Author Topic: Largest single gathering of people in UK ever. (Read 832 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #15 on:** February 16, 2003, 01:57:48 PM »

So, Saddam is a serious threat that must be neutralized only when the UN says so? What is it that makes the UN stamp of approval so important or necessary for an invasion?

Dowding · « **Reply #16 on:** February 16, 2003, 02:06:38 PM »

Bush Snr was very careful to build a strong coalition within the UN. There was a considerable effort to keep some very unlikely States together. I want to see that again.

blitz · « **Reply #17 on:** February 16, 2003, 02:07:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
So, Saddam is a serious threat that must be neutralized only when the UN says so? What is it that makes the UN stamp of approval so important or necessary for an invasion?

It's just like as you go in the house of a criminal to beat him up because ya know he had stolen something from another person.

Ya shouldn't do that , police has to do it.

Yet America isn't Mr. Policemen by nature. America needs the support of United Nations or it's a big mistake.

Regards Blitz

America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.

AKIron · « **Reply #18 on:** February 16, 2003, 02:13:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by blitz
It's just like as you go in the house of a criminal to beat him up because ya know he had stolen something from another person.

Ya shouldn't do that , police has to do it.

Yet America isn't Mr. Policemen by nature. America needs the support of United Nations or it's a big mistake.

Regards Blitz

America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.

Certainly it's better politically to take action with support of the national community (UN). But when you get right down to it, how is gonna be that much different even if the US goes it alone?

blitz · « **Reply #19 on:** February 16, 2003, 02:25:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Certainly it's better politically to take action with support of the national community (UN). But when you get right down to it, how is gonna be that much different even if the US goes it alone?

That's a very big difference because there's a 'Gewaltmonopol' that has to be followed by Every nation or we back 100years when war was a pretty normal toy used by politicians to their needs.

Regards Blitz

America is threathened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous.

Hortlund · « **Reply #20 on:** February 16, 2003, 03:00:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Bush Snr was very careful to build a strong coalition within the UN. There was a considerable effort to keep some very unlikely States together. I want to see that again.

What exactly was the end result of the first coalition? Oh yes...because of the coalition, Saddam remained in power after the war, and we have to deal with that mess now.

Dowding · « **Reply #21 on:** February 16, 2003, 03:07:46 PM »

Depends on how you define this 'mess'.

Hortlund · « **Reply #22 on:** February 16, 2003, 03:13:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
What mess would that be? For the last 12 years Saddam has been contained.

This situation requires skillful statesmanship and diplomacy, IMO.

Contained? For the last 12 years he has been rebuilding his military and restarted his wmd-programs. Give him a couple more years and he'll have nukes when we come for him...and sooner or later we will have to.

Contained...? You really are a.. *bites tounge again*

A mad dictator arming himself witht WMDs and building better rockets to deliver said wmds can hardly be considered contained.

Contained...?
A dictator enslaving his people, torturing and murdering at the suspicion of disloyalty. Check the amnesty webpage for Iraqi human rights violations if you will... He is an insane butchering murdering thug. Thousands have been murdered, tortured, raped, countless have "dissapeared"..but he is contained?

You make me sick.

john9001 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 16, 2003, 03:36:06 PM »

"""This situation requires skillful statesmanship and diplomacy, IMO. """"

isn't that what chamberlin said about hitler??

chamberlin ::"i have in my hand a paper signed by mr hitler , guarantying peace in our time"

peace in our time

Dowding · « **Reply #24 on:** February 16, 2003, 03:36:06 PM »

Quote

A dictator enslaving his people, torturing and murdering at the suspicion of disloyalty. Check the amnesty webpage for Iraqi human rights violations if you will... He is an insane butchering murdering thug. Thousands have been murdered, tortured, raped, countless have "dissapeared"..but he is contained?

Oh, think of the Iraqis! Oh, the humanity! We just hate dictators!

Pur-leaze... No-one gave a shreck about the Iraqis when we arming him with chemical weapons. No-one gave a shreck about the Iraqis when he used the chemical weapons. No-one gave a shreck about the Iraqis when we sold more chemical weapons to him AFTER he'd already used the chemical weapons we originally sold him! So let's drop that particularly pungent red herring.

Saddam is a threat, but he is a contained threat. I agree with having the threat of force for non-compliance of UN resolutions - if that works I will take my hat off to Bush. But I believe going to war without international backing will make any hope for progress in the fight against international terrorism more unlikely.

Now go ahead and vomit. I'd do the same, but my stomach is empty after reading some of your more recent posts.

Try harder John9001, I'm sure you can come up with a decent argument if you try, instead of posting around the O-club like some transcript of a demented broken record of 'Famous Political Speeches'.

Go on, John, give independent thought a chance.

bounder · « **Reply #25 on:** February 16, 2003, 04:01:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund

You make me sick.

WHAHEY! Result!

Manedew · « **Reply #26 on:** February 16, 2003, 09:22:06 PM »

didn't want to get into a war argument but ....

"A mad dictator" what makes you think saddam is crazy ... I'm sure he's a very sane, smart man. We used to GIVE him WMD. You don't lead any amount of people by being stupid.... many people claim that he gas'd his own people. They might have been Iraqies, but they were his enemies. How many thin lies do you have to see before you smell horseshi*? Judge no lest ye be Judged - Saddamn, he's hardly the worst guy running a country on this planet, that doesn't mean I like him, but comeon War is very very bad..... you people .... shakes head

I pity you if you fall for warmonger BS

I heard the pentagon ordered 70,000 bodybags or so. That's more than they needed in Vietnam.

Hangtime · « **Reply #27 on:** February 16, 2003, 09:35:34 PM »

"...he's hardly the worst guy running a country on this planet, that doesn't mean I like him, but comeon War is very very bad..... you people .... shakes head... "

gawd, i love it when i get a straight line like that.

Toad · « **Reply #28 on:** February 16, 2003, 10:30:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Manedew
I heard the pentagon ordered 70,000 bodybags or so. That's more than they needed in Vietnam.

So let's see. We're sending ~ 150,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen to the region.

You're thinking they'd go ahead with it if they thought they'd take 50% as dead. You always get way more wounded than dead, so figure probably twice that many as wounded. In other words, it's a suicide play with 100% "casualties" and they're going anyway?

Does that really make sense to you?

Tumor · « **Reply #29 on:** February 16, 2003, 10:51:29 PM »

Shitheads.