"That's a violation of the Geneva Convention." - R

[VinceZeb]

Those two factors along with a sence of justice and servitiude to have freedom is the reason the United Staes of America is a free country and has destroyed world-wide evil doers since its existance.

I'm sorry if big-nuts diplomacy makes you sad, but its the way the world runs. There will ALWAYS be wars and rumors of them. A wiser man than I stated that undeniable truth.

[Anonymous]

You have to admit that the penis bit is a considerable chunk of it, though.

[Anonymous]

Besides, the war is on TERROR, not on liberation. Liberating Iraq is a great side effect of this war. Now, if any other country wanted to sponsor or carry out terror, then we would blow them away as well.

Was that supposed to be a joke or are you just an idiot?

[Protoclown]

The "war on terror" is the biggest crock of shit since the "war on drugs".

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by AChimp

Ah well. If Americans were captured, it's because they were overconfident and foolish.

I'm not a big proponent of the war but this is unfair AChimp. Soldiers have been seeing a lot of genuine people surrendering and other such things happening repeatedly which, yes, would probably make them susceptible to a rouse (as a matter of habit ... so to speak). In addition, these are support personnel ... not combat arms personnel who are trained to react to ambushes and firefights, ect. You don't have to be a warmonger to have at least a little compassion for human suffering ... they're basically truck drivers for crying out loud. OK, I'm done venting.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore

I pose the same question to you that I posed to Ronnie. When do we liberate the North Korean children? The Saudi women? the Chinese children? the Pakistani children? etc. etc.

... or Iraq for that matter. I mean between the time of the gassing of the separatists Kurds in the north that they like to over-reference so much and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Kurds weren't important but Kuwait was. Hmmm ... kind of showed where their priorities were then. Have things changed since? Just sayin' :/

[VinceZeb]

The War on Iraq has two purposes which have been told to everyone: 1) to disarm Saddam which we have every right to do according to the U.N. (I bring this up so someone doesnt talk about the legality of the war. I hate the U.N. but Ill use their weapons agains them) and 2) to liberate Iraq.

We cannot police the world and instill our virtue on everyone. That is not our policy. Now, if they become a terrorist threat, we go after them.

And for the U.N. lovers, why didnt they go into Rawanda (my spelling is probably wrong) and stop the million that died? Why did they fuck up the former Yugoslavia so bad?

[mburbank]

Nobody gives a screw about darkies and unibrowed eastern euros who don't have any oil in the first place, so it didn't seriously come up.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

The War on Iraq has two purposes which have been told to everyone: 1) to disarm Saddam which we have every right to do according to the U.N. (I bring this up so someone doesnt talk about the legality of the war. I hate the U.N. but Ill use their weapons agains them) and 2) to liberate Iraq.

N. Korea is a threat, definetely has WMD, and represses its people. Why aren't we at war with them also for those reasons?

[The_Rorschach]

"N. Korea is a threat, definetely has WMD, and represses its people. Why aren't we at war with them also for those reasons?"

If you don't know the answer to this one, you shouldn't be an active participant in these conversations. The differences between the two are actually rather obvious. North Korea did not prosecute a war on its neighbor, regardless of whatever provocation was given. Secondly, it did not choose aggressive action against the U.N. coalition and then refuse to abide by the peace agreement that it agreed to. Thirdly, diplomacy between Kin Jung Il and the U.N. is more than a possibility, it is a reality. Talks are underway currently to discuss whether nuclear arms in Korea will be allowed, and if disallowed, what will be offered in return to mitigate factors.

Unlike Iraq, which stockpiled weapons as a reality, North Korea is merely building the capabilities to create nuclear and ballistic warheads. Why, and why do so publically? It's believed by many, and I am one, that it is a facade being utilized in order to strengthen bargaining tactics which will grant North Korea with better trade options and pump their staggering economy and maybe even see to it that their citizens can eat at least once day.

[AChimp]

Or, you know, they might all wanna set a few off so they can glow in the dark.

[VinceZeb]

Max once again avoids the serious question that I propose to him about his precious U.N. Wow.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

I'm only reporting what Blix said. I have always thought the guy was useless and stupid. He knows nothing about weapons, and is not the guy I would want inspecting someting he knows nothing about.

You specificaly threw him into your sentence to add credibility, and when you found out that he has said something to the contrary, you demonized him. Heh.

But the problem is that you are not arguing what the man said, you are only trying to discredit me.

You do a fine job of that on your own.

You said he said something, I showed he said otherwise. Nothing devious, nothing deceptive, pretty straight forward point-counter point.

[mburbank]

Actually, my answer was completely serious. The UN is a difficult, fractious, unwieldy tool, but it's the only tool out there. For any action to take place, ENORMOUS pressure has to be brought to bare. A good example was the invasion of Kuwait.


The difference between That and Rawanda and Yugolsavia is spelled O-I-L.

Just becuase you didn;t understnd me, don't assume I didn't mean something.

And Shach. I repectfully disagree. I think the major differences between North Korea and Iraq are that North Korea has nuclear weapons and a capable army strategically placed and does not have oil. We can't beat the crap out of them as easily as we do Iraq, and there are no spoils to be had.

[The_Rorschach]

Assume I'm a complete and other shitwit, not far from the truth, and explain to me the connection between government action and Saddam's oil. As to date, I have only heard the most tenuous ties made between the two.

[VinceZeb]

They cant explain it. I'll just go ahead and answer it for you: No Blood for Oil is a perfect liberal mantra. 1) It fits on a bumper sticker, which is the extent of liberal evidence and brain power. 2) The question on a base level answers itself, but when you ask these protester to show evidence or proof to anything, you are nothing but a facist warmonger.

Man, I could go on for days, but it wont answer the question fully at hand.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"Your naive and ignorant if you DON'T believe people like myself have held, and maintain criticism of Clinton's foreign policies. - Kevin

WHERE WERE THE PROTESTS WHEN CLINTON BOMBED CIVILAIN TARGETS IN IRAQ AND IN KOSOVO???? PLEASE ANSWER!!!

"But the fact remains that this is different than Kosovo, it's different than Desert Fox, and it's even different than the FIRST Gulf War." - Kevin

IT WAS NO DIFFERENT WHEN THE PROTESTS STARTED 6 MONTHS AGO!! HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT!!!

"Your unwillingness to acknowledge this only proves how blinded you are by your desire to see this war. - Kevin

It's different now because the Iraqi people are being liberated as a result of us protecting our national security.

"I disagree completely, because unlike yourself, many opposing the war can think and analyze on multiple levels. It's like saying "if you buy gas, you support terrorism." As cute and amusing as that line is, it's not all that true, and far too simplistic, wouldn't you agree?"

No I don't. Because it's not my analyzation that's in question. It's a questio og Saddam's interpretation. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT? When he sees people on t.v. burning the American flag and protesting the U.S. while saying NOTHING about what he's doing wrong, it looks like support for him. It has nothing to do with ME. It's between YOU and HIM.

"Like Choimp said, maybe Iraq has decided American soldiers don't "count" in terms of Geneva. - Kevin

If they do, they are wrong.

"Saddam's "best" troops have pulled back to Baghdad, they will do ANYTHING, I have no doubt." - Kevin

Wrong, secret police thugs are in Baghdad while the best troops are in Baghdad.

"They will use civilians, they will play very, VERY dirty. It will be nearly impossible I think to get them without causing a considerable amount of damage." - Kevin

The civilian population will start to leave Baghdad when the fighting starts there. Therefore making it harder for these people to blend in.

"1441? Cuz of the SCUDS that haven't been fired? Because of the WMD that haven't been found? Cuz of the bio-weapons and the gasses that haven't been found?" - Kevin

EXACTLY!!! Blix is an idiot who couldn't find what he was looking for. Why? Well, mostly because that's not the job of the inspectors. Every nation knows he has them.....why do his troops have chemical suits and remedies for chemical and bio exposure?

"You hate the UN, and you likewise could care less if we abided by their decisions. The new found love and respect for the "sanctity" of the UN and global treaties is a joke. Youuse it for your own personal advantage now." - Kevin

I have no love for the U.N. You are right. When it suits our purpose, I think we should use it as a tool just like every other country does.


"Why lock men up in Cuba? Why interogate men IN Pakistan?" - Kevin

Why not? What difference does that make? Does Geneva not apply there?

"Would we be doing this if 1. 9/11 had not happened, a 2. there were no natural resources there? - Kevin

Probably not.

"When does the liberation of Sudan start? How about the liberation of Qatar, our alllies? How about Pakistan? North Korea? the Kurds? China?" - Kevin

When we have a security interest there.

"If you are anti-war you're this, if you're pro-war your that. You should write for Sesame Street."

If I did, you still wouldn't be able to comprehend it

[ItalianStereotype]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/27/spr...ted/index.html

they have also fired missiles ranging 190 kilometers, a clear violation of resolutions 687 and 1441.

[sspadowsky]

190 kilometers? OH MY GOD! ANOTHER 10,000 KILOMETERS, AND THEY MIGHT BE HITTING OUR SHORES! CLEARLY THEY ARE A DIRECT THREAT TO US AFTER ALL!
________
Vaporizer Review

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Those two factors along with a sence of justice and servitiude to have freedom is the reason the United Staes of America is a free country and has destroyed world-wide evil doers since its existance.

What about the Shah of Iran?

[FS]

Haha, that's an amusing quote. Are these the same evildoers the US put out there themselves? You know, sorta like target practice?

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

" The differences between the two are actually rather obvious. North Korea did not prosecute a war on its neighbor, regardless of whatever provocation was given.

The Korean War was halted by an cease-fire, not a treaty. There is still an actively patroled DMZ and, technically, the two countries are still at war.

Originally Posted by The_Rorschach

"
Secondly, it did not choose aggressive action against the U.N. coalition and then refuse to abide by the peace agreement that it agreed to.

North Korea involved itself in an act of agression about fifty years ago. Iraq did the same about twelve years ago. Both have a basic disregard for U.N. policy and are not above publicly thumbing it's nose at them. Hmmm ... then again ... so do we. :/ Apart from the amount of time between their last act of aggression, they're both doing the same type of thing, really. North Korea just puts up a better bluff or maybe they just scare us more because there's conjecture that they may have intercontinental missle capability. So basically the bottom line is: Iraq really is not that big a threat and they are bad liars about it. They don't scare us so we're going to kick their ass. North Korea is a better poker player and possibly a bigger threat with a better trained/oraganized army that scares us so that we choose not to try and kick it's ass. Well ... that's the way I see it anyway.

BTW, check your attitude at the door when someone's asking a sincere question. There's no need to be insulting and I know that you're more intelligent than some of these other "jerk offs" in this forum.

[ItalianStereotype]

Originally Posted by sspadowsky

190 kilometers? OH MY GOD! ANOTHER 10,000 KILOMETERS, AND THEY MIGHT BE HITTING OUR SHORES! CLEARLY THEY ARE A DIRECT THREAT TO US AFTER ALL!

no, but they are within firing range of our allies. besides, these terms were laid out in 687 right after the first gulf war, i would appreciate it if you wouldnt try to dismiss me as you would vincezeb....

but of more importance i think is that they are executing POWs...

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by kellychaos

BTW, check your attitude at the door when someone's asking a sincere question. There's no need to be insulting and I know that you're more intelligent than some of these other "jerk offs" in this forum.

Thank you for standing up for me kellychaos.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"but of more importance i think is that they are executing POWs"

HA!

You think spad cares. He thinks it proves his point.

"That's what they get for being there" - Spad