Posted by iceburn on 4/1/2003, 1:57 pm, in reply to "Re: Threat of Iraq" He accepted resolutions by a group of nations (represented by the U.N.). Granted, you don't agree that the U.N. has any right to be there. Yada yada yada. I still think your whole position on the U.N. is ridiculous. I think the fact that Saddam accepted resolutions to declare his chemical weapons, the whole world having documented proof that he has bought or produced such weapons, and simply refusing to comply with the document he signed and reveal his arsenal, is political suicide, and a political precursor for the action stipulated in 1441. It was a silly action, and one he's going to pay for. He has broken his agreement to the If you think that your argument makes sense, then perhaps you've never read the Geneva protocol. Take a moment. It is very short and to the point. It basically says, "I will not use chemical weapons." It never mentions, even indirectly, that usage in a defensive war is acceptable. Copy of the Geneva Protocol You are very wrong. Iraq had to agree to it because it had no other choice. It was soundly defeated, just as Germany had to accept the Versailles treaty (even though its army remained mostly intact) when it was defeated. The German reparations after World War I were even more infuriating than those imposed on Iraq, and there have been far worse cease-fires created, many simply requiring the government to be a puppet of the victor (as was the case in most of Napoleon's conquests, although he would generally place the ruler's power in the hands of a Marshal or relative). , dozens of U.N. mandates Again, I think your refusal to accept a group of nations imposing restrictions on its own members or using their collective power to conduct political actions is silly. Heck, we might as well break up the United States and just say that each state is a soveriegn nation that will no longer take 'federal' orders from any one entity that it does not have full control over manipulating and not just some lone voice, completely on the principal of the matter. Viva la Republica de Texas! LOL! and Such conspiracy theory has been around for a long time, and will not be extinguished simply because Israel is dismantled/moved/whatever. To infer such is just about as silly as most of the major points of our arguments have been He has been in a constant state of I was merely stating points as to why his regime is causing the Middle East to be more unstable. The political vacuum that is created by Saddam's removal might also be de-stabilizing for a period, but I believe that it will ultimately lead to more stability. Oil is probably a major factor. I don't doubt that. I don't know if I agree with the argument, 'Those guys with guns look like they are wanting to mug someone. Let's send the police elsewhere because we don't want any of our police to get hurt, or worse yet, some innocent civilians.' That doesn't necessarily mean that the armed guys aren't going to attack someone, including us anyways. Let's face it, religion breeds a certain amount of gullability into people, and all it seems to take is a relatively charismatic leader with a cause (no matter if it's just or right) to rally a crew with money and general mob tactics. I recently read an interview with a terrorist that went something like the following: What did you do when you came into the town? ... My friend had joined up... It's a mob. It really doesn't matter what we do, it's a mob. You can sit on the sidelines or you can play in the mud with them. That won't change anything. We're a superpower, and you aren't the only person that doesn't like a more powerful country demanding things of another country. I went to a battered women's gathering last summer, and they organized a small march that was intended to voice concerns over rape and battery of women. However, a small group of women began taking over the focus, and with loud speakers, began encouraging the march to protest about Bush (this was well before Iraq), and various other non-related material. I asked a good dozen or so of the women why they had chanted with these leaders, and everyone of them said something like 'I didn't really agree with any of it, it just felt good'. They were drawn into the pull of a mob. What can you really do about that? Mobs will lynch. Mobs will murder. Mobs will riot in the streets of Portland. Mobs will organize fanatical, religious attacks against undeserving targets. We can try our darndest to stop them, but that doesn't mean that we are going to be entirely effective. : Maybe it's because we never ended our state That too, to an extent (the statement was about North Korea not being too happy with us, for those of you out of the loop). I'll reply to your other post later. Thank you for your time, Iceburn P.S. I know that not everyone agrees with either Apollo or myself. Heck, I don't even know if I agree with myself, and if you have an opinion that you'd like to share, please do. It's only a discussion. It won't bite
24.196.62.85
: He has chemical weapons that he refuses to
: account for despite no proof that the
: U.N. has the right to make him account for
: them .
: Geneva protocols especially in wars with
: nations he did not pre-emptively strike ,
: the Iraq-U.S. ceasefire which no other
: government in the world would've respected
: given the terms
: and resolutions which should mean nothing
: to someone respecting sovereign rule ,
: the Arab coalition-Israel ceasefire ,
: which is important because otherwise, if
: we let Israel defend itself as it has
: successfully for years, we would only kill
: Arab sentiment in favor of the
: international Zionist conspiracy theory
: dogma .
. Heh.
: offensive despite rarely being successful
: , oppressive war throughout his rule
: which was mostly internal , and he has
: proven to be incapable of working with the
: international community because we need
: his cooperation for what... oh yeah, oil
: that we let him take in the first place .
: Sure, plenty of terrorism to come, especially
: since we just launched pre-emptive warfare
: against the most zealous and fanatic
: terrorists in the world. Smart idea for
: national security, it's safety through
: provokation, the most overused military
: policy in the world.
We lined up the men and slit their throats like pigs.
Did you hate these people?
No.
So why did you join the group?
My friend had joined up.
: of war with them ? .
Message Thread:
« Back to thread