Why Bush is a coward

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 8, 2003, 9:47 am

Aye, I am going to take the meaning of French to a whole new level.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 8, 2003, 10:07 am

In fact, I surrender!

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 8, 2003, 11:25 am

That is taking the French to a new level?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 8, 2003, 6:13 pm

Xyun,

Let me ask you a question, and I want you to think this over carefully before you respond.

If war and a change of regime meant that a thousand people didn't have to put up with the struggle your family did to attain some measure of freedom, would that be a cause worthy of war?

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » March 8, 2003, 7:20 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Xyun,

Let me ask you a question, and I want you to think this over carefully before you respond.

If war and a change of regime meant that a thousand people didn't have to put up with the struggle your family did to attain some measure of freedom, would that be a cause worthy of war?

What is "some measure of freedom"? What new freedoms are you providing them that they are now denied?

How many of their lives are you willing to end to give them these new freedoms? Who gave you the right to offer up this sacrafice for them.

Choosing to sacrafice your own life for your idea of freedom (aka civil var\revolution) is very different than choosing to sacrafice someone else's life to give them your idea of freedom.

Wasn't this all about disarming Iraq?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 8, 2003, 9:47 pm

Did you see your name, jackass?

We can discuss your points in a minute. I would like to hear Xyun's answer to the question.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 8, 2003, 9:48 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Did you see your name, jackass?

We can discuss your points in a minute. I would like to hear Xyun's answer to the question.

translation from retard to plain english: Duh, I don't know.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 8, 2003, 10:18 pm

Didn't see your name there either, bannanna-brain.

I am asking a specific question of a specific person who has experience with living conditions int he middle east.

I can deal with you two clowns any time.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » March 8, 2003, 10:31 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Did you see your name, jackass?

We can discuss your points in a minute. I would like to hear Xyun's answer to the question.

Do your answers to my questions rely on Xyun or is the mental effort to be involved in discussions with more than one individual at a time beyond your ability?

Or maybe you are not only adopting any view put forth by the Bush administration as gospel but also adopting their question answering style.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 8, 2003, 10:39 pm

pwned

Post by **Xouqoa** » March 8, 2003, 10:52 pm

miir wrote:And since Saddam has never been directly linked to any terrorist activity, why does Bush seem to think he's the biggest terrorist threat in the world?

Because money talks, especially to a country like Iraq that has been hammered by trade sanctions for 12 years.

Do you think that if Saddam really has WMD (of any type), and a terrorist organization (or another country) came to him with money to buy them, that he wouldn't sell them in a heartbeat? THAT is why he is being likened to terrorism, not that he necessarily participates in it directly, but that he would most likely help indirectly by providing the materials - and that is the major concern of the Bush administration (I think).

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 8, 2003, 11:32 pm

Xouqoa wrote:Because money talks, especially to a country like Iraq that has been hammered by trade sanctions for 12 years.

Do you think that if Saddam really has WMD (of any type), and a terrorist organization (or another country) came to him with money to buy them, that he wouldn't sell them in a heartbeat? THAT is why he is being likened to terrorism, not that he necessarily participates in it directly, but that he would most likely help indirectly by providing the materials - and that is the major concern of the Bush administration (I think).

saddam hussein has no real interest in fundamentalist islamic organizations (aside from a deep seeded hatred of israel of course). the ba'ath party is actually quite hated by basically all fundies in the middle east. in fact the entire iran/iraq war was started by the fundies running iran who made it their personal goals to dethrone saddam and install a shariah government.

and without economic sanctions the last thing iraq has to worry about is money.

iraq isn't much of a threat to the US. saddam hussein has never threatened the US outside of the shit talk and rhetoric he used to try to scare the americans away from invading them in 91.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » March 8, 2003, 11:44 pm

Pretty much, yea. I think he was testing the waters with Kuwait in the early 90's. After that spanking, I honestly do not see Saddam attacking another country unprovoked, at least not in his lifetime. Now, if we had done nothing when he invaded Kuwait, I would not be able to make the same statement. Like they say in Mississippi (or is it Texas), rattlesnakes don't commit suicide...

Post by **Xouqoa** » March 9, 2003, 2:02 am

He doesn't need an interest in their organization to sell them weapons though.

That's just my theory on why Bush is so adamant about getting rid of him, though. It may or may not be true/accurate. =)

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 9, 2003, 2:56 am

Fallanthas wrote:If war and a change of regime meant that a thousand people didn't have to put up with the struggle your family did to attain some measure of freedom, would that be a cause worthy of war?

Xyun wrote:The only just causes for war in my mind are self-preservation or liberation. No sane American believes their life is directly threatened by Iraq. Furthermore, Iraqis don't want to be "liberated" and certainly not by the United States.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 9, 2003, 4:10 am

Fun slide show

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 9, 2003, 6:13 am

Xyun wrote:Fun slide show

yup. I don't think america is as prepared to pay the price to exact petty revenge on their pet bad guy as the bush administration is. once the body count starts to add up the war is going to either become less popular with the idea that it is turning into another vietnam, or they are going to want even more revenge on the brown people the media is telling them is responsible for terrorism.

even if you level all of baghdad with bombs any action taken to enter the city is going to be a massacre with the republican guard holding all the high cards. I don't doubt the US will eventually win but the body count is going to be high and at the end you are going to see a lot of american soldiers lying dead in the streets so bush and his energy cronies can make a few more billion dollars they won't have to pay tax on.

at least we might get a few good movies out of it.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » March 9, 2003, 9:20 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:
Xyun wrote:Fun slide show
yup. I don't think america is as prepared to pay the price to exact petty revenge on their pet bad guy as the bush administration is. once the body count starts to add up the war is going to either become less popular with the idea that it is turning into another vietnam, or they are going to want even more revenge on the brown people the media is telling them is responsible for terrorism.

even if you level all of baghdad with bombs any action taken to enter the city is going to be a massacre with the republican guard holding all the high cards. I don't doubt the US will eventually win but the body count is going to be high and at the end you are going to see a lot of american soldiers lying dead in the streets so bush and his energy cronies can make a few more billion dollars they won't have to pay tax on.

at least we might get a few good movies out of it.

Besides hammering home the point that you are ignorant, which one of these intellectual gems have you not used a billion times before? Oh wait I see one, are you talking about the same Republican guard that turned tail and ran during Desert Storm?

Xyun loss of life at anytime is a horrible thing. Children listening to bombs and having to hide wondering if the next one has their name on it is deplorable. You are right I don't know that kind of fear. I am sorry that you had to experience this in your life.

If all of the groups out there protesting the USA would paint there little cards with words such as NO WAR --- SADDAM DISARM. Perhaps that little despot in Iraq would truly start to cooperate. World Opinion is definately on his side allowing him to keep on using stalling tactics during the inspections. Do I support war with Iraq?
Yes I do if he continues to play the games he has been playing for the past 12 years. Damn if he would simply disclose ALL of his weapons and allow unhindered inspections this thing could be over.

The other reason I believe that the Bush Administration is hell bent on this war is that Saddam could very well be the single greatest destabilizing factor in that region were he left to his own devices.

Cheers

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » March 9, 2003, 9:27 am

US casualties- It really depends on how willing the republican guard is to fight, and how much force Saddam can bring to bear on them to make them fight if they arent willing. I am doubtful he can exert too much force- it isnt old Russia- He doesnt have an equivalent of the NKVD to terrorise them, and since by that time he will be limited to Bagdad he will be mostly unable to threaten anyones families to force compliance. So it comes down to their inherent willingness to fight. If theyre resolute they can make it very nasty. If theyre not then its just a matter of time till they surrender or go neutral. I dont know enough of what happened during the gulf war with the guards specificly to comment on their willingness though. Anyone have any info on that?
*Hugs*
Varia

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 9, 2003, 9:39 am

I'm pretty sure his most loyal troops and even civilians will try to defend their city from an invasion. You can bet that invading Baghdad will be very nasty.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 9, 2003, 10:05 am

Xyun wrote:I'm pretty sure his most loyal troops and even civilians will try to defend their city from an invasion. You can bet that invading Baghdad will be very nasty.

Maybe, Maybe night I remember the rate of surrenders in the Gulf War it was so fast it made a French man look brave.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » March 9, 2003, 11:01 am

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news ... eid=106694

"TERRIFIED Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces - because they thought the war had already started.

The motley band of a dozen troops waved the white flag as British paratroopers tested their weapons during a routine exercise.

The stunned Paras from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender."

Granted, this is not the *elite* (and I use this term very loosely) Republican guard.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » March 9, 2003, 12:55 pm

I truly believe we will inflict more casualties on our own forces than will be inflicted upon us by the Iraqis (unless they use chemical or biologicals). This is not Vietnam. This is going to be handled much more by special forces than your typical ground pounder. They have a shit ton of troops for show and for any heavy resistances they encounter. The clearing of the cities will happen at night by the best teams in the world.

The Iraqis do not want to fight. They showed this last time around by surrending to news teams. When an unseen foe starts taking it to them in the dark, they will lose their will very very quickly.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 9, 2003, 4:11 pm

Why won't you answer the question, Xyun?

**EDIT**

If by your last post you meant that self defense is the only reason for war, then I believe the title of this thread should have your name in it instead of Mr. Bush's.

What a cowardly, selfish attitude. Fuck everyone else as long as you have your freedom, right?

Forthe,

You're up next. I asked a question fo a specific person. Once I get an answer we can discuss your tripe.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 9, 2003, 5:33 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Why won't you answer the question, Xyun?

**EDIT**

If by your last post you meant that self defense is the only reason for war, then I believe the title of this thread should have your name in it instead of Mr. Bush's.

What a cowardly, selfish attitude. Fuck everyone else as long as you have your freedom, right?

Forthe,

You're up next. I asked a question fo a specific person. Once I get an answer we can discuss your tripe.

Why? He had a point, you couldn't hold 2 conversations at once on a public board? This thread has degenerated into *shock* mere petty arguments between people and less and less about the actual war. Atokal, your posts are on the skip list, because they always start with you flaming Kyoukan. Here's a headline... Kyoukan's one of the most informed people on this board, even if you don't like her views. Fallanthas, are you enjoying the comfort of your home while kinsman are off in the Middle East waiting to attack? Coward. I don't know your history, whether you were there in '91, or anything, but by your logic, you're now being a coward.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 9, 2003, 5:35 pm

The other reason I believe that the Bush Administration is hell bent on this war is that Saddam could very well be the single greatest destabilizing factor in that region were he left to his own devices.

Two words: Israel. Palestine.

That is the basis of all the unrest in the region.

City fighting is nasty, and I've read several articles (and not just from anti-war sources either by far) who claim that US forces are out of practice on major scale city fights. I can not say wether or not it is true, but the variety of sources make me tend to believe it at least partly.

I don't worry about the general Iraqi army creating a problem. I worry about the general Iraqi with a gun or explosives hiding in a city. Look at Israel and see how nasty that can get.

Also, if I recall.. the numbers of the Republican guard that surrendered (and even got engaged in combat) during the Golf War was very small.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 9, 2003, 6:11 pm

the US didn't even see the republican guard in the gulf war. they won't surrender and they won't run. they are well trained, patriotic and extremely loyal to the ba'ath party.

lots of iraqi conscripts surrendered. that is what happens when you force someone into military service. although I don't doubt there will be some surrendering this time, it will be a lot different now that they are defending their country from an aggresive foreign nation bent on conquest.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 9, 2003, 6:17 pm

What the fuck is a biological weapon? I know they cause mass destruction, but is it another way of saying it's a nuke? (That is always how I took it)

I also find asking questions make you look smarter than trying to use it in a sentence and look like a complete dumbass.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 9, 2003, 6:35 pm

a biological weapon is a laboratory created virus like smallpox or anthrax. they are particularly dangerous because if the creator of the virus isn't careful he can accidentally unleash a strain that can mutate into something else or spread beyond to other places.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » March 9, 2003, 6:43 pm

Coming from a military background, the truth about biological warfare that they dont tell the public is....if it happens, you are screwed. Donning the masks, biosuites etc out in the field is in the slim hopes that the enemy happens to launch the bio agent that you happen to have filters/defense for is kind of like playing the lottery. You filter/suit up for defense against one particular agent, the enemy just uses another. There is no 100% defense suit, at least there was not when I was on active duty during the first gulf war. Even if there are, what are the chances that all of the guys out in the field are going to have them? From the news report I saw the other say, most of our guys (America, can't speak for Britain, Canada, etc.) are still using older gear from pre gulf war. A few are just now starting to get the newer kits that are available.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » March 9, 2003, 7:58 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Coming from a military background, the truth about biological warfare that they dont tell the public is....if it happens, you are screwed. Donning the masks, biosuites etc out in the field is in the slim hopes that the enemy happens to launch the bio agent that you happen to have filters/defense for is kind of like playing the lottery. You filter/suit up for defense against one particular agent, the enemy just uses another. There is no 100% defense suit, at least there was not when I was on active duty during the first gulf war. Even if there are, what are the chances that all of the guys out in the field are going to have them? From the news report I saw the other say, most of our guys (America, can't speak for Britain, Canada, etc.) are still using older gear from pre gulf war. A few are just now starting to get the newer kits that are available.

i can't say everyone, cause i dun know everyone that's over here but most the Army soldiers over here that i've come across have the new updated MOPP suits. if they don't have em they are being issued to them. i was issued my 2nd and 3rd set a couple days ago infact.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 9, 2003, 8:22 pm

Now I know. And knowing is half the battle.

PS: JACKASS!

Mak · Post by **Mak** » March 9, 2003, 8:43 pm

In the words of Alistair Cooke.

*******************

I promised to lay off topic A - Iraq - until the Security Council makes a judgement on the inspectors' report and I shall keep that promise.

But I must tell you that throughout the past fortnight I've listened to everybody involved in or looking on to a monotonous din of words, like a tide crashing and receding on a beach - making a great noise and saying the same thing over and over.

And this ordeal triggered a nightmare - a day-mare, if you like.

Through the ceaseless tide I heard a voice, a very English voice of an old man - Prime Minister Chamberlain saying: "I believe it is peace for our time" - a sentence that prompted a huge cheer, first from a listening street crowd and then from the House of Commons and next day from every newspaper in the land.

There was a move to urge that Mr Chamberlain should receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

In Parliament there was one unfamiliar old grumbler to growl out: "I believe we have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat."

He was, in view of the general sentiment, very properly booed down.

This scene concluded in the autumn of 1938 the British prime minister's effectual signing away of most of Czechoslovakia to Hitler.

The rest of it, within months, Hitler walked in and conquered.

"Oh dear," said Mr Chamberlain, thunderstruck. "He has betrayed my trust."

During the last fortnight a simple but startling thought occurred to me - every single official, diplomat, president, prime minister involved in the Iraq debate was in 1938 a toddler, most of them unborn. So the dreadful scene I've just drawn will not have been remembered by most listeners.

Hitler had started betraying our trust not 12 years but only two years before, when he broke the First World War peace treaty by occupying the demilitarised zone of the Rhineland.

Only half his troops carried one reload of ammunition because Hitler knew that French morale was too low to confront any war just then and 10 million of 11 million British voters had signed a so-called peace ballot.

It stated no conditions, elaborated no terms, it simply counted the numbers of Britons who were "for peace".

The slogan of this movement was "Against war and fascism" - chanted at the time by every Labour man and Liberal and many moderate Conservatives - a slogan that now sounds as imbecilic as "against hospitals and disease".

In blunter words a majority of Britons would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler except fight him.

At that time the word pre-emptive had not been invented, though today it's a catchword.

After all the Rhineland was what it said it was - part of Germany. So to march in and throw Hitler out would have been pre-emptive - wouldn't it?

Nobody did anything and Hitler looked forward with confidence to gobbling up the rest of Western Europe country by country - "course by course", as growler Churchill put it.

I bring up Munich and the mid-30s because I was fully grown, on the verge of 30, and knew we were indeed living in the age of anxiety.

And so many of the arguments mounted against each other today, in the last fortnight, are exactly what we heard in the House of Commons debates and read in the French press.

The French especially urged, after every Hitler invasion, "negotiation, negotiation".

They negotiated so successfully as to have their whole country defeated and occupied.

But as one famous French leftist said: "We did anyway manage to make them declare Paris an open city - no bombs on us!"

In Britain the general response to every Hitler advance was disarmament and collective security.

Collective security meant to leave every crisis to the League of Nations. It would put down aggressors, even though, like the United Nations, it had no army, navy or air force.

The League of Nations had its chance to prove itself when Mussolini invaded and conquered Ethiopia (Abyssinia).

The League didn't have any shot to fire. But still the cry was chanted in the House of Commons - the League and collective security is the only true guarantee of peace.

But after the Rhineland the maverick Churchill decided there was no collectivity in collective security and started a highly unpopular campaign for rearmament by Britain, warning against the general belief that Hitler had already built an enormous mechanised army and superior air force.

But he's not used them, he's not used them - people protested.

Still for two years before the outbreak of the Second War you could read the debates in the House of Commons and now shiver at the famous Labour men - Major Attlee was one of them - who voted against rearmament and still went on pointing to the League of Nations as the saviour.

Now, this memory of mine may be totally irrelevant to the present crisis. It haunts me.

I have to say I have written elsewhere with much conviction that most historical analogies are false because, however strikingly similar a new situation may be to an old one, there's usually one element that is different and it turns out to be the crucial one.

It may well be so here. All I know is that all the voices of the 30s are echoing through 2003.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 9, 2003, 9:04 pm

Iraq is not out to conquer the world. Saddam is not Hitler. Your opinion, while nicely written, still sucks. Saddam isn't invading shit. We're talking about a pre-emptive strike agaist a bunch of WMD, whose very existance is in question. America will be attacking a country whose population is over 50% children, has little to no infrastructre remaining from the last war, and has less ties to terrorism than Saudi Arabia. We will be doing so against the will of the UN Security Council and some of our closest, long term allies.

BUT IT'S JUST LIKE HITLER THOUGH!!11!!1

Nice fucking try. You may have bought this war hook/line/sinker, but don't think for one second that the skeptics don't have a reason to be skeptical.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 9, 2003, 9:12 pm

didn't you read the fucking post? He is just like Hitler.

Post by **Xouqoa** » March 9, 2003, 9:23 pm

They DO have a similar moustache.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 9, 2003, 9:39 pm

And they are both males!

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 9, 2003, 9:48 pm

They both speak languages other than English!

Mak · Post by **Mak** » March 9, 2003, 10:27 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:Iraq is not out to conquer the world. Saddam is not Hitler. Your opinion, while nicely written, still sucks. Saddam isn't invading shit. We're talking about a pre-emptive strike agaist a bunch of WMD, whose very existance is in question. America will be attacking a country whose population is over 50% children, has little to no infrastructre remaining from the last war, and has less ties to terrorism than Saudi Arabia. We will be doing so against the will of the UN Security Council and some of our closest, long term allies.

BUT IT'S JUST LIKE HITLER THOUGH!!11!!1

Nice fucking try. You may have bought this war hook/line/sinker, but don't think for one second that the skeptics don't have a reason to be skeptical.

It wasn't my opinion. It was the opinion of Sir Alistair Cooke, English broadcaster for the last 50 years or so.

He lived through the Hitler era. He sees many similarities between then and now. Since he lived through it and you didn't, perhaps giving him more than an haughty dismissal is in order?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 9, 2003, 10:45 pm

Actually no, it is not in order. He is wrong, plain and simple. Comparing Hussein to Hitler and Iraq to Nazi-Germany (not to mention the Middle East to Europe and don't forget the state of the rest of the world) is ridiculous. I don't care if he lived through the stone age, except that he seems to have gained his logic from it.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 9, 2003, 10:48 pm

Mak wrote:[It wasn't my opinion. It was the opinion of Sir Alistair Cooke, English broadcaster for the last 50 years or so.

you post up random people's opinions whether you agree with them or not pretty often do you?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 10, 2003, 12:49 am

Fuck everyone else as long as you have your freedom, right?

hmmmmmmm.....I believe I said defense or liberation. I even quoted it and now I have to repeat it again. DEFENSE or LIBERATION. I know that I may have to post this a few times more for you to fucking understand.

lib·er·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lb-rt)
tr.v. lib·er·at·ed, lib·er·at·ing, lib·er·ates
To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control.

lib·er·a·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lb-rshn)
n.
The act of liberating or the state of being liberated.
The act or process of trying to achieve equal rights and status.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
liber·ation·ist n.

I wish there was a magic club I could smack you over the head with to make you understand the words I write. How can you be so dumb?

Mak · Post by **Mak** » March 10, 2003, 5:19 am

kyoukan type-R wrote:
Mak wrote:[It wasn't my opinion. It was the opinion of Sir Alistair Cooke, English broadcaster for the last 50 years or so.
you post up random people's opinions whether you agree with them or not pretty often do you?

Nah, I pretty much agree with it- or at least respect the fact that he's seen a lot more of the world and it's events than I have. But, Fair's "Your opinion, while nicely written, still sucks." seemed to indicate that either it was thought to be MY writing; or thought Alistair Cooke visited these boards. Since I'm thinking the latter is most unlikely, I could only assume that it thougth to be my writing, and so I wanted to correct that misconception.

I do wonder why folks are so quick to dismiss his observations, however.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 10, 2003, 5:31 am

Mak wrote:I do wonder why folks are so quick to dismiss his observations, however.

because people who know what the fuck they are talking about look at saddam hussein's political history and aspirations and look at adolf hitler's political history and aspirations and realize the comparison is utterly ludicrous. the two aren't even remotely comparable; even their motivations are completely apart from each other.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 10, 2003, 7:32 am

I laugh every time I see the Chamberlain analogy to the current situation.

I'm gonna defend him here briefly even if it's going off-topic. History and 20-20 hindight proved him and those he represented wrong but he was no coward. He acted according to his convictions and if, as someone against war in Iraq, I get compared to him, I don't mind too much. Remember that in the 1930s:
1) The memory of WW1 was still very fresh. The UK was still paying the price of sacrificing almost an entire generation in the mud and carnage of the trenches. The full horror of mechanised warfare was impressed on everyone in the Great War. A lot of the politicians at the time were veterans of that conflict. You bet your arse they were anti-war.
2) Chamberlain believed in the German people. He was convinced the Nazis were a small ruling fnord that would be overthrown by the sensible German people at any time. We know this was a mistake now but it seems a pretty reasonable opinion to hold at the time.
3) The League of Nations was more of an informal club than the UN. I think comparing the two is a straw-man argument.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » March 10, 2003, 9:48 am

"3) The League of Nations was more of an informal club than the UN. I think comparing the two is a straw-man argument."

Only a quick comment. If the UN does not act against tyranny, they risk becoming another League of Nations. . .an informal club.

Stan

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 10, 2003, 11:15 am

Acting against tyranny and respecting national sovereignty is a delicate balancing act. History shows us that the latter has always been regarded as more important than the former in the eyes of all UN members. If not, then any oppressive human rights abusers should be banned from membership, yes?

The Iraq situation has fuck-all to do with tyranny though. It's about keeping sufficent US-friendly faces and US-manned garrisons in charge of them oil fields (seeing as Saudi is lurching closer to fundamentalism every day and tbh a bilateral, non-UN attack on Iraq may well be the final straw in that country). The rest is pure fringe-benefits being talked-up as part of the smokescreen.

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » March 10, 2003, 11:49 am

Oil is not a big enough reason to attack Iraq. They produce roughtly 5% of the worlds oil, the economy would not collapse without it. It serves as a great way for critics to oversimplify the issue and ignore the thousands of valid reasons for attacking Iraq.

"The rest is pure fringe-benefits being talked-up as part of the smokescreen."

Using that logic will always protect you from addressing valid points, but dismissing evidence as a government smokescreen is hardly a winner in any serious debate.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 10, 2003, 11:54 am

Oil is not a big enough reason to attack Iraq. They produce roughtly 5% of the worlds oil, the economy would not collapse without it.

Apparently the powers that be are quite clueless, because gas prices have almost doubled at the prospect of a war with Iraq. You must know something they don't.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 10, 2003, 12:07 pm

Bullshit Fair.

Prices have been climbing steadily for the last six months due to the labor strikes in Venezuela. I'm sure the Iraq situation is moving the price some, but calling that the reason for prices to be up, or prices to be anywhere close to double is flat fucking misleading.