Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions
Home Register FAQ
Go Back   Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions > Discussions > Topic Discussions
Reload this Page "Why We Attacked Iraq"
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-05-03   #21
Dark Messiah
Half-Wit Intellectual
Admin
 
Dark Messiah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beautiful Sona-nyl
Posts: 14,814
Dark Messiah will become famous soon enough
Credits: 1,956
Why? Why did the US have no right to intervene? Because of national sovereignty?


The Big Secret of the World: National Sovereignty is a bunch of shit. The dignity and arrogance of a bunch of dickheads holding power by force are the only things protected by that ridiculous concept, and not the rights of the millions of people they're supposed to be supporting. The only sovereignty that should be respected is that of human life, and that includes not only the existence of life, but it's quality. If there's a nation of a hundred people, it's better that half of them die in a war to gain freedom from opression, then for all of them to continue to live in misery under a brutal regime. So the WMD don't matter, nor do they ever matter. The bare proof of this is that we don't care when a responsible nation like India has WMD, even when we have proof. Iraq needed to go down because it was a dangerous, unstable, and opressive dictatorship. And yes, it is hypyocritical for us to take them down for this reason and not go after China, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have done it. It just means China should be next.
__________________
Like any spelling mistake, mutations cannot give rise to information, but rather damage that which already exists.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-03   #22
Billy the Kidd
Self Serving Hypocrite
Admin
 
Billy the Kidd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Progressive HELL!!!
Posts: 19,435
Billy the Kidd will become famous soon enough
Credits: 418,203
since when did you turn imperialist DM?
__________________
Tolerance is a virtue of a dying civilzation. Aristotle
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-03   #23
dgg9
Darkness Incarnate
 
dgg9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,484
dgg9 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 68,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elora_Danon
oh because the USA and GB are the world's police? they had no right to intervene, as they have no right to intervene in any other country.
the UN could be compared to a police, they had a search-warrant, and Iraq let them in, but they found nothing... so they had no reason to use force.
but USA and GB know everything better...
Bad analogy, in every conceivable way. Iraq rejected all the UN resolution, therefore if the UN are the courts, Iraq was violating parole.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-03   #24
dgg9
Darkness Incarnate
 
dgg9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,484
dgg9 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 68,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Messiah
And yes, it is hypyocritical for us to take them down for this reason and not go after China, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have done it. It just means China should be next.
Why is it hypocritical? The US never signed up to cure the world's ills. I never understood this kind of "appeal to consistency" argument. Isn't it better to do what's possible? Would you be happier if the US did nothing just to be consistent? Is it better for all dictatorships to stand if we can't depose all of them?

But in fact, they're not really comparable vis a vis the US's primary rationale, which was US national security. Yes, China is a dictatorship, but:

1. It's not the threat to US interests and lives that Iraq was, and
2. Iraq is defeatable with relative ease, whereas China isn't. There is a risk vs reward calculation to be made.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-03   #25
Dark Messiah
Half-Wit Intellectual
Admin
 
Dark Messiah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beautiful Sona-nyl
Posts: 14,814
Dark Messiah will become famous soon enough
Credits: 1,956
Those two reasons contradict each other in any long term analysis, Dgg. It is a greater risk to invade China than Iraq, far greater, because while we're still more powerful than China, they are still very powerful, and it would take a long time and much energy to take them down. Iraq was a thousand times less of a threat. Yet both nations hate(d, in the case of Iraq) us, and would love to see us destroyed. China has a far greater chance of pulling that off themselves, a result that becomes more probable the longer we sit back and allow them to stel and develop new technology. We should destroy the Chinese government now, because now we have the ability to do it, and the longer we wait, the harder it will be.
__________________
Like any spelling mistake, mutations cannot give rise to information, but rather damage that which already exists.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-03   #26
dgg9
Darkness Incarnate
 
dgg9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,484
dgg9 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 68,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Messiah
Those two reasons contradict each other in any long term analysis, Dgg.
Except nothing you have said indicates that.

Quote:
It is a greater risk to invade China than Iraq, far greater, because while we're still more powerful than China, they are still very powerful, and it would take a long time and much energy to take them down. Iraq was a thousand times less of a threat.
That's the whole point. Risk vs reward. There's also another factor: there is a slow but possibly real modernization going on China. Some democracy and capitalism are slipping in around the edges. It's a country that might well reform itself in the long run. There was never any chance of that in Iraq.

Quote:
Yet both nations hate(d, in the case of Iraq) us, and would love to see us destroyed.
Sorry, the two countries are not really comparable.

Quote:
China has a far greater chance of pulling that off themselves, a result that becomes more probable the longer we sit back and allow them to stel and develop new technology. We should destroy the Chinese government now, because now we have the ability to do it, and the longer we wait, the harder it will be.
I doubt we have the ability to do it without suffering tremendous casualties. It's not an option, bar some horrendous crisis. Also, as far as can be determined, the Chinese gov't are rational actors, unlike SH.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-03   #27
Dark Messiah
Half-Wit Intellectual
Admin
 
Dark Messiah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beautiful Sona-nyl
Posts: 14,814
Dark Messiah will become famous soon enough
Credits: 1,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgg9
Except nothing you have said indicates that.

You're right. That's because it was a fairly obvious oxymoron (I shouldn't say contradiction. Let me retract that claim).

You're saying, essentially;

a) Iraq was a greater threat to us than China, so we shouldn't invade China
b) We shouldn't invade China anyway because they're much more dangerous.

Do I really have to elaborate on why these two facts seem to compete with each other?

Reminds me of the Once and Future King, by T.H. White. If memory serves, their reasons for going to war with another colony included:

a) We are a great and mighty nation, and have a right to subjugate their weak and puny one.
b) They are a great and mighty nation, and are unfairly trying to opress our meek and inoffensive one.
c) They are attacking us by defending themselves.
d) At any rate, we are not attacking them at all. We are offering them incalcuable benefits.
__________________
Like any spelling mistake, mutations cannot give rise to information, but rather damage that which already exists.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-03   #28
Sixgun_Symphony
Darkness Incarnate
 
Sixgun_Symphony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,761
Sixgun_Symphony is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 280,566
Dark Messiah,

The Iraqi regime has used WMD in the past. I should also remind you that terrorist mastermind Abu Abbas was captured by US forces in Iraq.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-03   #29
dgg9
Darkness Incarnate
 
dgg9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,484
dgg9 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 68,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Messiah
You're saying, essentially;

a) Iraq was a greater threat to us than China, so we shouldn't invade China
b) We shouldn't invade China anyway because they're much more dangerous.

Do I really have to elaborate on why these two facts seem to compete with each other?
Yes, as they don't compete at all. Being "dangerous" and "being a threat to us" are not the same. "Threat" adds an element of motive. On 9/11, the individual of Osama bin Laden was more of a threat to the US than China. Was he more dangerous? Obviously not.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-04   #30
frater luciferi
Lurks in the Shadows
 
frater luciferi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the abyss
Posts: 118
frater luciferi is on a distinguished road
Credits: 7,591
its assinine. we never gave a shit before. I think the regime over their sucks too, but i hate the way south america works and what have we done about that? all we seem to care about down their is the cocaine trade and/or if we have a piece in it. I mean why did we get involved in serbia/bosnia? I'm pretty sure its getting more odvious as time ticks on and the evidence gathers that its all about the greed. bush is a fucking idiot, i cannot state this more emphatically. At least in vietnam it made a teensy little bit more sense. we were defending a country from the "evils" of communism, right? and now we are saving the Iraqis from what we help to promote in south america? does that make sense? no! fuck no! and I really think its a crock of shit wat we are doing. the only real reason i think we are there is that Bush had a hard on to invade, and for what reason i don't know -
OIL? what other reason to spend close to $100 billion dollars so far? At that price we could of cured AIDS or fed the entire continent of africa or hmm built every homeless person in the united states a three bedroom home and put their kids through college after furnishing it and buying them a new car. Do you think we are'nt going to recoop the money spent? I seriously don't think that the right cares that much about a secular islamic country that is ruled by a dumshit patsy who should'nt of pulled a Fidel castro and got a embargo on him. Which unlike castro he pissed away a lot of it building some grand mansions.
__________________
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

(Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.)
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-04   #31
marabou
Face in the Mist
 
marabou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North America
Posts: 49
marabou is on a distinguished road
Credits: 7,053
Parts of it were funny; others, being based on moronic assumptions, of course didn't work (humor is the effect of the absurd conflicting with the plausible... Moronism somehow doesn't fit into the equation, unless the target audience is 7 years old. That's why 2nd graders like clowns.)
...

Yes, there is a difference between "China" and "Iraq", all things considered. Only from a tactical standpoint, the two are worlds apart when considering military invasion. There are worlds of difference between "Iraq" and any other prospective target country. Iraq's neighbor Iran, sharing a large border and history, is completely different. North Korea, being the preeminent nuclear threat by some estimates, and having avowed to use its arsenal if provoked, is a completely different animal than Iraq. Pakistan, which is arguably the single biggest threat to the world, and has been for 20 years (excluding the USSR), is a completely different animal. If you're looking simply at human rights violations and weapons capabilities, you're missing the point.

Iraq was, even in restrospect, the most viable target for invasion. Of all the candidates, Iraq made (and makes) the most sense to invade militarily. Its unique absence of a national ideology and national unity; its despotic leader who systematically discriminates and commits genocide against his own people; Saddam's abject disinterest in the wellfare of his people above his private wealth; Iraq's recent history of using WMDs and attacking nearby countries; the almost total impunity with which Saddam could continue to execute his wishes (the sanctions did nothing to limit his means... they essentially only impoverished the people); and the fact that he was defeated in the Persian Gulf War. All these considerations must be tallied for a serious weighing of the different countries and military invasion.

As to "the right" to invade: if sovereignty were the issue, in principle, then Saddam's Iraq has no merit whatsoever. If anyone thinks that his regime amounted to a sovereign entity, representative of the people of Iraq, then you're no better informed than the mob. The mob is only good for making political threats.

"International law", likewise, is a nonissue, although on the stringent basis of an international resolution did the administration invade Iraq. The presence of WMDs in post-war Iraq, likewise, is not itself the issue. Noncompliance with Resolution 1441 amounts to sufficient official cause for invasion, all things considered.

Sufficient actual cause for invasion is slightly less convoluted: a tyrant with total impunity, answerable to no one (domestically and internationally), with abundant cash flow, a history of WMD programs, and no clear indication of abandonment thereof, who has demonstrated a will to attack neighboring countries and innocent civilians en masse... for the security of the world and the region, ought to be removed, and if necessary forcibly. The argument that "well, shoulda coulda woulda sometime-in-the-past if that was the ethic" doesn't amount to an argument against action. It is NOT a counter-argument. It is only, I repeat, only this: a lamentation. Shoulda acted sooner? Ok... you sit there and whine about that, while Bush actually does something about it.

If you're inclined towards conspiracy theories, think "big picture". If ALL those factors did not coincide to make Iraq an obvious urgent candidate for regime change... AND 9/11 did not occur... then no matter who the president happened to be, there would have been no way in hell that an American voting public would have allowed the invasion. The only reason Bush Sr. did not invade in 1992, after thoroughly pummeling the Iraqi military, is because the voting public would never have consented to the enormous cost of the invasion (both in tax dollars and in military casualties). The push for aggressive action against rogue regimes of all sorts throughout the world has always been present in Washington... the only variable is the political atmosphere to allow it or restrain it, and the single most important factor in that contest is the assent or dissent of the American public. That's how your democracy functions, and it would do you good to get to know it better... I am not a citizen, and I marvel at the aesthetic beauty of it...

Oil is not it, so get your minds of that little bored and apathetic cliche. Consider that, at peak efficiency (which itself is not likely for the near future), Iraq's pumps are projected to be capable of producing not much more than $10-18 billion dollars' worth of crude annually over the next decade. Contrast that to the $1+ trillion dollar price tag estimated for the occupation and restructuring of Iraq, and the fact that most of that cash will come from your American pockets. On Capitol Hill, the single most vociferous argument against the war and occupation... anyone care to guess? That's right: the cost of it. The American military cannot even use Iraqi oil to supply its logistical needs, as the two are not materially compatible, and it must import oil from Kuwait. There is so much about global economics that isn't reduceable to a one-line anti-war slogan. Give us a break...

Was there any legitimate argument against the war and occupation...? Did anyone mention the security needs of Iraqis...? Did anyone mention the need to provide jobs for Iraqis, as opposed to handing out contracts exclusively to inefficient American corporations...? Was there anything about the imminent danger to the operation stemming from an idle, unemployed, insecure Iraqi populace (mainly men and boys with nothing to occupy their time)...? No? It's been the usual poorly informed tripe? I see. Ok. Fair enough.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
...

Last edited by marabou; 02-12-04 at 11:33. Reason: testing signature
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-04   #32
thefinalw0rd
SaxophoniusExtraordinaire
 
thefinalw0rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: To the back of the front of the middle, slightly to the right of the left.
Posts: 5,219
thefinalw0rd is on a distinguished road
Credits: 138,566
Oil may not really be it, but how many right wingers did you hear saying "Aren't you tired of paying this much for gas?!" leading up to the war?

And Iraq's oil capabilities were estimated to be far more than we actually have. Another miscalculation, I suppose, in a string of them.

Sure, I'm glad we have Saddam. He's a bad guy, with a lot of blood on his hands. But I don't think our case for war in the first place was legit. When you describe militarily viable targets, its almost like we were searching for another scapegoat after Afghanistan. Though I don't think we could be faulted for Afghanistan...after all, the Taliban had been known publicly to back OBL, and it was almost certain that OBL was there.

We're no safer with Saddam captured than we were before. I don't think OBL's capture will make much of a difference either, if we ever manage to get to that point.
__________________
Hey, bread is a good time for me...a-woodle-oo-doo, singing bread is a good time for EVERYbody...
-Homestar Runner
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-04   #33
Arty
Lord of the Dance
 
Arty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 944
Arty will become famous soon enough
Credits: 44,057
There isn't a single reason why we invaded Iraq. There are always pros and cons for any action you could think of, and when the balance tips, you do it. It's about oil (though not in the way that most people think), it's about terrorism, and it's about sending out a message.

Oil powers the global economy. We are all dependent on it. Currently we have a situation where it is mostly controlled by autocrats ruling over countries where the US is increasingly unpopular. It isn't a stable situation. OPEC is, in the way of most most cartels, operating in a way that will, in the long term, see non-OPEC countries exhaust their supplies first, so there is a possibility of almost total dependence on these countries. It is hoped that toppling Saddam will allow for the establishment of an Arab democracy, however imperfect. It may not be as we would want it, but even the longest journey begins with a single step. It is in the long-term interests of the US and, in fact, the entire global economy, that the Middle East is stabilised. It may not succeed, but it is the best option in these terms. If the situation is left alone then there seems zero chance of a good outcome to the situation.
As others have said, there is no way that the US will make money out of this by looting oil or whatever else people might think it will do.

Whether or not Iraq was supporting Al-Qaeda (it almost certainly wasn't), it is a supporter of Islamic terrorism in Israel. Islamic terrorism is seen as a single indivisible phenomenon, and tackling its state supporters is seen as crucial for its long-term defeat. Iraq is was the target not because it was the biggest sponsor of terrorism, but because, of all the sponsors, it was the least pleasant, they had the best reasons to invade it, and no one at all would miss Saddam in any way. I think that this shows that it is mostly about scaring the shit out of other sinning countries. If it had been about actually stopping the state's support of terror they would have invaded Syria.


I don't agree with all of these in their entirety, and there are plenty of arguments that can be deployed in opposition, but I believe that these are the reasons we attacked Iraq. I think it is primarily geopolitical and long-term. I think that they didn't give these as the reasons because a) people are more likely to go for the terrorism thing if they're shown actual material threats and b) it isn't helpful to tell the Arab world that wholesale change of thir leaderships would be a great thing. Enemies would be made.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-04   #34
SirVLCIV
Lusus Naturæ
 
SirVLCIV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NJ, US
Posts: 5,944
SirVLCIV
Credits: 202,919
Another version:

[Humor]
Warmonger Explains Iraq War to Peacenik
Author unknown

Peacenik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

Warmonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions.

PN: But I thought that the U.S., and many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more Security Council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather Terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama Bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaeda poison factory in Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be PLAGARIZED from an out-of-date graduate student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because Resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the Security Council will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security

Council?

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George B-

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: Catch-22! if we can't find them, that just means they're hidden? How do we know when they are destroyed? How do we know they're hidden now?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, even when all evidence points to the contrary, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, fascism in airports, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. WHY ARE WE INVADING IRAQ?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In what case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense!

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with the all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up.
__________________
Bismarck once said "Fools say they like to learn from their experiences, but I prefer to learn from the experience of others."

"Move that one of your pieces, which is in the worst plight, unless you can satisfy yourself that you can derive immediate advantage by an attack." -Adolph Anderssen
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-04   #35
Arty
Lord of the Dance
 
Arty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 944
Arty will become famous soon enough
Credits: 44,057
It's easy to argue both sides of the argument.
__________________
'If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matterof fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it contains nothing but sophistry and illusion.'

'The heart of man is made to reconcile the most glaring contradictions.'

David Hume
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-04   #36
VincentV
Face in the Mist
 
VincentV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London UK
Posts: 32
VincentV is on a distinguished road
Credits: 762
How can anyone get tired of seeing the US and Bush getting bashed?

Other countries/people dont have to make the US look stupid, they do a great job of it themselves.

I can see the similarities to Isreal&Palastine with Germany&the Jews. Just like the jews got Isreal after hopefully The Palastinians will have their own country.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-04   #37
Bloody Blade
Face in the Mist
 
Bloody Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 11
Bloody Blade is on a distinguished road
Credits: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by VincentV
How can anyone get tired of seeing the US and Bush getting bashed?.
Thats pretty ignorant.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-04   #38
Aeternus
-= Grey CyberAngel =-
 
Aeternus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 41:65:74:65:72:6E:75:73 => 58:65:78:71:82:89:58:00 <=
Posts: 4,828
Aeternus is on a distinguished road
Credits: 112,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by VincentV
How can anyone get tired of seeing the US and Bush getting bashed?

Other countries/people dont have to make the US look stupid, they do a great job of it themselves.

I can see the similarities to Isreal&Palastine with Germany&the Jews. Just like the jews got Isreal after hopefully The Palastinians will have their own country.
Germans learned from their faults. Israel is hopefully going to learn them soon. Should the US not do the same?
__________________

... Time has no bearing...
...when the whiteout begins...

Don't come after me...

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Recent Threads
Science Disproves...
11-01-10 14:38
by Pahu
Last post by Pahu
18 Hours Ago 09:06
Whats your job?
11-20-07 14:57
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Day Ago 20:26
what surprised you today?
04-11-13 17:55
Last post by thefr0g
2 Days Ago 14:31
what have you eaten...
12-24-03 19:43
Last post by JeNn_DeViLz
2 Days Ago 10:09
Darkforum Youtube!
03-25-13 07:48
Last post by JeNn_DeViLz
2 Days Ago 09:32
vote or die
1 Week Ago 01:56
Last post by JeNn_DeViLz
2 Days Ago 09:20
vote or die
1 Week Ago 02:02
Last post by Sic Simon
4 Days Ago 21:45
long Sunday
3 Weeks Ago 18:00
by DaxterK
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 01:46
BATH SALT ZOMBIES
12-04-13 11:20
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 23:34
I'm drinking Vodka,...
09-02-17 23:28
by thefr0g
Last post by JeNn_DeViLz
1 Week Ago 22:44
Online Users: 56
0 members and 56 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 1928, 06-09-15 at 18:20.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0 RC2


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com

© 2006 - 2016 Dark Forum | About Dark Forum | Advertisers | Investors | Legal | A member of the Crowdgather Forum Community