraq..? Think of it. Would you have this huge--*BAD WORD*- deficit right now? Deaths: would there be any?

 

I need to find a new board. This is just haphazard silliness.

Be my guest Tasc, I'll sure miss you

[Tascar]

Deficit is more than just war. Porkbelly spending....'good ol boys' clubs, and overfunded grants play a part of that gamble.

 

Ok, so I've heard what you don't like about the USA. Is there anything you do like? Example: I like the national parks.

[A Soldier]

Deficit is more than just war.  Porkbelly spending....'good ol boys' clubs, and overfunded grants play a part of that gamble.

Yeah true... altough war has a big part to play in it. What I meant is that it wouldn't be as big as it is right now if America hadn't go to war.

 

Ok, so I've heard what you don't like about the USA. Is there anything you do like? Example: I like the national parks

Of course I do

Speaking of parks, Central park is a very nice place to visit if you're planning on a trip to NYC.

Then there's american football. I like it more than canadian's. Better rules.

Umm what else? Hollywood movies too, even if most of them are crappy, movies have always been a good way of getting a girl or changing my mind so thank you for that haha

 

Umm what else? There must be other things, so if I think of more of em, I'll write em up.

[Dr.Worthless]

Hold on to your horses, this is going to be a long!@#$%^&* post.

 

You say that the US is second to the richest income in the world. Facts prove it, indeed. But do you know who controls the majority of that wealth? You think it's you? Or other americans who work 40hours/week? Guess what? Nope, they don't. Major companies CEOs, politicians, thoses are the people who do. Did you know over 30 millions americans live in povrety? Fortunatly, thank God you are the second richest country in the world and you do something for them!

Such is the demons of capitalism. Capitalism is a wonderful system for gaining wealth, unfortunatly it is not an ideal system for the everyday jo. On the other end of the spectrum (the one you're hinting at, I believe) Socialism is wonderful for the everyday jo, it sucks at building wealth. Governments need wealth to run, happy citizens is just a secondary =). Russia had a noble experiment going, unfortunatly they found out the hard way that Socialism just doesn't provide the $$ needed to fuel a government.

 

 

Armies proportional to their pop's size if they can afford it? Okay... what for? Enemies? What enemies does Brazil have? What enemies does Canada have? What enemies does Germany have? Oh wait, maybe it's because the US has more enemies that all of theses countries that they feel they should have a bigger army? But why?

 

Just like France and England had no enemies back in 1935? Come now, you know Adolf Hitler raised the stakes so high, way back when, that we can never go back to the times when a minimal standing army can be the status quo. The recent terrorist attacks all over the world has raised the stakes even higher.

 

We want your wealth? LoL! Come one, be serious for a moment, the US controls a good part of the world's wealth right now. Perhaps its big problem is that, on this 21st century, your country is still imperialist?

At one time I was adamantly against the idea that I was a citizen of an imperialistic nation, and I would have argued tooth and nail with you about such. After consideration, I would be naive to think that the current situation the US finds itself in hasn't been even the slightest bit enfluenced by Iraq's bountiful oil supplies. While I will argue with you if you try to say it is the *only* reason we went to war, but I can find middle-ground. Can I say that i'm appauled and angry that this is happening? No.. Bottom line is oil = power. I like sitting here typing on my computer, in the air-conditioning, watching television. The power of my nation is what allows me to do this. So if oil = power = sustained level of living, then -*BAD WORD*- yes I'm all for it.

 

 

If I suspect the US of the same thing, does it grant me the right to invade it? WMDs??? Okay, let me remind you that no Weapons of M!@#$%^&* Destructions have been found in Iraq. Yes, Saddam killed his own people, a very wrong thing to do. I hate him for that. But did you know that they are legal ways to come to a solution before going to war?

 

I wont comment on anything except, Do you honestly think Saddam Huessein would have gave a flying F*ck about "legal ways"? Sorry, Don't think so.

 

 

 

This is one earth where we should act peacefully and not attack our neighborhood because he possess oil. Tough decisions? Like what?

Rather we should supply a tyranical dictator weapons, and become buddy buddy with him to ensure a steady flow of Money and/or Oil, yeah.. ok. (<---- incase you dont get it, I'm talking about France/Russia/ and others European nations)

 

This is not exactly what I was looking for.. but it gives you an idea. What I was looking for was something where they say you can't attack a country who is a UN member along with other rules.. Well, Iraq is and will still be in the future believe me.

 

OOOH this is a good one. So you're trying to tell me that an organization that HARBORS A KNOWN TYRANT THAT RAPES AND MURDERS HUNDRES OF THOUSANDS OF HIS OWN PEOPLE, and doesn't do jack -*BAD WORD*- about it should be given an ounce of respect? So the United States violated the "We wont attack other members of the UN " clause because we removed the worst dictator on the face of the planet, roflmfao. Keeping Saddam in power and turning a blind eye would be equivallant to justifing and condoning his actions. No moral human being would do such, but I dont exactly know you in real life, so who knows (And no, dont go off in a THE US DID IT FOR OIL, tangent. If the one and only reason we went into Iraq was for oil, then we would have already had it. We would have already rebuilt the broke -*BAD WORD*- pumps, and would have been hauling that -*BAD WORD*- over barrel by barrel here to the United States, and last time I filled up for 2.15 a gallon, I think its fair to say we dont have a tremendous excess of oil to give to our citizens.)

 

The UN has no bite behind the bark. The UN will sit back all day and write -*BAD WORD*- about this and that, dont do this, dont do that, but when Saddam and anyone else says "Nope, don't think I'll do that" whats the UN's response? Yeah, another passed law saying "Dont do that x2!!" If anything comes out of the current engagement the United States is participating in, it will be that in the world political stage, when the United States says something, they will follow through with their word, not constantly giving and giving and giving without taking action. If Saddam Huessein knew that the UN was prepared to back up its threats of action, HE WOULD HAVE STOPPED WHAT HE WAS DOING. Instead, he continued doing whatever he wished because he knew the UN had no balls. There's another instance in history that comes to mind that was exactly like this. A tyranical dictator keeps taking and taking, while the European countries keep giving and giving, in hopes to avoid conflict. Oh wait, that was the begining of WWII. The UN is a wonderful idea in concept, but when its time to strap yourself to the grind-mill and get to work, most of its members decide to not back up their words.

 

This post is long enough, so I'll chop it off here.

 

Have a nice day

Worthless

[Tascar]

True.

True.

True.

True.

True.

 

Well, I guess this concludes our discussion.

 

Actually -- as reasonable as that last paragraph sounds, it also sounds like a reason for world war - may the best nation win. Agreeable, but scary -- thank God for diplomacy.

[A Soldier]

Such is the demons of capitalism. Capitalism is a wonderful system for gaining wealth, unfortunatly it is not an ideal system for the everyday jo. On the other end of the spectrum (the one you're hinting at, I believe) Socialism is wonderful for the everyday jo, it sucks at building wealth. Governments need wealth to run, happy citizens is just a secondary =).

No, I do not believe in communism, nor socialism. :] I have read much on this system, and like someone said: "Communism is the exploitation of man by man. Capitalism is the opposite." What I was trying to point out was the fact that the USA are one of the last country that practices capitalism to one of its purest form. There is no perfect system, but there aught to be a problem when the world's only superpower thinks of its economy before its people. But hey, who am I to tell the government what to do?

 

Just like France and England had no enemies back in 1935? Come now, you know Adolf Hitler raised the stakes so high, way back when, that we can never go back to the times when a minimal standing army can be the status quo. The recent terrorist attacks all over the world has raised the stakes even higher

And you believe terrorists will rally togheter and start a conventional war like in 1939?

 

No.. Bottom line is oil = power. I like sitting here typing on my computer, in the air-conditioning, watching television. The power of my nation is what allows me to do this. So if oil = power = sustained level of living, then -*BAD WORD*- yes I'm all for it.

Well, thank God you weren't born as an Iraqi then...........

 

Do you honestly think Saddam Huessein would have gave a flying F*ck about "legal ways"? Sorry, Don't think so.

So did your government about the way they financed him between the Iran-Iraq war uh?

 

Rather we should supply a tyranical dictator weapons, and become buddy buddy with him to ensure a steady flow of Money and/or Oil, yeah.. ok. (<---- incase you dont get it, I'm talking about France/Russia/ and others European nations)

Yeah, they probably did so. Iraq is the second country that possess the most oil the world. Countries are dependant on oil. Countries will import oil from other countries. They can't just say "-*BAD WORD*- off Iraq" and stop buying them oil. But what kind of weapons were you talking of? Would you mind give out some sources please?

 

OOOH this is a good one. So you're trying to tell me that an organization that HARBORS A KNOWN TYRANT THAT RAPES AND MURDERS HUNDRES OF THOUSANDS OF HIS OWN PEOPLE, and doesn't do jack -*BAD WORD*- about it should be given an ounce of respect?

An ounce of respect? Wtf are you talking about? Saddam Hussein is a tyran, I never agreed on the way he ruled his country, but never will I agree on the way this problem was "solved out".

 

So the United States violated the "We wont attack other members of the UN " clause because we removed the worst dictator on the face of the planet, roflmfao. Keeping Saddam in power and turning a blind eye would be equivallant to justifing and condoning his actions.

Remember when GWB spoke about Iraq for the first time after Afghanistan? The world's attention turned toward this country. The UN sent inspectors. The UN was discussing onto doing something about Saddam. And then, what did your leader decided to do? Attack! We don't give a -*BAD WORD*- about the UN so let's just invade!

The worst dictator? There was a lot of dictators during history, and let's not get into who was more bad than who.

 

No moral human being would do such, but I dont exactly know you in real life, so who knows (And no, dont go off in a THE US DID IT FOR OIL, tangent. If the one and only reason we went into Iraq was for oil, then we would have already had it. We would have already rebuilt the broke -*BAD WORD*- pumps, and would have been hauling that -*BAD WORD*- over barrel by barrel here to the United States, and last time I filled up for 2.15 a gallon, I think its fair to say we dont have a tremendous excess of oil to give to our citizens.)

Now you are accusing me of supporting communism and Saddam? woohoo, go you!

The US did it for oil, sorry. :/

You would already have it? lol. So, getting oil is as easy as getting your everyday milk? This is not about short-term projects, but rather longer ones. Imagine the US started "hauling that -*BAD WORD*- over barrel by barrel here to to United States", do you think world's opinion would have been leniant on that?

 

The UN has no bite behind the bark. The UN will sit back all day and write -*BAD WORD*- about this and that, dont do this, dont do that, but when Saddam and anyone else says "Nope, don't think I'll do that" whats the UN's response? Yeah, another passed law saying "Dont do that x2!!"

You need to get informed on what the UN truly does.

[»nintendo64]

First off, Congragulations on being one of the few USA citizens to accept the idea of his country being imperialistic. Most of them denies it.

 

OOOH this is a good one.  So you're trying to tell me that an organization that HARBORS A KNOWN TYRANT THAT RAPES AND MURDERS HUNDRES OF THOUSANDS OF HIS OWN PEOPLE, and doesn't do jack -*BAD WORD*- about it should be given an ounce of respect?  So the United States violated the "We wont attack other members of the UN " clause because we removed the worst dictator on the face of the planet, roflmfao.

Every Tyrant has done something alike another tyrant. Here's a list of Tyrants around the world put in office or has recieved support by the USA.

 

Abacha, General Sani ----------------------------Nigeria

Amin, Idi ------------------------------------------Uganda

Banzer, Colonel Hugo ---------------------------Bolivia

Batista, Fulgencio --------------------------------Cuba

Bolkiah, Sir H!@#$%^&*anal ----------------------------Brunei

Botha, P.W. ---------------------------------------South Africa

Branco, General Humberto ---------------------Brazil

Cedras, Raoul -------------------------------------Haiti

Cerezo, Vinicio -----------------------------------Guatemala

Chiang Kai-Shek ---------------------------------Taiwan

Cordova, Roberto Suazo ------------------------Honduras

Christiani, Alfredo -------------------------------El Salvador

Diem, Ngo Dihn ---------------------------------Vietnam

Doe, General Samuel ----------------------------Liberia

Duvalier, Francois --------------------------------Haiti

Duvalier, Jean Claude-----------------------------Haiti

Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King ---------------------Saudi Arabia

Franco, General Francisco -----------------------Spain

Hitler, Adolf ---------------------------------------Germany

H!@#$%^&*an II-------------------------------------------Morocco

Hussein, Saddam----------------------------------Iraq

Marcos, Ferdinand -------------------------------Philippines

Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez ---El Salvador

Mobutu Sese Seko -------------------------------Zaire

Noriega, General Manuel ------------------------Panama

Ozal, Turgut --------------------------------------Turkey

Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza ---------------Iran

Papadopoulos, George --------------------------Greece

Park Chung Hee ---------------------------------South Korea

Pinochet, General Augusto ---------------------Chile

Pol Pot---------------------------------------------Cambodia

Rabuka, General Sitiveni ------------------------Fiji

Montt, General Efrain Rios ---------------------Guatemala

Sal!@#$%^&*ie, Halie ------------------------------------Ethiopia

Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira --------------------Portugal

Somoza, Anastasio Jr. --------------------------Nicaragua

Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. -------------------------Nicaragua

Smith, Ian ----------------------------------------Rhodesia

Stroessner, Alfredo -----------------------------Paraguay

Suharto, General ---------------------------------Indonesia

Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas -----------------------Dominican Republic

Videla, General Jorge Rafael ------------------Argentina

Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed ----------------------Pakistan

 

Long list... A lot of crimes comitted by this people, and some of them pale in consideration of others.

 

Keeping Saddam in power and turning a blind eye would be equivallant to justifing and condoning his actions.  No moral human being would do such, but I dont exactly know you in real life, so who knows    (And no, dont go off in a THE US DID IT FOR OIL, tangent.

 

Saddam Hussein was not considered a threat to the USA, and if you didn't know, it's not like the USA never visited Iraq for a long time til now. USA and Britain has been bombarding it, a long with sanctions, that kill many Iraqies daily or did. Now it's the military. Probably the reason why US and UK decided to go after Iraq is more than Oil, yes, it could be China, or the Euro, afterall many OPEC countries such as Iraq decided to change their trade currency to Euro, dumping the dollar.

 

Here's an essay A Soldier posted a link about US PetroDollar.

 

http://www.ratical.com/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html

 

Some books about the sanctions past doing on Iraq.

 

http://www.leftbooks.com/cgi-local/SoftCar....html?E+scstore

http://www.leftbooks.com/online-store/scst...bi19981101.html

 

Bombing almost daily Iraq by US and UK

http://www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2003.htm

 

If the one and only reason we went into Iraq was for oil, then we would have already had it.  We would have already rebuilt the broke -*BAD WORD*- pumps, and would have been hauling that -*BAD WORD*- over barrel by barrel here to the United States, and last time I filled up for 2.15 a gallon, I think its fair to say we dont have a tremendous excess of oil to give to our citizens.

Oil will be cheap? nah, the idea on winning lots of money in the oil business is not to provide cheap merchandise, afterall YOU NEED OIL, YOU CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT IT, it's not like some food product you can always replace.

 

Higher Prices, more earnings.

 

http://www.krysstal.com/images/democracy_iraq1991.jpg

 

 

 

The UN has no bite behind the bark.  The UN will sit back all day and write -*BAD WORD*- about this and that, dont do this, dont do that, but when Saddam and anyone else says "Nope, don't think I'll do that" whats the UN's response?  Yeah, another passed law saying "Dont do that x2!!"  If anything comes out of the current engagement the United States is participating in, it will be that in the world political stage, when the United States says something, they will follow through with their word, not constantly giving and giving and giving without taking action.  If Saddam Huessein knew that the UN was prepared to back up its threats of action, HE WOULD HAVE STOPPED WHAT HE WAS DOING.  Instead, he continued doing whatever he wished because he knew the UN had no balls.  There's another instance in history that comes to mind that was exactly like this.  A tyranical dictator keeps taking and taking, while the European countries keep giving and giving, in hopes to avoid conflict.  Oh wait, that was the begining of WWII.  The UN is a wonderful idea in concept, but when its time to strap yourself to the grind-mill and get to work, most of its members decide to not back up their words.

 

UN will never work as long as the VETO power still exists, Veto should be taken out.

Just look at how many good propositions were Vetoed by the Soviet Union, USA, China, and more countries, but essentially USA and the Soviet Union.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/pda/news.php?article=4754

 

-nintendo64

[Dr.Worthless]

nd you believe terrorists will rally togheter and start a conventional war like in 1939?

My quote was in reference to an apparent opposition to large standing armies and non-military peaceful negotiations. Adolf Hitler basically raised the bar high enough to where we can never go back to minimal standing armies being the status quo (like I said previously). Again, as I said previously, Terrorists have risen the bar even higher.

 

 

 

So did your government about the way they financed him between the Iran-Iraq war uh?

 

HuH? My comment was in reference to your comment of handling saddam through UN means, which we have been trying to do ever since the first gulf war. I'm not really sure what you're talking about here so I wont respond.

 

Yeah, they probably did so. Iraq is the second country that possess the most oil the world. Countries are dependant on oil. Countries will import oil from other countries. They can't just say "-*BAD WORD*- off Iraq" and stop buying them oil. But what kind of weapons were you talking of? Would you mind give out some sources please?

If I get bored i'll dig up a source for you, the weapons in question werent anything to astronomical. When forces took over the Saddam Internation Airport troops found crates of anti-aircraft missles and other weapons marked with french/russian seals. It was on the news for a day or so, then swept under the rug.

 

 

 

An ounce of respect? Wtf are you talking about? Saddam Hussein is a tyran, I never agreed on the way he ruled his country, but never will I agree on the way this problem was "solved out".

 

This was in response to your arguement of "Saddam and Iraq was a member of the UN so the United States should have abided by the UN's rules of engagement".

The point attempting to be made is why should we respect any authority the UN has, since they've turned a blind eye and harbored a known tyrant for near a century, without doing anything signifigant about it. If I have to explain this in detail to you, I will.

 

 

Remember when GWB spoke about Iraq for the first time after Afghanistan? The world's attention turned toward this country. The UN sent inspectors. The UN was discussing onto doing something about Saddam. And then, what did your leader decided to do? Attack! We don't give a -*BAD WORD*- about the UN so let's just invade!

The worst dictator? There was a lot of dictators during history, and let's not get into who was more bad than who.

Hanz and his team of UN inspectors had been in Iraq since after the first Gulf War back in 93. Part of the reason the US administration had run out of patience with the UN is due to 10 years of their inspectors being denied access to certain places, bullied around, only allowed to inspect areas if Saddam personally allowed it, -*BAD WORD*- like that. Here's a sample.

 

"Saddam.. we're going to inspect your palace for illegal weapons, is that ok?"

"Yeah sure.. you can inspect it in 3 days.. i'll expect you then"

 

See a problem with the picture? And notice I didnt say "The worst dictator in history" I said "The worst dictator on the face of the planet"... Read whats on the screen, think on it, then reply.. dont jump the gun.

 

 

 

Now you are accusing me of supporting communism and Saddam? woohoo, go you!

The US did it for oil, sorry. :/

You would already have it? lol. So, getting oil is as easy as getting your everyday milk? This is not about short-term projects, but rather longer ones. Imagine the US started "hauling that -*BAD WORD*- over barrel by barrel here to to United States", do you think world's opinion would have been leniant on that?

 

No flat out accusations, simply saying I dont know you in real life =) (yeah.. a cheap shot, sue me.) While I won't say that oil didnt atleast have *alittle* to do with it, I will stand by the fact that if we were truely there for no other reason except oil.. we would have started shipping that stuff over here from day 1. We've been there for a year, if we were there for no other reason we'd have every pump going at 100% and be shipping tanker after tanker full of the stuff back to the US. The last line is interesting, lets go through some logic. If the worlds opinion is we're doing this for oil, would they be any more angry if we actually were shipping oil over to us by the barrel?? Since the world opinion is already angry at us with the blood = oil business, they must already be convinced that we are. So you're saying "Man we're already pissed at you for doing this.. but when you REALLY do it.. we'll be even more pissed!!" We all suffer from constructed realities.

 

 

 

 

You need to get informed on what the UN truly does.

 

Since you seem to know so much about it, please enlighten me. To be honest I've lost all respect for the UN. Any engagement that it partakes in is composed primarly of American troops. -*BAD WORD*-, an American funds the organization so it can stay in business, ever heard of Ted Turner?(slight exageration, but true none the less) Sorry, the UN is a dieing dream.

 

As far as the World War comment, Europe will never engage in another large scale war like WWII. Europe was so devistated that it is still recovering from it. The next largescale engagements we'll see will either be the US and allies V Muslim countries, or US + Allies against Russia/China/Korea. Mark my words =)

 

Worthless.

[A Soldier]

Alright, there has been some misunderstanding from my part.

 

I feel stupid of saying this, but I think you'll have most of the answers to your questions if you read nintendo's previous post. Otherwise, just post back, and I'll be glad to answer with the best I can :]

[Dr.Worthless]

First off, Congragulations on being one of the few USA citizens to accept the idea of his country being imperialistic. Most of them denies it.

Well, my belief is of vicarious imperialism.. "neocolonialism" if you will, cocacolonization sounds even better =). Whats going on right now is the nature of capitalism, globalized economy is not a question of if, but of when.

 

Every Tyrant has done something alike another tyrant. Here's a list of Tyrants around the world put in office or has recieved support by the USA.

 

Its a curious situation, yes.. and I cannot deny that the US had some part in putting all these people in power, there surely is a reasoning behind it, one that I havent studied about and am not aware of, but I can say confidently it wasn't so they could kill, steal, rape, etc, from their own people.

 

Saddam Hussein was not considered a threat to the USA, and if you didn't know, it's not like the USA never visited Iraq for a long time til now. USA and Britain has been bombarding it, a long with sanctions, that kill many Iraqies daily or did. Now it's the military. Probably the reason why US and UK decided to go after Iraq is more than Oil, yes, it could be China, or the Euro, afterall many OPEC countries such as Iraq decided to change their trade currency to Euro, dumping the dollar.

Well, As ive stated before the true reason for the war going on currently is many fold, but saying Hussein wasnt a threat to the US is being naive. I truely believe that at very least he was funding terrorists. It is no secret that Saddam has never liked the western powers, -*BAD WORD*- its no secret that that whole area of the world doesnt like the western powers. To think that terrorism isnt a widespread ideology that is a response to the growing power of the western hemisphere is being naive. No, I don't have absolute proof that saddam was a direct threat to the United States, but you would be hard pressed to make the arguement that the World and the United States isn't safer with Saddam Hussein out of the picture.

 

(Here I could go into how its inevitable that the peace loving countries and citizens of the world are eventually going to have to fight a unified war against terrorism, but Not only do I think it would fall on deaf ears, but it would be one -*BAD WORD*- of a read, and im lazy.)

 

Oil will be cheap? nah, the idea on winning lots of money in the oil business is not to provide cheap merchandise, afterall YOU NEED OIL, YOU CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT IT, it's not like some food product you can always replace.

 

!@#$%^&*uming the supply and demand model hold true, I won't go into hypothetical monopolies on oil supplies. Currently the United States is dumping big cash into hydrogen cell research, hopefully soon we'll cut our oil dependance.

 

Ditto on the UN bit.. though it has alot of other problems also.

 

^^ In the above post when you read century, please read "decade".. or whatever the -*BAD WORD*- you call a 10 year span .

 

Worthless

[»nintendo64]

Currently the United States is dumping big cash into hydrogen cell research, hopefully soon we'll cut our oil dependance. 

I'm hoping Hydrogen will be the future... Oil Politics will get worse, specially when the oild supply is coming to an end in about 150 years.

 

-nintendo64

[Dr.Worthless]

Worse isnt the word for it, its called WW3 (If not 4 by that time)

 

Worthless