| Here we go.....my views on Iraq | |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student  |
Ok, first things first...
Place a dictionary in one hand, and use the other to hold onto something. This'll get wild. ***Disclaimer*** These are MY views. You can contribute if you want, but I have established my views through scholarly research and sources. You really can't say I am wrong. And don't call me names. ****** Let's see, where to start, regarding the question "How do you feel about the war with Iraq?" First off, you can point out that we aren't AT war, so it changes the question. If you are someone like me, you can point out that we ARE at war, since the Gulf War ended with a ceasefire, and a bunch of resolutions, which haven't been followed. Mostly, we entered into a cold war with Iraq. And I don't mean cold war like nuke cold war, I mean it like a standoff, with resolutions and threats, for the past 12 years. One could argue that we can just finish it. And, with some old resolutions that Congress has (I can look them up), we can use force whenever we want to. Congress approved it about 12 years back. So we'd be following domestic law, and not be doing anything unconstitutional. Now, international law, or what is known as "jus ad bellum", justification/law for going to war. I'll list the points that one needs to follow for "jus ad bellum", and explain my views on each. (1) The use of force needs to be last resort, where it is used only if all other possibilities of resolution has been exhausted. This is a debated point. Some feel that the inspectors should be given more time, or new resolutions made. I feel that after 12 years, the use of resolutions and inspectors has been exhausted. I really feel that the use of force will be last resort. (2) The decision must be made by legitimate authority, not by disgruntled groups or authorities. Decision must come from proper state (national) authorities. Well, I think that Bush, along with Congress, should be able to make the decision. If the consensus is there, then I am for it. (3) Use of Force cannot be motivated by revenge or aggressive design. Must be consistent with Christian charity or Augustine's self-defense. Ok, I could explain this more, but merely an overview for now. The discussion exists as to whether we are doing good in our use of force? Is it charitable to the world? Are we helping? And also, is it in defense? Is an attack inevitable? WHEN is the attack imminent? When a bomb goes off? Well, according to UN charter, regarding Use of Force, one really needs to wait for the bomb to detonate. It's dimb, yes. Are we helping? Probably, in my mind. Is attack inevitable? Not really, Saddam couldn't hit US, but he might hit our interests. And Bush with the whole "He tried to kill my dad", is a bit vengeful. (4) There needs to be a chance of success. Well, one my say, "We're the frickin' US of A!!!" Well, it depends on goals, as to if we succeed. Just because we turn Iraq into a parking lot does not mean we succeed. (5) There must be a goal of peace, preferable to that which might exist if war is never fought. This is where more argument might occur, speculation, etc. How will the world be if we invade? How will it be if we don't? This is a real tough issue, I mean, who knows? This is really the coward's way out, to say that we DON'T know that we will have better peace. But I think the goal is there. As for economic interests, I feel it is just really dumb to think that we are doing a "blood for oil" thing. Think about it. If we want REALLY cheap oil, what can we do? Be friends with Iraq. Then we get cheap oil. And then one points to Saddam destroying weapons. Yeah, he's destroying weapons HE SAID HE DID NOT HAVE! Just for reference, McCarthy and Tucker, NBC Weapons resarchers, stated that "Baghdad's determination to reatin these unconventional weapon capabilities in defiance of the UN disarmament regime is the chief reason for continuation of international sanctions, which have cost Iraq more that $130 Billion in lost oil sales. Iraq has a near total reliance on oil exports as a source of revenue." What needs to be asked is WHY Saddam would destroy something that he is taking a major suffering for. Think of it like this: and I use this for illustration only, and it works great: You sell your left testicle (since you're guys, mostly) to bang, Oh, Natalie Portman. You wouldn't want to just throw her on the curb in a puddle of mud and slam the door in her face. Then you wouldn't have that testicle, and you don't have what you gave that testicle for. The only way this could make sense to do is if... You can bang Anna Kournikova whenever you want for free. So, the point here, is that Saddam is destroying something that he literally had to "grab his ankles" to get. And he gives it up? No, only if he has more stuff, better stuff. And one has to remember that he is destroying weapons HE SAID HE DID NOT HAVE!!! Now, I'm a bit of a just war theoris, so I will detail what that is, and then come to a conclusion, finally, and maybe touch this up with other things in time. There are mainly 3 points to just war theory: When? (1) It is morally acceptable to use military violence only for defensive purposes and only when there is no alternative method of stopping the aggression. How much? (2) It is morally acceptable to use military violence only to the extent needed to stop the aggression and only in an amount at most proportional to the violence the aggressor threatens to inflict Against whom? (3) It is morally....Only against those who are taking part in the aggression. So, to discuss those points. First, is it defensive? One could argue, as many leaders are, that the attack is imminent, and that we should preempt and attack first. Is there no alternative to stopping the aggression? I think that resolutions and inspections will not help, but there is an alternative I will get to later. On point (2), will we use only what is needed to stop the aggression? Yes. Is it proportional to the violence Iraq threatens to inflict? Well, Saddam threatens a lot of violence, so, we will be proportional, if not less than what Saddam threatens against us. On point (3), will it be used only against those who are taking part in the aggression? You can bet so. With what opposition lies there, we will target very carefully. Any collateral damage will be minimal and accidental. Now, we roll to the wonderful Resolution 1441. Yeah, the one that everyone talks about and no one has read. I've read it, so I can see where the no-war people are just ignorant, and the pro-war people are pushing Resolution 1441 too far, and misinterpreting. So here's what the UN says in Resolution 1441: grr...this is hard to summarize, want to put down the whole thing... To start, the Security Council "recalls" all it previous resolutions, particulary 661 (1990), 678 (1990), 686, 687, 688, 707, 715 (all 1991), 986 (1995), 1284 (1999), and 1382 (2001). Then, it "recognizes" the threat of Iraq's non-compliance with the Council resolutions and proliferation of WMD and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security. The Security Council "further recalls" that resolution 678 (1990) (this is key part) authorized Member States (like the US, Britain, France) to use "all necessary means" to uphold resolution 660 (1990) and "all relevant resolutions subsequent" and to "restore international peace and security in the area" Then, it goes into a bunch of detail about the Council "deploring" the fact that Iraq has not complied with requirements set out by resolutions. But..the important thing is that the resolutions he has been violating are back from 1991. The complete and accurate disclosure that we require, we required that back in 1991 through resolution 687. So it details all of these violations that Iraq has been doing for, oh, 12 years. So the Council decides that "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)" And here's a real kicker... The council decides "to afford Iraq, by this resolution (Resolution 1441) a FINAL OPPORTUNITY to comply with its disarmament obligations." (emphasis added by me) In this final opportunity, Iraq needs to submit a "currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop NBC weapons, ballisic missiles, and other delivery systems...any false statements or omissions...shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations" The Council also decides that "Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution." So...a large chunk. But how many war debaters have actually read the whole Resolution 1441? Now YOU can say that you sorta have (I'd still read the whole thing) So, my points. As you can see, Iraq has 10 resolutions already that it has violated, in the start, which they recall/remember. It's also been decided that Iraq poses a threat, so one can now conclude that Iraq is a threat, and we can act defensively. And it actually say, in the next paragraph, to use "all necessary means" to uphold resolution 660 (1990) and "all relevant resolutions subsequent" and to "restore international peace and security in the area" So, what, we invade? Is it necessary, well, after so many violations, yes. And have they violated stuff, well, the Council say Iraq remains in material breach of its obligations. So, do we give them another resolution now? NO!!! We GAVE them their FINAL OPPORTUNITY!!! Therefore, as I concluded, resolutions and inspections are overwith. Now, to conclude. What do I think we should do? As I said, there is an alternative, which is: Establish a credible deterrent. We can do this two ways: Have the whole world rally behind our wanting to use force. Or, drop bombs on them, invade, etc. See, Saddam KNOWS we won't do anything. If we make him CERTAIN that we will do something, he will back down. So the best option, in my mind, is to have all the countries unify in the use of force idea. Then, Saddam will have no doubt we are after him, and we will back off. I say we resolve to invade him. If he backs down, good job, we deterred. If he still does not back off, then war. We have to follow the international law that has been set out by the Council. And we already HAVE permission from Congress, from 1991, we HAVE permission from the UN, through all the resolutions above. So...why are we waiting? Beats the hell out of me. So that is my view. You asked for it, you got it. Now I go to class. Later. Oh, and a added note: it seems very likely that this summer, I will internship with the United Nations. I'll let you guys know if that is the case, I'll know in a few weeks for sure. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. This post was edited by Ulic Belouve on Mar 13 2003 11:35am. |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
ioshee - Student 
|
For the most part I stay out of this issue (in RL) because I don't keep well informed on the subject.
What bothers me is that things like this happen to me: I’m working late and the cleaning lady comes into my office. I ask her how she's doing and somehow this leads to her telling me about how people shouldn't be mad at the Dixie Chicks (or actually just the fat one I guess) for what she said, and how it's her right to say what they want. I agreed with her on the freedom thing and I told her that that is exactly what our military protects. I also pointed out to her that because of this freedom thing we have, people have the right to express their dislike for what the fat Dixie Chick said. Then she tells me she's "against the war" (wow big shock.) This next part is a quote (hence the quotation marks): "The way I see it, Bush isn't going to lose any sons in this war." Now I'm thinking, no but he might lose a lot more than that. I think it’s in his best personal interest NOT to go to war IF it can be avoided and he knows it. It just rubs my rhubarb the wrong way when people talk about Bush like he is the only person who decides whether there will be death and suffering or world peace. So here is my point: If I ask you how you’re doing (and I meant it by the way) don’t rattle on about a subject you obviously know nothing about. I’m only referring to my RL here. This does not apply to anyone at the JA. You all have a free license to talk to me about subjects you know nothing about. _______________ One of the Belouve boys |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Saddam also has about 4 or more doubles running around. By the time two of his doubles get canned, he'll be hiding in one of his underground bunkers. I would personally favor the Napoleon solution. Put him into exile away from all his allies. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Battlin' Billy - Student 
|
So far, Bush & Blair are sticking to the rules.
As far as assassinating Saddam, I'm actually we haven't sent in a CIA team in there to do that already considering that Bush Sr. used to be the head of the CIA. I'm sure he still has some buddies there. But then again, if Saddam gets assassinated, the next guy in line is just gonna do the same thing as Saddam. 
_______________ Midbie Council Member #2 - Profile ID 2073 | Member of B@rtM@ulS@ar | Owner of Monty's 2000th comment & D@RtHM@UL's 8100th comment | Former Padawan of SilkMonkey & Arcuss JA Goaltender & NHL Fan | Fellow Rush fan to Axion|Plo Koon is my oldest JA friend Post your RL pics HERE! | Post you JK2/JK3 screenies HERE! |
|
Sniya - Student 
|
i think france is right
Ok basically i think war should go ahead but not the way its going now.People expect the inspecters to have done nothing(due to saddam) for years then sudenly in a month or so have everything done. Bush an blair should go to war but not this way.Play the game keep to the rules because if we dont keep them whats the point of them? EDIT: of course the best way would be jjs idea SHOOT SADDAM IN THE HEAD why is there compartivly little moral objection to war(killing hndreds of people),to assasination it should be considered mabey they are? _______________ The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. Bertrand Russell http://www.thejediacademy.net/forums_detail_page.php?f_id=970 This comment was edited by Sniya on Mar 15 2003 08:17am. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
We've obviously learned our lesson. What's holding up France?
Are they waiting for Saddam to become so powerful that he invades and conquers them so they can surrender again? *Note* This piece was a total joke don't take what I just said in this paragraph in any real seriousness _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Battlin' Billy - Student 
|
Look at it like this:
Should people die now, mostly military people that KNOW they might get killed, and take out Saddam, or should innocent people die from one or more of Saddam's weapons. I agree that peace is the best solution. Unfortunately, it seems at this point it's not an option anymore. The only way we'll have peace is if Saddam TRUTHFULLY discloses what weapons he has in his inventory AND destroys them. But, since that's probably not gonna happen, war will be fought. _______________ Midbie Council Member #2 - Profile ID 2073 | Member of B@rtM@ulS@ar | Owner of Monty's 2000th comment & D@RtHM@UL's 8100th comment | Former Padawan of SilkMonkey & Arcuss JA Goaltender & NHL Fan | Fellow Rush fan to Axion|Plo Koon is my oldest JA friend Post your RL pics HERE! | Post you JK2/JK3 screenies HERE! |
|
Trebizond - Ex-Student 
|
Nice glib comment from Sarah Silverman, whoever she is. However, America wasn't exactly there in 1939? In fact they ignored repeated attacks on US Navy vessels by German U-Boats (Isolationism. . . great). Granted, Europe did look prove itself ineffective too, but America only became Germany's enemy because declaration of war on Japan bought war on Germany with it.
And of course, you could cogently argue that Hitler wouldn't have been able to do what he was if the United States hadn't hamstrung the League of Nations (the forerunner of the UN) And America didn't win the Second World War. Neither did Britain. The Soviet Union did. But enough. No-one is going to change other people's minds on this matter; its gone too far. Its just a shame that we have to live in a world where 'Collateral Damage' is a euphemism for 'Dead Children'. But hey, what the f**k brothers, they're only A-Rabs! Hardly human, eh? Pass the rope, Cletus. _______________ "He asked us 'Be you angels?' and we said 'Nay! We are but Men!'" |
|
 - Student |
Here's my view. George Bush is fucked in the head, and deserves to be shot. Saddam Hussein is fucked in the head, and deserves to be shot. Hell, anyone who thinks violence will fucking solve the problems with Iraq, deserves to be shot. |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Ulic might possibly be getting an internship at the UN so he won't say anything bad about them. I think they are ineffective though. The only times they have ever really done anything is in Korea because the Soviet Union missed the council meeting allowing the UN to vote in that case and pass it, and in the Gulf War when Saddam invaded Kuwait. They didn't do anything in Rwanda or Bosnia or Kosovo when ethnic cleansing as its so nicely put went on in those areas. Treb I'd love to know what you think I believe that makes you think I'll believe anything but don't post it here.
I'll leave with a quote I heard a comedienne say tonight, don't take it completely as what I think but I liked it and well I'll just say it. "This isn't the first time that Europe has looked the other way when a Jew hating man with a funny mustache was killing his own people" - Sarah Silverman _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Battlin' Billy - Student
|
Anytime I've heard about us attacking something in Iraq, it was always bcuz we were fired on 1st. I don't think we did anything without being provoked.
Am I right about that? _______________ Midbie Council Member #2 - Profile ID 2073 | Member of B@rtM@ulS@ar | Owner of Monty's 2000th comment & D@RtHM@UL's 8100th comment | Former Padawan of SilkMonkey & Arcuss JA Goaltender & NHL Fan | Fellow Rush fan to Axion|Plo Koon is my oldest JA friend Post your RL pics HERE! | Post you JK2/JK3 screenies HERE! |
|
Hector Thrawn - Ex-Student 
|
ok, after reading almost all the posts, etc i have one minor comment to make on this (i think someone might have already made it but dang it there is to much to remmember) involving just war.
we need to preempt the iraqi attack becuase they will inevitably attack us. becuase they will attack us we are acting defensivly. here is the problem: we already did that. when we bomb iraq throughout the 90s we were preempting any attack on planes, neighbors, etc. so any attack by iraq from here could be considered self defense from america and its allies. and what makes this a legit argument is: we were going to attack, period. there is no doubt that we will attack, either at war, or with a missle strike, so, in this scenario, the just war is being fought by iraq! in short, all of iraq's attacks could be considered self-defense or retaliation so we need to find a better excuse to fight. the real problem with the whole situation is this: who defines right and wrong? all i know is that it cant be law, and because law is derived from politics it is cannot be polotics either. sorry if any of that is cunfusing, my brain is fried.  |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student 
|
And simply because the Israeli thing was dropped in, there is a lot more to it than violation of Resolutions (which Israel has violated more than Iraq).
But, there's more, and this is a view of Iraq, so maybe if I want to bring that up, it will be in a separate thread. But you have a good point, but add more to it, and you have your case. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student 
|
Well, thanks for the backup, and I think the points were right. I meant that you couldn't call me wrong because I am drawing from facts, proven stuff, etc., and then basing an opinion on them.
As for if I would fight, I need to reiterate that I WAS in the military, I took that oath to fight and die for my country, and I would readily do it again. And this isn't another Vietnam or Afghanistan. There are so many differences it not even comparable. Go take a course in American Foreign Affairs and you'll see what I mean. And what is amusing is that after I wrote this post, I turned on the TV, and there's your press conference with them babbling about the finality clause of Resolution 1441, like I illustrated. So, well, this is really just my answer. I could be typiccal and say: Bomb them! or No Blood for Oil! But I wish to develop and educated answer, and back it up a bit more. I'm not opening a debate, but statingthe point. And I think I have helped convince those that were uncertain about the war, that the use of force may be a needed step. I still think that we should try to unify in threat first. But, if someone wants to make a good, educated, researched case about why we SHOULD NOT go to war, filled with facts and such, then go ahead. But not in my thread, start your own. And I'll even be kind and not pummel you. So the challenge is set. If you really want to debate, make a strong case in another thread. Otherwise, I leave it open for valid points, or questions, like B.Billy had. But I'm just stating an eduacted opinion. If you wish to state an opinion, try to make it educated. And for everyone else, I'm off on vacation, probably open my own pool up and heat the thing. Nice. So people can get my back when I'm gone. If soemone really needs me to step in and put people in their place, you know how to find me. But you can handle this. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Trebizond - Ex-Student 
|
And if we're going by the facts; what about this one.
Israel has been in contravention of UN Resolution 238 since 1968, and a number since then. Why haven't the US invaded Israel then? Alright, the situation isn't exactly the same, but it never is. I'm disappointed in people who recite bleak 'facts'. . it tends to mean that they can ignore the reality of the situation. There's a long distance between 'facts' and 'truth'. Like I said before, I'm reconciled to the fact that our leaders seem to want war. So it'll happen, because they have great facility to ignore people. However, when a young Muslim whose father was killed by an unseen American aviator in Afghanistan or Iraq detonates a small nuclear device in LA, or New York, we'll see that hatred and violence only breed more hatred and violence. I must apologise for the generalised comment about Americans though; shouldn't generalise like that. My apologies. Take it easy, Treb _______________ "He asked us 'Be you angels?' and we said 'Nay! We are but Men!'" |
|
Trebizond - Ex-Student
|
And if you believe that, you'll believe anything my son. _______________ "He asked us 'Be you angels?' and we said 'Nay! We are but Men!'" |
|
Buzz - Student
|
You can't say he's wrong. He has stated the facts of the situation. Those cannot be disputed. Then he gives his opinions based on those facts. You can't really ever tell someone their opinion is wrong because its their opinion. So Ulic is right to say he cannot be told he's wrong. You can say you don't agree with him.
And this is not Vietnam. Its not even Afghanistan. You probably haven't heard all the news going on. A lot of the Iraqi military is not ready to fight and die for saddam. The british were holding war games close to Iraq. While they were doing this Iraqi soldiers thinking the war had started came to surrender. I believe the number was around 20 or so. This is evidence that they were planning to surrender as soon as the war started. That right there shows this is not vietnam. In Vietnam we were fighting against North Vietnamese and the Vietkong. Here there is no real Vietkong and the North Vietnamese have a lot of soldiers that want to surrender. And we are not just rolling over waiting for Bin Laden to plan another attack. We are looking for him, but you can't really have a massive military search for him in a friendly country. As for the French. They do have a lot of money that Saddam owes them. They been sending him supplies to keep his military running. And they are a reason there will be no united front of the world against Saddam. They'll veto anything we want to do. Its also been acknowledged by the people that don't want any force that the only reason saddam has been "complying" if you'd call it that is because of those 200,000 troops we have sitting over at his doorstep. And its not like if we do go in and take him out of power we're going to go and put Uncle Sam in as Iraq's head of state. We didn't do that with Afghanistan. We didn't even choose who their leader was going to be. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Trebizond - Ex-Student
|
And one more thing; I've just noticed the bit at the top that says 'You can't really say I'm wrong'
I know you didn't want to be called names, but you really are a fool for saying something like that. What is it about Americans that they don't have 'Wrong' on their personal geography? Hmm? _______________ "He asked us 'Be you angels?' and we said 'Nay! We are but Men!'" |
|
Trebizond - Ex-Student
|
And one more; for anyone who wants war with anyone;
Would you put yourself in the front line? _______________ "He asked us 'Be you angels?' and we said 'Nay! We are but Men!'" |
|
Trebizond - Ex-Student
|
Always have to throw my tuppence worth on these ones 
The problem with this situation is, as ever, pretexts and motivational factors. I'm not sure where people are from, but here in Europe there is a lot of cynicism concerning US involvement (and a lot of shame here in the UK that we bend over to receive what Dubya wants to dole out) Although I think we can all basically agree that Mr Hussein is a bad man, people tend to be concerned about one main thing. If the US takes it upon itself to 'police' the world's governments and states, then who knows who will be next? Although we've been living under the Empire of the United States since around 1945, it was never so overt (Coca-Colonialism). Governments in Europe both want to avert needless death, but they also don't want a strutting America telling people how to live their lives. Two things also worry me. People seem to think that the American military will overrun Iraq in a matter of minutes. Remember Vietnam. If the situation is presented to the Iraqi people that they can remain Muslim with Saddam, or have 'G.I Joes' running their country, many will choose Saddam. Think of it as being better the devil you know. Another thing is; when and if Iraq is smashed to pieces, when thousands of people have died, when oil prices have lowered nicely, what happens with bin Laden or someone like him launches another attack on America? Getting rid of Iraq won't stop that kind of attack; in fact it'll just force more of a West v Muslim standoff that is bad for everyone. I wish I could end this by laying down exactly what should be done that could be fair for everyone, but I can't. If I could (give humanity's track record) I'd probably be crucified or stoned to death :p Who knows? This is the way the world is going. Good people are going to kill other good people at the behest of people drunk with power. That's the way its always going to be, and the way it always has been. Get over it. And now, in the (slightly edited) words of Country Joe MacDonald; Come on all of you big strong men, Uncle Sam needs your help again, got himself in a terrible jam, way down yonder with bad Saddam, put down your books and pick up your gun, we're going to have a whole lot of fun, and its one two three, what are fighting for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn, first stop was Afghanistan and its five six seven open up the Pearly Gates, ain't no time to wonder why, Woohoo! We're all gonna die. Now come on Wall Street don't be slow, man, this is war a-go-go there's plenty of good money to be made, supplying the Army with the tools of the trade, just hope and pray that if its a nuke attack they drop it on the right Iraq. and its one two three, what are fighting for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn, first stop was Afghanistan and its five six seven open up the Pearly Gates, ain't no time to wonder why, Woohoo! We're all gonna die. Now come on Generals, let's move fast, your big chance is here at last, now you can go out and get the rag-heads, 'cos the only good Muslim is one that's dead, and you know that peace can only be won, when you've blown them all to kingdom come. and its one two three, what are fighting for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn, first stop was Afghanistan and its five six seven open up the Pearly Gates, ain't no time to wonder why, Woohoo! We're all gonna die. Now come on mothers throughout the US of A pack your boys off to the Middle East come on fathers, don't hesitate, send your sons before it's too late, be the first one on your block, to have your boy come home in a box. and its one two three, what are fighting for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn, first stop was Afghanistan and its five six seven open up the Pearly Gates, ain't no time to wonder why, Woohoo! We're all gonna die. Take it easy, Treb _______________ "He asked us 'Be you angels?' and we said 'Nay! We are but Men!'" This comment was edited by Trebizond on Mar 13 2003 01:44pm. |
|
SirBizNatch - Student 
|
anybody watch the Daily Show? John Stewart? its where i get all my news. _______________ Personal body guard to teh 1337 Jacen Aratan! Midbie Council Memeber||Member of the Almighty FiZZsters |
|
Battlin' Billy - Student
|
Emjoy your vacation, Ulic! Don't think about this stuff on your vacation. Think about naked women, beer and Star Wars!
_______________ Midbie Council Member #2 - Profile ID 2073 | Member of B@rtM@ulS@ar | Owner of Monty's 2000th comment & D@RtHM@UL's 8100th comment | Former Padawan of SilkMonkey & Arcuss JA Goaltender & NHL Fan | Fellow Rush fan to Axion|Plo Koon is my oldest JA friend Post your RL pics HERE! | Post you JK2/JK3 screenies HERE! |
|
Sniya - Student
|
cant be arsed ill read it tomorow when im off svhool.
I've been siting on the fence for quite a while but now im anti-war which ill expand on when i make my post tomorow _______________ The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. Bertrand Russell http://www.thejediacademy.net/forums_detail_page.php?f_id=970 |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student
|
Well, the UN is sorta being a coward.
The US is pointing all this out, and we're being picked on for wanting war. That, and the Germans and French have a huge IOU from Iraq, and are afraid they will not get their money back. But, if you look at the International Law case from 1923 regarding the Tinoco Oil claims, you will see that they can indeed get their money back from the new regime/government. So why are they worrying? I'm not going to get into that. REally, you are right. The UN should just take care of it already. We should all be one voice, whether or not that voice carries out the threat it will make as one. But I need to go. Vacation starts this evening. _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Battlin' Billy - Student
|
Holy crap!!! My computer gave me a _not enough memory error_ when I read this!
I've been pretty much on the fence with this whole issue, but after reading your post, I'd have to say that I'm definitely leaning more towards going in there and getting Saddam out of there. The question I have is this: If the UN is aware of all these breaches of the resolutions, why is Saddam still in power? By what you just posted, this shouldn't even be debated. The UN should have just sent us in there already. Also, why don't the countries currently against going in there (Germany, France, Russia, etc.) see this? Do they stand to lose something if Saddam is booted out of there? I know Russia and Iraq are pretty buddy-buddy, and the Iraqi "Air Force" is mostly made up of French fighter jets. Is that why they're so against getting him out? I really don't know! btw - I love the 1st part of your sig, Ulic! _______________ Midbie Council Member #2 - Profile ID 2073 | Member of B@rtM@ulS@ar | Owner of Monty's 2000th comment & D@RtHM@UL's 8100th comment | Former Padawan of SilkMonkey & Arcuss JA Goaltender & NHL Fan | Fellow Rush fan to Axion|Plo Koon is my oldest JA friend Post your RL pics HERE! | Post you JK2/JK3 screenies HERE! |
|
Fizz of Belouve - Student 
|
well, grandmaster, thats quite informative. I myself am not in favour of a country whatsoever that constantly engages in wars that arent theirs.
I fail to see (decent)others than economic advantages in a war with Iraq. My point. _______________ One of the Belouve boys, founder of the mighty FiZZsters Midbie council #20 - Fizz - #1933 - Jan '03 - Aug '04 "Renfield, you idiot!" |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |