Looks like we're going in without the UN-- how's next week fit everyone?

[Tessian]

<div style='font: 11pt Dominion; text-align: left; '><b>Link:</b> <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?0ql=crp">Say bye bye to UN</a>

Looks like we're going in without the UN-- how's next week fit everyone?</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Saddam is co-operating with the weapons inspectors, there is no reason at all for war.</div>

[Tessian]

<div style='font: 11pt Dominion; text-align: left; '>did you read the article? Bush said yesterday he doesn't care; chances are we're declaring next week...and is it a coincidence all of a sudden NOW Saddam's looking like he's cooperating? No, he's done this before and it's getting tiresome; only cooperate when you have 30k troops at your door</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>What are you talking about? Saddam has been co-operating for a very long time. If Bush does declare he is only proving that he is nothing more than an evil and murderous leader, as well as an enemy of Democracy.</div>

[Tessian]

<div style='font: 11pt Dominion; text-align: left; '>Right...and that's why the Inspectors didn't find the 100 missles he's now destroying only because we're about to invade? Saddam has been doing this for over a decade; pretend to cooperate, get found you're not, then resist and hold out until you're about to get invaded</div>

[G-man Joe]

<div style='font: 11pt "Fine Hand"; text-align: left; '>For a long time. Right.</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>#1, they knew for a long time about those missles, there was just never any debate over them because they were seen as legal. Besides, tell me how this justifies needless murder?</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Just like I said. The one who isn't co-operating is Bush.</div>

[Tessian]

<div style='font: 11pt Dominion; text-align: left; '>We're not going into Baghdad to shoot every and anything that moves and of course we're going to do everything we can do keep civilian casualties as low as possible. You keep on saying that as if our intent is to go in and slaughter the Iraqi population.

And it's not too hard to notice you keep falling back on this murder thing as a last resort, it's getting tired. Simply put-- This isn't the first time Saddam has fucked around with the US and the UN and resisted until he's about to get his ass kicked and you can bet it won't be the last. Using the excuse "you'll kill people" to not unseat Saddam is growing very thin-- it is becoming increasingly obvious to more and more people that this man will not stand down unless he is forced to and now is the best and soon only time we will have the manpower already assembled to take him down. If people get killed in the process then that's a shame but such is the price for freedom/democracy.</div>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Good. The U.N. is largely irrelevant anyway. Let them suffer the same fate as the League of Nations.</div>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Good. The U.N. is largely irrelevant anyway. Let it suffer the same fate as the League of Nations.</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>>And it's not too hard to notice you keep falling back on this murder thing as a last resort, it's getting tired.

You have no solid arguments that aren't total bullshit.

>This isn't the first time Saddam has fucked around with the US and the UN and resisted until he's about to get his ass kicked and you can bet it won't be the last.

What exactly are you talking about? I don't recall any time where Saddam has "fucked around with the US and the UN".

>Using the excuse "you'll kill people" to not unseat Saddam is growing very thin--

Wrong again, human life is always very important. I know you have very low regard for human life, and it sickens me.

>it is becoming increasingly obvious to more and more people that this man will not stand down unless he is forced to and now is the best and soon only time we will have the manpower already assembled to take him down.

You graduated from grade 12 with grade 4 grammar? Anyways, Saddam should stand down from what? You have never answered that question when I have asked it. As far as I can see, the one who needs to stand down is Bush.


>If people get killed in the process then that's a shame but such is the price for freedom/democracy.

You don't even know the meaning of democracy or freedom. Otherwise you would realise that your statement is completely false.</div>

[G-man Joe]

<div style='font: 11pt "Fine Hand"; text-align: left; '>*rolls eyes* Uh huh.</div>

[Tessian]

<div style='font: 11pt Dominion; text-align: left; '>When has Saddam done this? Uhm...Persian Gulf War? And I believe we went through this same shit with Clinton where we ended up roughing them up a bit. Same deal with the inspectors, the lies, and then the backing down once we showed muscle.

and freedom and democracy? Well, let's see-- You speak out against Saddam in public and you wind up dead by morning so there's no freedom of speech. And, ohh yeah, vote or run against Saddam in office and you end up the same way or completely humiliated so there goes democracy. And those are just the obvious ones.

Saddam has proven again and again he can't be trusted and he's always trying to see where the line is and for how long he can cross it. He holds no regard for his own people and is a threat to his country and the Middle East. Leave him alone for 10 years and see what he cooks up-- in the 90's the man tried to build a cannon the size of the one used in Final Fantasy 7 for christ's sake</div>

[Tessian]

<div style='font: 11pt Dominion; text-align: left; '>We need a world-wide coalition of nations...but we do need something better than the UN. As a friend said-- something like a world-wide NATO would be better</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Bush is the one going against the UN, not Saddam.</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>

When has Saddam done this? Uhm...Persian Gulf War? And I believe we went through this same shit with Clinton where we ended up roughing them up a bit. Same deal with the inspectors, the lies, and then the backing down once we showed muscle.

As far as I know, there has been absolutely no evidence of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction like Bush claims.

and freedom and democracy? Well, let's see-- You speak out against Saddam in public and you wind up dead by morning so there's no freedom of speech. And, ohh yeah, vote or run against Saddam in office and you end up the same way or completely humiliated so there goes democracy. And those are just the obvious ones.

Really? Could you show evidence of this? I was only aware of Saddam gassing Kurds 15 years ago when they violently rebelled, and Turkey has killed more Kurds than Saddam. I do recall Shi-ite people speaking out against Saddam and Sunni muslims to reporters on televised news networks, but they think war is an insane alternative. In fact, if you want, I will even find a news site that confirms exactly what I have said.

You on the other hand believe people should be shot for the possession of marijuana, which is as minor an offense as underage drinking. You believe that people should follow the leader, instead of the leader representing the population. You also seam to feel that foreign powers should rule over countries, and dictate how things should be done, even when they don't even share the same cultures. You support a President who isn't even rightfully supposed to be in office. You also have called countries "cowards" because their people disagree with Bush. You know nothing of freedom or democracy.

Saddam has proven again and again he can't be trusted and he's always trying to see where the line is and for how long he can cross it. He holds no regard for his own people and is a threat to his country and the Middle East. Leave him alone for 10 years and see what he cooks up-- in the 90's the man tried to build a cannon the size of the one used in Final Fantasy 7 for christ's sake

Bush has no regard for the iraqi people either, he just cares about oil. His reasons for invasion are also none of the ones you listed above. Also, I am not seeing any evidence as to how Saddam's a threat to his country and the middle east, BUSH is a threat to his country and the middle east on the other hand. Also, if you believe Saddam was building a city sized laser cannon, then you are even more deluded than I thought.</div>

[Ganath]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>NATO isn't so much a coalition of nations as it is a war alliance. Kinda like "If you cover my back, I'll cover yours."</div>

[Tessian]

<div style='font: 11pt Dominion; text-align: left; '>You don't think I don't know that oil is a large factor in all of this and this is also partially happening to avenge daddy? No shit; those points are obvious. But you can't say this is purely for oil; like Iraq wouldn't benefit from being liberated from Saddam and notably any terrorists Saddam's funding (I'm not saying Al Queda but you can bet your ass he's helping some anti-terror group-- complete deniability; words every leader loves to hear).

And what the hell are you talking about evidence about the lack of freedom of speech and democracy? It's RIGHT THERE!! Look at the last fucking election-- Saddam won, what, 99% of the votes? Yeah, that doesn't sound rigged to me...I bet EVERYONE loves Saddam so much that it's only the wacky ones that pull Americans aside and whisper to them against Saddam. You speak out and you die; people who have visited Baghdad and come back have said this is what they are whispered when not being watched. While not the same thing let's not forget that during the Gulf War Saddam shot his 5 top generals because they wouldn't go back on the battlefield to get creamed by US patriot missles and Abram tanks.

He's listed these reasons before as to why he wishes to unseat Saddam, you just don't believe him. I don't care what his exact reasoning is, all I care is that it removes Saddam from power. And if you want to attack character your country is one to talk-- Canada has been the United State's bitch since before its independence. Hell if Canada hadn't been French speaking and Catholic it would be part of the United States but the American Colonists hated them so they didn't ask them to join. It's easy to criticize when you don't have to do anything but just send help along.

And when the hell did I say anything about foreign powers should be governing other countries? Don't put words in my mouth. I call the French cowards because that's what their history has depicted them as; they have yet to win a war (WWI & II don't count; in both cases we came in and saved their asses). My stance on marijuana and other narcotics is of a totally different subject as well.</div>

[SineSwiper]

<div style='font: 11pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light"; text-align: left; '>This is what happens when you have one country to depend on for your military.</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>>Canada has been the United State's bitch since before its independence. Hell if Canada hadn't been French speaking and Catholic it would be part of the United States but the American Colonists hated them so they didn't ask them to join. It's easy to criticize when you don't have to do anything but just send help along.

Explain how Canada is the US's bitch? Economically, Canadians make hundreds of billions of dollars off of American consumers. You are completely wrong on the history as well. During the American revolution, American troops attempted to conquer Canada and were defeated on several occaisions. Also in the war of 1812, American troops attacked Canada again, and were again defeated. Canada is most certainly not catholic now, we are the most ethnically and culturally diverse nation in the entire world. We also boast a much higher living standard than any other country in the Western Hemisphere, 99% of Canadians are better off than the bottom 38-40% of Americans. There is no country in the world where the people have more freedom than in Canada (well, Sweden and Norway may have more freedom because of their Socialist democratic systems). Also, our economy is growing quite well, our national debt is shrinking very quickly. Most importantly, we don't have 5 billion people hating us because of an aggressive capitalistic and nationalistic government.

As for the French, they were allies to the American people in both the American Revolution and the War of 1812. You were calling the French cowards because they weren't supporting Bush, no other reason.

Also, if you support Bush's war on Iraq, if you recall, he plans to remove Iraq's current government and put in place a new regime to his liking. Sorry, but that constitutes as control, and you are supporting it.

Also, if you are paying attention to the news, the opposing Shi-ite and Kurdish factions don't want war, they want an alternative method for change in the country. No one in Iraq wants war, you can't use "liberation of Iraq" as an argument, because that isn't the way the people of Iraq want things to be done. Besides, Bush doesn't care about the people of Iraq, there are much worse off countries in Africa, but his focus is Iraq because it has oil.

-Bush wants Iraq to stop selling oil for a cheap price on the market (within the laws of the sanctions) because then his father and friends can't sel; it.

-Bush wants control of Iraqs oil supply.

-Bush wants to take attention off of the fact that he's screwing over 95% of the US population, and larely benefitting the wealthy top 5%.

-Bush wants to take attention off of the fact that in 5-6 years the US will no longer be the most powerful country in the world economically.

-Bush is a puppet of the oil companies used to convince the American people that his warmongering is justified. Even his father owns several oil companies.</div>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>What reason does the U.S. have to surrender power to an international organization? We are the world's only remaining superpower. That in itself creates its own legitimacy.</div>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>What reason has the U.S. to surrender power to an international organization? We are the world's only remaining superpower. That in itself creates its own legitimacy.</div>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>What reason has the U.S. to surrender power to an international organization? We are the world's only remaining superpower. That in itself creates its own form of legitimacy.</div>

[SineSwiper]

<div style='font: 11pt "EngraversGothic BT", "Copperplate Gothic Light"; text-align: left; '>Why doesn't China count?</div>

[Ishamael]

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>Just get this thing over before March Madness...</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Might makes right?</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>1) Don't lump me in with Seeker. 2) Give me a reason beyond your "you value life too much" mantra why preservation of life should not be a main concern.</div>

[kali o.]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Ewww. That's a scary comment.</div>

[Ishamael]

<div style='font: 14pt "Sans Serif"; text-align: justify; padding: 0% 15% 0% 15%; '>That's not true. It's nice to have them around to rubber stamp things when we might do something that has a chance of being even remotely unpopular to the international community. But it's nice to be strong enough to ignore them when convenient also. :)</div>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>I leave "right" to the eye of the beholder. My point is, the U.S. has the power and the will to engage the world on its own terms, with or without an intermediary like the United Nations.</div>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>They might very well, in the future. China is fast on the path to becoming both an economic and military superpower.</div>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Power can be a frightening thing.</div>

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

<div style='font: 10pt georgia; text-align: left; '>Consider it an investment in the future. Even as a mighty dinosaur it doesn't do to piss off the shrews.</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>Everyone can see that. That's not the issue at hand. What is the issue is if that's what we SHOULD do.</div>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>In that case, I say again: Let the U.N. wither, or at least have the U.S. ignore it. Our foreign policy should not be dictated by the whims of weaker nations who only want to see our power diminished.</div>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>And how would the dinosaur fare if it stayed itself from any action at all, out of concern for the mewling of worms and snails? There is nothing that the United States can do that would not offend some malcontented individual somewhere, somehow.</div>

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

<div style='font: 10pt georgia; text-align: left; '>It is in the US's long-term best interests to invest itself in the UN because it will not retain global hegemony forever, maybe not even for much longer. If the US hamstrings the UN now it will only make things that much easier for the next superpower (China? India? The EU? Indonesia?) to establish its own hegemony, which I'm sure the US will not prosper under (the more badwill the US engenders now the greater the backlash is going to be).</div>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>As to whether or not the U.S. needs to remain a member of the U.N. to prevent some sort of "backlash," well, there were those who made the same sort of argument that the U.S. ought to join the League of Nations for... exactly the same reasons you described. We turned out alright then, and I'm reasonably confident that we won't suffer any great ills in the foreseeable future if we renounce our U.N. membership. No doubt there would ensure a great deal of European diplomatic wailing, but then, wailing is what countries like France do best.</div>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>As to whether or not the U.S. needs to remain a member of the U.N. to prevent some sort of "backlash," well, there were those who made the same sort of argument that the U.S. ought to join the League of Nations for... exactly the same reasons you described. We turned out alright then, and I'm reasonably confident that we won't suffer any great ills in the foreseeable future if we renounce our U.N. membership. No doubt there would ensue a great deal of European diplomatic wailing, but then, wailing is what countries like France do best.</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>I get the impression you don't think any international governing body would be of use.</div>

[French Dude]

<div style='font: ; text-align: left; '>Wee, wee American pig. I would smack you with this roll if you would lean your big American head a little closer...</div>

[Kupek]

<div style='font: 10pt verdana; text-align: left; padding: 0% 10% 0% 10%; '>I can easily use your argument to give reasons why Saddam should ignore the US: Iraqi foreign policy (in this case, obtaining/maintaining nuclear and biological weapons) should not be dictated by the whims of [other] nations who only want to see their power diminish.

I think that line of reasoning is flawed. That reasoning leads to rogue nations that are not held accountable to the rest of the world. It's not legitamite for Iraq to do it, and nor is it legitamite for the US to do it.

You've said a few times that if the UN Security Council does not go along with the US, the UN is bordering on irrelevance. Let's assume the Security Council went along with the US for that reason alone. Aren't they now just as irrelevant, since they allow one nation to determine international policy? What's the point of the UN if it becomes irrelvant when it doesn't go along with the world's largest power?

I think the French and Germans see it the opposite way that you do: if they were to go along with the US, the UN would become irrelevant. They are preserving the independence of the UN by defying the only superpower.</div>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>Your delicious bagette loafs don't frighten me, Frog. My big American dick will whap you upside your head.</div>

[Stephen]

<div style='font: 10pt Arial; text-align: left; '>>> I can easily use your argument to give reasons why Saddam should ignore the US: Iraqi foreign policy (in this case, obtaining/maintaining nuclear and biological weapons) should not be dictated by the whims of [other] nations who only want to see their power diminish. <<

There's one little problem with that; given how weak Saddam Hussein is compared to the United States, he can't AFFORD to ignore us. Foreign and international relations, whatever else they may be, are primarily about power. Iraq can certainly ignore U.S. demands if it really wants to, but there's a rather large price to pay for that.

>> I think that line of reasoning is flawed. That reasoning leads to rogue nations that are not held accountable to the rest of the world. It's not legitamite for Iraq to do it, and nor is it legitamite for the US to do it. <<

The U.N. has done a rather poor job of holding nations accountable. North Korea restarts its nuclear program, kicks out U.N. inspectors, and what does the U.N. do? It issues complaints and empty threats about "isolation." That's not accountability. That's a little bit of motherly scolding. North Korea is, no doubt, terrified.

In any case, I'm not really sure where you're going with this tact. My reasoning is simply thus: A powerful nation like the U.S. need not worry about whether an international organization like the U.N. perceives its actions as "legitimate" or not. Say the U.S. goes to war with Iraq without the U.N. approval. What is the U.N. going to do about it? Pass a resolution condemning U.S. action? Lodge a complaint? Threaten to expel us? Uh-oh. Better do what the U.N. says.

>> You've said a few times that if the UN Security Council does not go along with the US, the UN is bordering on irrelevance. Let's assume the Security Council went along with the US for that reason alone.<<

Not true. I think the U.N. is largely irrelevant whether it goes along with the U.S. or not. An approval by the U.N. for the U.S. to employ force against Iraq would just be a symbolic act of rubber-stamping. Bush is obviously going to invade Iraq no matter what the U.N. does.

>> Aren't they now just as irrelevant, since they allow one nation to determine international policy? What's the point of the UN if it becomes irrelvant when it doesn't go along with the world's largest power? <<

I would ask, what is the point of the U.N. now? I understand that it has some aid programs, and I think that's good. Perhaps the U.N. would function much better if it was simply a sort of worldwide charity organization.

>> I think the French and Germans see it the opposite way that you do: if they were to go along with the US, the UN would become irrelevant. They are preserving the independence of the UN by defying the only superpower. <<

"Independence" and "irrelevance" are two very different things. A country can be independent, but that alone doesn't make it relevant in geopolitics. Of course, I shouldn't be too hasty in tossing around the word "irrelevant," since one could nitpick and say that a nation like Mongolia may be quite relevant in matters of, I don't know, camel trading. So I'll qualify it with "largely irrelevant."

So what if the U.N. doesn't approve U.S. action in regards to Iraq? Will that make the U.S. think twice about invading? Seems very unlikely. I ask you, then: what would the U.N. accomplish, in not approving a U.S.-sponsored resolution? I suppose it might have the satisfaction of having said "no" to the world's only superpower. Good for them. The U.S. will duly note it, right after the first cruise missile lands in Baghdad.</div>

[Blotus]

<div style='font: 10pt "arial narrow"; text-align: left; padding: 0% 5% 0% 5%; '>What? Iraq, and therefore Saddam, has never been in cooperation with the UN.</div>

[French Dude]

<div style='font: ; text-align: left; '>Weee weee. I have been slapped by many dicks, so yours does not strike fear into me. Euro-Disney is but the beginning. DC will be next, rest assured you ignorant Yankee blowhard. Wee wee...</div>

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

<div style='font: 10pt georgia; text-align: left; '>You live in a world I find deeply disturbing, dude. Where does the sovereignty of nations that aren't your own come into it? Do you consider the world the US' playground?</div>

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

<div style='font: 10pt georgia; text-align: left; '>Wait, what? I didn't say you were saying that. It's not what I'm saying, either. I'm saying the US's interventionalist foreign policies are dangerous and wrong.</div>