Page 7 of 8
Posted: 3/17/2003, 7:42 pm
by Corey
areusad831 wrote:Corey W Bush wrote:It doesn't matter what they feel. They have an obligation to act according to the resolution.
What would a law mean if it wasn't held up in court?
Are people going to take it seriously?
This is on a much bigger scale and I knew that this flaw in my reasoning would be pointed out. They shouldnt follow this resolution just because the US tells them too. We are talking countries not individuals. America stands for equality of the individual but I guess equality of countries is not necessary.
And you're right. They don't have to follow the resolution and they aren't. That's fine and dandy. Now the US is acting alone because the UN is insignifcant right now. The US doesn't have to follow the UN either. What is the problem?
Posted: 3/17/2003, 7:43 pm
by Corey
thirdhour wrote:Isn't that what Iraq is doing?
Explain to me how the US is different than Iraq?
I am assuming they will defend themselves. There is nothing wrong with that. The difference is that when the fighting is done, the people will be given their rights to self govern.
Posted: 3/17/2003, 7:45 pm
by areusad831
The UN is now becoming null due to some resolution. We cant respect these other countries and give them an opportunity to provide an alternate resolution instead of giving them an ultimatum if they are with us or against us. The US is trying to hard to play puppet master for all these other countries.
Posted: 3/17/2003, 7:50 pm
by thirdhour
I can name at least 3 times the US has installed a dictator in another country.
What makes you think this time will be any different?
The US had a war in Afghanistan last year. Are things magically better there?
Posted: 3/17/2003, 8:16 pm
by starvingeyes
yannic - excellent point. to elaborate, no, the northern alliance is a group composed of brutal warlords, many of which who are left over from the 80's when the soviets attacked. some of these guys were trained with bin laden.
capo - please read
you said wrote:And how can you say that George Bush is a war criminial? I have herd nothing about him signing any documentation about the execution of ANY people. Nor have I herd you say anything that states he is a war criminal that you can back up with a resource.
i posted on page 3 wrote:bombing civillian infrastructure is considered a war crime under the geneva convention. the united states has routinely ignored this since clinton and continues to with the attack on afghanistan under g.w. you cannot use war crimes as a valid reason to attack iraq since your adminstration and furthermore, it seems many of the people who live under it, do not believe in them.
you said wrote:Welp, I'm all ears, lets here it then.
I said on page 3 wrote:united nations sanctions, supported by and held in place by the americans, are weakinging the iraqui people, preventing any useful, wide scale revolutionary action.
we know there are revolutionary groups in iraq right now, and in fact these revolutionary groups are engaged in armed conflicts with the iraqui government [ source ]
we further know that with support from the americans, revolutionary groups of this nature are capable of defeating existing, more powerful regimes. for example, the resistance in afghanistan against the soviets in the 80's.
so. why then does the american government not offer support in the way of arms and money to these groups, while simultaneously lifting the sanctions and allowing the iraqui citizens to install their own new government?
read.
Posted: 3/17/2003, 9:53 pm
by thirdhour
chris-thank you
that means a lot to me, as I respect your opinion a lot
Everyone else- just because it is no longer news, don't forget about the other casualties of the US war machine.
Posted: 3/18/2003, 1:38 am
by Bandalero
chrisaddam hussein wrote:yannic - excellent point. to elaborate, no, the northern alliance is a group composed of brutal warlords, many of which who are left over from the 80's when the soviets attacked. some of these guys were trained with bin laden.
terrorist trained brutal warlords, that actually have their own elections and love to expirament with democracy. yeah, they're just as bad as OBL himself.
Posted: 3/18/2003, 8:12 am
by starvingeyes
the communist party had elections to.
sadly, there's really not alot of information available on them these days. most of what i've read i've got from feminist websites about how these guys treat women as bad or worse as the last guys.
they're certainly brutal in that regard.
Posted: 3/18/2003, 6:50 pm
by happening fish
My dear Reno, OBL and his cronies were trained by the CIA and given 3 billioin dollars.
Posted: 3/18/2003, 6:52 pm
by Corey
To defend themselves from Russia.
Posted: 3/18/2003, 6:54 pm
by happening fish
Yes. And OBL used that CIA training to blow up the WTC.
Posted: 3/18/2003, 6:55 pm
by Corey
If I sell you a gun, and you shoot someone with it, is it my fault?
Posted: 3/18/2003, 6:55 pm
by Axtech
That depends on why you sold her the gun.
Posted: 3/18/2003, 6:56 pm
by Corey
I sold it to her so that she could use it on intruders to her house
Posted: 3/18/2003, 6:56 pm
by the android
Can't be held responsible then.
Posted: 3/18/2003, 6:56 pm
by Axtech
Corey wrote:I sold it to her so that she could use it on intruders to her house
And if she killed someone who came into her house...?
Posted: 3/18/2003, 6:57 pm
by Corey
Axtech wrote:Corey wrote:I sold it to her so that she could use it on intruders to her house
And if she killed someone who came into her house...?
She invited him in and then shot him.
Posted: 3/18/2003, 6:57 pm
by liam
i think capo and i will get along very well...
Posted: 3/18/2003, 6:58 pm
by the android
Corey's scenario also depends on wether the gun was sold legally or through the black market, but that's a little too nit-picky.
Posted: 3/18/2003, 6:59 pm
by Axtech
Corey wrote:She invited him in and then shot him.
Okay, then it's not your fault.