Was the US invasion less legitimate b/c of no UN approval?

[Brotha]

Had to shorten because to b/c to fit in the title.

The options seem pretty black and white, you either think it was or it wasn't, but if anyone wants another option added I'll do it.

This isn't necessarily a pro/anti war poll, this is about the importance of us getting a resolution by the security council authorizing us to use force against Iraq in regards to establishing legitimacy.

Personally, I find it hard to believe anyone could have expected us to get Security Council approval. Let's just look at some of the links that have been found/we already knew about between security council members and Saddam Hussein.

France giving Saddam updates about their dealings with US officials:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_pag ... 02,00.html

FRANCE gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with US officials, The Sunday Times reported, quoting files it had found in the wreckage of the Iraqi foreign ministry.

Politicians in France being threatened by Saddam (Chirac's "close personal friend") to "unmask" them if they supported another war:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 3ycqje.asp

The threat by the Iraqi leader, published here for the first time in English, was reported in a 1992 French book, now out of print, titled "Notre Allié Saddam" (Our Ally Saddam). Here's what Saddam said:

As for financiers, industrialists and above all those responsible for military industry, the question must be put to French politicians: Who did not benefit from these business contracts and relationships with Iraq? . . . With respect to the politicians, one need only refer back to the declarations of all the political parties of France, Right and Left. All were happy to brag about their friendship with Iraq and to refer to common interests. From Mr. Chirac [now the center-right president] to Mr. Chevenement [the socialist former defense minister] . . . politicians and economic leaders were in open competition to spend time with us and flatter us. We have now grasped the reality of the situation [of France's support for the 1991 Gulf War, a betrayal in Saddam's eyes]. If the trickery continues, we will be forced to unmask them, all of them, before the French public.

Russia spying on Blair for Saddam and giving a list of assasins:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... altop.html

Top secret documents obtained by The Telegraph in Baghdad show that Russia provided Saddam Hussein's regime with wide-ranging assistance in the months leading up to the war, including intelligence on private conversations between Tony Blair and other Western leaders.

Syria getting illegal oil shipments:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/ ... 9601.shtml

U.S. military engineers have reported that they shut down a pipeline used for illegal oil shipments from Iraq to Syria, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday.

The pipeline opened in 2000 and was believed to have handled about $1.2 billion worth of oil a year shipped in violation of the United Nations sanctions against Iraq.

Syria smuggling arms to Iraq:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=30006

Western intelligence officials have discovered that at least 52 crates containing new air-defense systems and spare parts have been smuggled into Iraq from Syria since the start of December, the Telegraph reports.

Let's not forget all of the oil contracts:

USA-1
France-798
Russia-862
China-227
UK-8

In addition, France sold $1.5 billion worth of goods to Iraq in 2002 and the Frech firm Total has the Easra Oil Fields locked up

(source: Bill Bonner in The Daily Reckoning)

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2001/ ... 122125.asp

Russia refused to support the U.S.-backed British proposal to revamp sanctions because it says the UN should concentrate instead on ways to suspend the sanctions. At the same time, Russian officials have said they worry that modifying the sanctions regime could hurt the economies of many countries, including Russia.

Iraq has thanked Moscow for taking that position and this week indicated it will repay Russia with lucrative trade deals. Iraqi Trade Minister Amir Mohammed Mehdi said Russians would have priority in future deals "in appreciation of their opposition to the wicked U.S.-British plan."

Let's not forget the 8 billion owed to Russia by Iraq:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 33,00.html

Russia has an estimated $52 billion (£33.3 billion) tied up in deals with Iraq under the sanctions regime and is owed at least $8 billion.

Based on all of these and other things like how France/Russia have acted in the past in regards to dealing with the situation in Iraq, is there still anyone who thinks we could have possibly won French/Russian approval for the invasion of Iraq? Do any of you still think of our invasion as less legitimate because we did not get their approval?

[kyoukan]

If you agree to participate in any organization like the UN then you must conform to it's guidelines and rules, not just the ones you feel like following. Yes that even pertains to arrogant fuckwits like yourself that feel your country is big and powerful enough to whatever you please. What is even the point of having rules and guidelines if you are just going to break them at your pleasure? If your government is going to ignore the laws of international peacekeeping and military action then why do think they are going to obey the laws and respect your rights within your own country?

The united states signed a pact with the UN to obey it's rules and regulations just like every other country. One rule is to gain approval of the security council before conducting military action. The main rule of the security council is never to interfere with the inner workings of sovereign nations with military force. The UN does not exist to police the world within the borders of their own countries. The UN exists specifically to reign in oppresive governments who feel they can change other country's destinies via military action. Just like Saddam Hussein did in Kuwait. Just like the US is doing in Iraq.

[Metanis]

If you agree to participate in any organization like the UN then you must conform to it's guidelines and rules, not just the ones you feel like following. Yes that even pertains to arrogant fuckwits like yourself that feel your country is big and powerful enough to whatever you please. What is even the point of having rules and guidelines if you are just going to break them at your pleasure? If your government is going to ignore the laws of international peacekeeping and military action then why do think they are going to obey the laws and respect your rights within your own country?

The united states signed a pact with the UN to obey it's rules and regulations just like every other country. One rule is to gain approval of the security council before conducting military action. The main rule of the security council is never to interfere with the inner workings of sovereign nations with military force. The UN does not exist to police the world within the borders of their own countries. The UN exists specifically to reign in oppresive governments who feel they can change other country's destinies via military action. Just like Saddam Hussein did in Kuwait. Just like the US is doing in Iraq.

Hey Kooky...

Why don't you grow up? You are so effing clueless it makes me want to puke.

[Forthe]

Nice rebuttal Metanis. Must have taken you a while to come up with that.

[Metanis]

Nice rebuttal Metanis. Must have taken you a while to come up with that.

Fight fire with fire?

[kyoukan]

Hey Kooky...

Why don't you grow up? You are so effing clueless it makes me want to puke.

No, sorry. You're wrong.

[noel]

First of all, it was a 'Liberation' not an invasion. FOX NEWS TOLD ME SO!!!11!!

Second, Fucking-A it was legitimate. We went in, and had an extremely successful military campaign and invaded another country. The invasion was a legitimate invasion, but it was almost definitely the wrong thing to do. There were no terrorist organizations, there were no WoMD (OH WAIT THOSE ARE IN SYRIA NOW - Fox News), so then all the sudden the spin doctors start calling it a fucking liberation. Fuck them.

I'm trying to separate the military action from the decisions of our politicians. The politicians are assholes, and the military did what they were told. Absolutely, not having UN support and not having world support sullied the legitimacy of whatever you want to call what happened there.

If we're going to be a part of the UN, we either need to adhere to what the UN decides, or we need to push changes in the UN so that the organization operates in a way more to our liking.

[kyoukan]

Whether or not it was successful has no bearing on it's legitimacy. I am pretty sure he meant whether or not the US had the right to invade Iraq and depose it's government.

In that respect you can't say it was legitimate and agree with me at the same time, because member nations of the UN can only initiate military action on approval of the security council. Well I guess could only, since the rules apparently only apply to certain countries now.

[Spangaloid_PE]

this was not an invasion, it was a liberation.

[Drakoslay123]

Was the war to get rid off the weapons or just overthrow the other government. I am a little bit confused here. If the liberation was the main reason why Bush administration advertised getting rid of the WoMD so furiously.

I personally don't like the notion of liberation, because it puts the U.S. in a very odd position. WoMD or liberation?

So, is it ok for the U.S. to invade Korea then? I mean the N Koreans are suffering greatly from the current administration.

Drakoslay

[Crav]

Personally I'm a little torn here, mainly because I do believe that the U.N. has some major flaws. Unless I'm mistaken, the U.N. did not give approval to our actions in Kosovo back in the 90s and I doubt anyone will disagree with what we did. I mean there was just cause in my opinion for that actions because of the crimes against humanity being commited in the civil war. I think the problem this time was that the administration did not do nearly a good enough job at explaining/supporting the reasons they had for this war, it could be because of a very poor diplomatic ability or just because there wasn't enough reasons to invade Iraq. It will be interesting to see what the history books of different nations say about the events of the last couple of years.

[kyoukan]

Kosovo was very much a UN operation. I'm pretty sure the leader of the coalition there was Spanish or some fucking country.

[Forthe]

Wasn't Kosovo a NATO operation? I believe I recall that it wasn't brought to the UN due to Russian resistance.

[miir]

I don't get it Brotha, where was it written that other countries were not allowed to have any dealings with Iraq?

Do you even know why the US only had one oil contract with Iraq?

Shall I dig up some dirt on questionable US intelligence operations?



Seriously, as much shit as you can dredge up on Iraq, it would probably be just as easy to dig up 100 times more shit on the USA. Sure, Iraq's. France's and Russia's shit stinks... just like good ole American made shit.



I suppose, in your mind, you think your govenrment is always in the right and is so pure that they would never partake in any action that might be deemed questionable.

[Pahreyia]

Kosovo was a UN operation Crav, I think you might have been thinking of Somalia, which, if I recall correctly, was all US.

[Crav]

Sorry had to do some research on it, the Kosovo air operations were Nato only. They began after the U.N. could not resolve to take action on the issue. The peacekeeping and peacebuilding mission that is still going on today is headed by the U.N. Here is a link to some articles on the events.

[Fallanthas]

I don't get it Brotha, where was it written that other countries were not allowed to have any dealings with Iraq?

Maybe here?

http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/unscr661.htm

[Wulfran]

New option: Yes, it lost some legitimacy due to the absence of the UN resolution.

I am going to disagree a bit with Kyoukan, but not totally, just because politics of the UN functioned in a manner that guaranteed someone would never have gotten anything near what they wanted. TWO countries with permanent seats on the UN security council (with veto powers) had the "we play the way I want or not at all" attitude: the United States AND France. People can moralize, or rationalize this in any number of ways but the fact that there were 2 obstinate, polar opposites dictated that something had to give.

Had France not been so firmly entrenched in the "no use of force by any means" I think the US position would be even more tenuous in the international community... well except for the fact that they have the world's largest economy and everyone is too "practical" not to want a piece of the action...

Edit: For Pahreyia, Somalia was a UN operation, not a solely US one. There were peacekeepers form other countries (including Canada) there.

[Pahreyia]

Thanks Wulf, I'll have to review that one, but I stand corrected.

[Brotha]

WMDs will be found, I have absolutely no doubt about that. All of you jumping the gun on saying there aren't any will just look like fools like you did when you were claiming the US was somehow losing the war.

To get back on topic, IMO Russia/France had different objectives in mind in regards to Iraq than we did and were not willing to enforce the UN resolutions. Iraq was not fully complying- can anyone dispute this? This act of non compliance didn't just take place over night, we didn't just come out of the blue say "fuck it, we're invading." They had TWELVE YEARS to comply.

Second, Fucking-A it was legitimate. We went in, and had an extremely successful military campaign and invaded another country. The invasion was a legitimate invasion, but it was almost definitely the wrong thing to do. There were no terrorist organizations, there were no WoMD (OH WAIT THOSE ARE IN SYRIA NOW - Fox News), so then all the sudden the spin doctors start calling it a fucking liberation. Fuck them.

Spin doctors? From the first tune it looked like it would be needed to remove Saddam Hussein's regime in order to completely disarm Iraq of WMDs and illegal weaponry, it was being called a liberation. And by calling them spin doctors are you trying to imply it wasn't a liberation? We removed a mass murdering dictator who had been plaguing his people for decades and we are now working to install a democracy. Those are two undeniable facts which in my mind consitute a liberation no matterr how you look at it.

You jump on us not finding WMDs in what...a couple of weeks of actually having control of the country and make a blanket statement like that, so I'm wondering if you're the same person who said this:

Brother, saying terrorism has not increased is a very, very poorly thought out statement. The only thing that will bear your statment true of false is time.

I do agree that there needs to be changes in the UN though.

Kosovo was very much a UN operation. I'm pretty sure the leader of the coalition there was Spanish or some fucking country.

After the US and Nato intervened. The belgium troops that were there to begin with were a joke.

The precedent for US-led "unilateral" intervention was set by Clinton in 1999 when NATO intervened militarily to prevent a humanitarian disaster in Kosovo. It followed on the heels of UN inaction in Rwanda and Bosnia - both w/ catastrophic results. A series of US-led NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia, then ground forces to secure Kosovo, and only then was the situation handed over to the United Nations.

The United Nations can't even keep Kosovo together, how in the world could anyone say they're bter qualified to rebuild Iraq than the US?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/ ... 94,00.html

Almost three years after the end of the war in Kosovo, the United Nations is being accused of failing in the province and effectively allowing it to be split into separate Serb and Albanian entities.

I suppose, in your mind, you think your govenrment is always in the right and is so pure that they would never partake in any action that might be deemed questionable.

Nope, that's not how I think at all. I know that we've done immensely hypocrital things in the past and to this day we are supporting dictarships for one reason or another in parts of the world- but that does not cloud my thinking on this specific issue.

New option: Yes, it lost some legitimacy due to the absence of the UN resolution.

I went back and read the poll question and answers and realized they didn't correlate. The question should have been "Was the US led invasion illegitimate because..." I would go back and change the question but that would fuck up the whole thing I think.

[Xzion]

It was an invasion,not a war, you cannot argue that point. Weather or not it was a liberation, we will never know with the U.S's "unbiased!" news. Fuck if they have or didnt have weapons of mass distruction, the only legitimate reason i saw for liberating Iraq, was if the Iraqi people for the most part wanted to be liberated or not, in all honesty without any government pressure giving them fear to voice there opinion or not, i do not know the answer to this, and i dont think anyone does becouse it is impossible to honestly trust ANY source of media, so i am still neutral on the situation
But if the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated by Saddam, then we had a right to do so , if not, then fuck no.

and then you turn on the news in europe, fuck! the U.S is fighting 2 very different wars in Iraq!!!

[noel]

Lets talk about the bottom line here.

The bottom line is that the US participates in the UN, but also does whatever it wants to do. The bottom line is that we went into Iraq under the guise of finding and seizing their WoMD, and disabling their ability to possess them in the future, as well as toppling a government that supported terrorism. The bottom line is that when there were no WoMD found, and when there were no links to terrorism, the operation in Iraq became a 'libertation', to oust an evil dictator.

The bottom line, is that the US government has yet to make a strong enough case to show that the operation in Iraq was (KEY WORD HERE) necessary. It MAY have been necessary, but the US goverment has done a horrible job of convincing the public. It may have been a very good thing we did, but I suspect we won't know for certain until the History Channel special circa 5 years from now. In the same way that we won't know if terrorism increased or decreased until 10 years from now.

I personally don't have a problem with what we did. It will probably never affect me half a world away here in California. The two questions that have yet to be answered are, 'did we do the right thing?' and, 'was it necessary?' While the answer to the first question is probably a 'yes', I have yet to see a fucking thing that makes the answer to the second question, 'yes'.

Bear in mind that I am in no way knocking our military. They're just following orders to the best of their ability. I will always support our troops 110%. I think they conducted themselves perfectly, and obviously did a phenomenal job from a tactical and strategic standpoint.

[Forthe]

I do agree that there needs to be changes in the UN though.

The only thing I would like to see changed at the UN is the removal of all security council (effectively) vetos. The common good is too easily blocked by special interests as it is now.

There should also be rules in place to stop what is effectively international bribery.

The United Nations can't even keep Kosovo together, how in the world could anyone say they're bter qualified to rebuild Iraq than the US?

If you are going to shit on the UN then eat your own dogfood and recognize the stellar job the US has done in Afghanistan.

Edit: putting random thought in context.

[Cartalas]

If you are going to shit on the UN then eat your own dogfood and recognize the stellar job the US has done in Afghanistan.

Yeah Kofi Anus and his Royal band of Asshats have done a great job, Look at there effing helmets they are Powder Blue.

[Metanis]

Lets talk about the bottom line here.

The bottom line is that the US participates in the UN, but also does whatever it wants to do. The bottom line is that we went into Iraq under the guise of finding and seizing their WoMD, and disabling their ability to possess them in the future, as well as toppling a government that supported terrorism. The bottom line is that when there were no WoMD found, and when there were no links to terrorism, the operation in Iraq became a 'libertation', to oust an evil dictator.

The bottom line, is that the US government has yet to make a strong enough case to show that the operation in Iraq was (KEY WORD HERE) necessary. It MAY have been necessary, but the US goverment has done a horrible job of convincing the public. It may have been a very good thing we did, but I suspect we won't know for certain until the History Channel special circa 5 years from now. In the same way that we won't know if terrorism increased or decreased until 10 years from now.

I personally don't have a problem with what we did. It will probably never affect me half a world away here in California. The two questions that have yet to be answered are, 'did we do the right thing?' and, 'was it necessary?' While the answer to the first question is probably a 'yes', I have yet to see a fucking thing that makes the answer to the second question, 'yes'.

Bear in mind that I am in no way knocking our military. They're just following orders to the best of their ability. I will always support our troops 110%. I think they conducted themselves perfectly, and obviously did a phenomenal job from a tactical and strategic standpoint.

Good post. Reasoned. Articulate. Sane.

One point seemingly lost on the numerous U.S. bashers here is that President Bush did in fact convince enough U.S. citizens that it was necessary now! It would appear those same citizens are not rushing to recant their support.

I agree with the History Channel comment. There's a ton of stuff we still don't know and the adminstration won't be in a hurry to release the details that may not be complimentary.

[noel]

Good post. Reasoned. Articulate. Sane.

One point seemingly lost on the numerous U.S. bashers here is that President Bush did in fact convince enough U.S. citizens that it was necessary now! It would appear those same citizens are not rushing to recant their support.

I agree with the History Channel comment. There's a ton of stuff we still don't know and the adminstration won't be in a hurry to release the details that may not be complimentary.

It's my perception that prior to invading, the American public wasn't very keen on the operation. I think there was a huge swell of support once it was clear that the operation was going to decisively meet all of our military objectives. Not really surprising considering we do the same things with our professional sporting teams.

[Fallanthas]

Mmm, reaching back in memory is usually a bad idea for me, but don't I recall somewhere around a 65% approval for action in Iraq before hostilities began?

Forthe, I agree on rescinding any sort of veto power in the security council. I doubt it woul dmake the UN any less a debate society, but it would certainly allow a more open debate and less backyard bargaining.

[Forthe]

Question(s) for the pro war folks. The UN charter allows for use of force in two situations (the is also "enemy-of-state" clauses but they are considered obsolete):
1) In self defense of an "armed attack". (Article 51)
2) With security council approval. (Article 53)

In the Iraq case the Bush administration tried to use the self defense argument but it was weak and they abondoned it. This was the reason they wanted to link Al-Qaida and Iraq.

Then they fell back on old resolutions which is a grayish area (the reason they abondoned the vote Bush guaranteed is that it would have made the invasion plainly illegal).

I won't even comment on the liberation argument as it is too easy to spin and has no legal standing. Germany was also claiming it was liberating german nationals from Polish oppression (in previous german territory seized after WW1 JFYI) when it invaded. It wasn't entirely false either.

So you guys still support this. Fair enough.

Now what is next? What if the Bush administration targets New Zealand and claims that its use of Kiwi constitutes the actions of a terrorist state. Then we have the media spin New Zealand's president\PM\whatever-they-have as an evil tyrant that regularly has orgies on yachts (the evil fucker!).

Do you also support this invasion without meeting either of the two conditions allowing force? Do you again accept the arguments to use force on faith without concrete proof?

If this <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2982421.stm" TARGET=_new> fucker</A> has his way you will have to answer these questions.

[noel]

Simple answer, Forthe: Is there oil there?

[Animalor]

The attack on Iraq was legitimate once the bombs started hitting Baghdad

If the US was ANY other country, it would have UN economic sanctions pressed against it.

What will happen when the US has pushed around every other country in the world too much and THEY all ally together against it?

[Atokal]

New option: Yes, it lost some legitimacy due to the absence of the UN resolution.

I am going to disagree a bit with Kyoukan, but not totally, just because politics of the UN functioned in a manner that guaranteed someone would never have gotten anything near what they wanted. TWO countries with permanent seats on the UN security council (with veto powers) had the "we play the way I want or not at all" attitude: the United States AND France. People can moralize, or rationalize this in any number of ways but the fact that there were 2 obstinate, polar opposites dictated that something had to give.

Had France not been so firmly entrenched in the "no use of force by any means" I think the US position would be even more tenuous in the international community... well except for the fact that they have the world's largest economy and everyone is too "practical" not to want a piece of the action...

Edit: For Pahreyia, Somalia was a UN operation, not a solely US one. There were peacekeepers form other countries (including Canada) there.

Well said Wulf

[Metanis]

Simple answer, Forthe: Is there oil there?

Lame!

Keep it up and you'll start the whole SUV war again!

[Metanis]

Question(s) for the pro war folks...
If this <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2982421.stm" TARGET=_new> fucker</A> has his way you will have to answer these questions.

Ok Forthe, I realize that playing with the mentally challenged will drag me down to your level.... BUT... just for the sake of argument...

Let's say that Rummy and Georgie and Dicky have hatched this outrageous plan for U.S. domination of the entire fucking world...

What in fuck is so bad about that? Did it hurt Spain, England, Germany, Japan, etc., etc. that we kicked their asses during various wars in the last 2 centuries? Did it hurt Germany and Japan and Philippines that we actually ran their countries for a time? I'm not saying it's a perfect world, but grow the fuck up and use some perspective you freakazoid. Most Americans want nothing to do with running the world... but idiots such as yourself keep fucking it up so bad we have no choice but to get involved. Iraq is just the latest example... if you crybabies had a better fucking idea why in fucks name didn't you step up and do something about it? All you fuckers can do is whine and moan and cry. I'm sick of it! Just like I told Kooky... grow the FUCK up and DO something like getting your head out of your ass!

[kyoukan]

hahaha what a deluded fuckwit. sitting on his fat ass and spewing about what is so wrong with wanting to take over the world.

[noel]

Question(s) for the pro war folks...
If this <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2982421.stm" TARGET=_new> fucker</A> has his way you will have to answer these questions.

Ok Forthe, I realize that playing with the mentally challenged will drag me down to your level.... BUT... just for the sake of argument...

Let's say that Rummy and Georgie and Dicky have hatched this outrageous plan for U.S. domination of the entire fucking world...

What in fuck is so bad about that? Did it hurt Spain, England, Germany, Japan, etc., etc. that we kicked their asses during various wars in the last 2 centuries? Did it hurt Germany and Japan and Philippines that we actually ran their countries for a time? I'm not saying it's a perfect world, but grow the fuck up and use some perspective you freakazoid. Most Americans want nothing to do with running the world... but idiots such as yourself keep fucking it up so bad we have no choice but to get involved. Iraq is just the latest example... if you crybabies had a better fucking idea why in fucks name didn't you step up and do something about it? All you fuckers can do is whine and moan and cry. I'm sick of it! Just like I told Kooky... grow the FUCK up and DO something like getting your head out of your ass!

Umm...

How about... NO!

[Metanis]

hahaha what a deluded fuckwit. sitting on his fat ass and spewing about what is so wrong with wanting to take over the world.

Hey bitch, the point was that you stupid cuntwads whine and cry... but in the end you're useless fucking excuses... you idiots don't DO anything!

[noel]

Hey bitch, the point was that you stupid cuntwads whine and cry... but in the end you're useless fucking excuses... you idiots don't DO anything!

So like... What have you done, tough guy?

[cid]

hahaha what a deluded fuckwit. sitting on his fat ass and spewing about what is so wrong with wanting to take over the world.

Hey bitch, the point was that you stupid cuntwads whine and cry... but in the end you're useless fucking excuses... you idiots don't DO anything!

I sence some IRL shit coming next!!

[Forthe]

Ok Metanis I give up.

I could respond with flames and try to make you look dumb but in all honesty I can't top that last post. You have outdone me. There is nothing I could say or do that could possibly make you look dumber than your last post. I'll concede this point.

[Metanis]

Hey bitch, the point was that you stupid cuntwads whine and cry... but in the end you're useless fucking excuses... you idiots don't DO anything!

So like... What have you done, tough guy?

I support my country!

I support my President, G.W. Bush.

I pay taxes. (I pay much more than I receive unlike some of the socialist pricks on this board.)

I vote.

I make contribtutions to the Republican Party.

I counter the stupid shit on message boards such as this.

I work... full time... for pay.

I write letters to the editor of my local newspaper.

I write letters to my Senators and Congressman.

I write letters to my President.

I served my country for 6 years in the US Marine Corps.

I served my country for 2 years in the Army Reserves.

I serve my church as an elected official and donate a significant part of my income to the church.

I donate a part of my income to the United Way through payroll deduction.

In other words, you elitest piece of fucking shit Arunuil, I'm an average working American, so go fuck yourself. Your act is wearing thin Ferris.

[noel]

In other words, you elitest piece of fucking shit Arunuil, I'm an average working American, so go fuck yourself. Your act is wearing thin Ferris.

If you are so foolish to believe that anyone can become an elitist on a message board, I truly pity you.

All the things you listed aside from the compulsory ones are good things, provided they're not done with 'blind faith' for lack of a better term. That's pretty much the point I've been trying to make to all of the people here who believe they're representing themselves as hard core patriots. It's all well and good to support your country, your president, your armed forces, your church, whatever. Just don't do it blindly. There are always two sides, not just the one being preached or projected at you. The people who think George Bush is an evil man or that the US is an evil nation are just as bad.

I believe that makes me a realist, and a skeptic, not an elitist, but if you can't handle a differing opinion, I highly suggest you go fuck yourself.

[kyoukan]

Hey bitch, the point was that you stupid cuntwads whine and cry... but in the end you're useless fucking excuses... you idiots don't DO anything!

The only thing you contribute to is the downfall of the enlightened visions your country's forefathers had in mind when they declared their independence from an imperialist society and formed their own nation under the auspices of equality, wisdom and freedom. You, sir, represent categorically everything that is wrong with your country. You lack anything resembling independent thought. You toe the line for your government masters and question nothing unless some talking head on TV tells you to question it.

You are violent, racist, classist, ignorant and stupid. Your false sense of superiority makes me want to vomit. You are nothing more and nothing less than what the british were in the early 1800's. You are the absolute antithesis of what an enlightened citizen of the united states should represent. Every day of your continued existence on this planet is a slap in the face to your country's founders. You know nothing, you learn nothing, and you are nothing. You have failed miserably at being an American and a human being.

[Metanis]

Hey bitch, the point was that you stupid cuntwads whine and cry... but in the end you're useless fucking excuses... you idiots don't DO anything!

The only thing you contribute to is the downfall of the enlightened visions your country's forefathers had in mind when they declared their independence from an imperialist society and formed their own nation under the auspices of equality, wisdom and freedom. You, sir, represent categorically everything that is wrong with your country. You lack anything resembling independent thought. You toe the line for your government masters and question nothing unless some talking head on TV tells you to question it.

You are violent, racist, classist, ignorant and stupid. Your false sense of superiority makes me want to vomit. You are nothing more and nothing less than what the british were in the early 1800's. You are the absolute antithesis of what an enlightened citizen of the united states should represent. Every day of your continued existence on this planet is a slap in the face to your country's founders. You know nothing, you learn nothing, and you are nothing. You have failed miserably at being an American and a human being.

This is perfect Kooky. You have no constructive input. Same 'ol shit.

What have you done lately that is of benefit to the human race?

Want a suggestion or two?

[kyoukan]

Yes you are right I have absolutely no constructive input in regards to yourself. The only possible benefit to society you will ever be is fertilizer for the cemetary lawn.

[Adex_Xeda]

Wow, 47% 52%

Those numbers remind me of presidental elections.

[Forthe]

Go get em Metanis!

[Drakoslay123]

Kyou, that was good.

Drakoslay

[Krimson Klaw]

Kyou, that was good.

Drakoslay

I thought it was too. I still disagree with her on most issues though, but was a good post.

[vn_Tanc]

The thing that worries me most is that when you scratch off the benevolant facade presented by the US you see the faces of people like Metanis and Brotha.

And when there's stuff like this going on: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

it just makes me think of the chinese curse about living in interesting times.

[Drakoslay123]

Tanc, that is where Chaos starts.

Drakoslay