*moved* What's up with the weak U.N.?

Quote:

---

Such a simple lesson should be taken to the U.N. and shoved down the throats of those pu55y security council members.

---

I wish that will happen. For the other countries backing off on what they said yesteryear, that's pretty common in politics. It's not right, but it happens. However, this is not the time to play games. We have a serious situation with Saddam and other regimes that are rearing, planning and ready to strike. Not just in our country but in other countries as well.

I do not like war and seeing innocent people die but when it comes to a choice of us getting kicked and kicked again with threats of biological, chemical or nuclear war something's got to give. If other countries back off and restate what they said it coud spell disaster and threaten the lives of many innocent people.

regards

The UN is based on "deals" if someone brakes one of those deals there's nothing really they can do. The country who brakes the deals loses trust, but the UN can't just interfere with military power in any case. The can defend restricted zones to secure people, and even that not 100%.

Iraq did get disarmed and till now there's still no prove there are weapons in Iraq that are affacted by the disarming treaty wich is discussed now. Because there's a suspicion of nuclear/chmeical/blabla weapons, there are now weapon inspections. Authorized by the UN.
The weak thing in this matter to me seems the US. You just want to burn the whole place down, because you want to raise them as your kids ? The US of A isn't the world leader, it isn't the "father", it isn't even a UN member if I'd decide that.

Sitting on our thumbs isn't really a good description for the UN (of wich the USA and UK are part and of wich they are breaking "deals" like any other country it seems). France, Germany and Belgium are the most active political "warriors" against the attack on Iraq. There's just no evidence Iraq has things they aren't allowed to, so the UN isn't allowed to do anything. It isn't allowed to attack at all, because it isn't proven they are a risk for neighboor countries. Period.

What did the US of A do since the last war in Iraq ? You ain't gonna tell me the bullshit story about democratics and rebublics again. If I prove a bad for Bush all America is democratic, if there's something good all America is Repblic. That's the idea I get, altough it isn't true.

War is primitive, it's as old as mankind. Because of this thread I have the idea the most part of the US of A consists of hypocritics. The US of A is the weak link in the UN. It looks like they can make their own laws, because of there "strength" and "activity". I know many many US of A citizens aren't thinking like that, but come on, you are primitive if the only idea you can come up with to win from Sadaam is after Korea and Vietnam: burn the freaking place down.

Further explenation of my opinion and mostly "democratic" Americans can be found here:
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=239602
Also some sort of prove the motivations I heard till now for an attack are /dev/null trash.

Korp, I agree with you completely. I can't really add any more except that I really doubt this "war," if it ever begins, won't amount to much more than the last one. I only hope that this time we do it right and finish the job.

Hey. There's no proof that they destroyed any of the chemical or biological agents they had at their disposal. You know the ones they used on their own people don't you. It's no the U.S.'s job to prove they have ****....It's their job to show the world they have gotten rid of it. Why do you think the U.S has airfields all over the country with nuclear capable planes and missiles drilled with holes out in the open? HMmmmmm?> You ask, of course, in ignorance, WHY?


I'll tell you, because when we say we are going to disarm something we put it out in the open for anyoine who has a 50 cent sattelite to see that we live up to what we say.

Has Iraq accounted for the 30,000 some pounds of biological agents? Or even the warheads that fire these horrible agents? No they have not. That's why that faggot Blix and his henchmen have been scooting around that miserable little country looking for the evidence. They aren't going to find any smoking gun but I'll tell you what when the time comes and Saddam points his missiles at your country, who do you think will come to rescue.. That's right, the good ol' US of A. Just like we have so so many times before.

Maybe if you stopped spouting bullshit rhetoric and "peace be with you" you might see your ass is the one in the most danger.

And as far as you thinking the U.S. shouldn't be part of the U.n I agree, the U.N. should be for the peasant countries who always need OUR help when the **** hits the fan.

YOU'D ALL BE GOOSE STEPPING IF IT WERENT" FOR US! REMEMBER THAT.

edit:

P.S. Thanks, I needed to get that off my chest. Way to take the bait. Thank again.

Not to mention that at this point, the burden of proof should be completely on Iraq.

Right now we dont need any reason to go to war with them, they have broke our prior agreements that had well defined consequences (reason in itself), and shot at our planes (ditto), and are becoming increasingly hostile. The burden of prood is upon them, and it would take a lot for them to convince us of anything because of past experiences.

The Iraqi government is pure crap, and they will soon get what they deserve.

Every seems to not have mention United Kingdom!!!!!!!! for god sake we are assiting our alllies the Americans and not one of your posts has mentioned the united kingdom you forget we help the world aswell comon guys give credit where credit is dew lol nice post KorpDeath some very valid comments!

KorpDeath ,

I agree with you.We dont need Nato or UN.We should tell UN to **** off!!!

It about time we nuke Iraq

We dont need all the crap **** UN looking for bloody weapon **** any more.

Paladin

hehe, the French almost lasted three quarters of a year (after they declared war) before they surrendered to Germany in WW2. a friend of mine told me that "going to war without France is like going hunting without an acordian."

how do you say "i surrender" in French?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by KorpDeath
Seems to me a resolution to disarm Iraq was already unanimously passed some 12 years ago. SO why is it that France, Germany, and Belgium (who?) don't think it necessary to back their words?

---

Maybe this is why they dont want to start mess with iraq...



who needs more terroists???

Great, It's gone from the bleeding hearts of Eurotrash to the insipid nuke waving neophytes of Backwater, Arkansas. (you might have to look up some of those words)

Isn't there anyone who can keep a intelligent debate moving???? Where's Guus? VictorKaum? Hell I'd take that meek little swede at this point.......anything..


Demon alcohol - take me away!!!