*DAMN R6 Forum

When someone says that the United States is violating the soverign rights of Iraq for possessing chemical and biological weapons, you

I laughed and pointed at the frogs.

One question, are you saying that the USA is violating Iraq's rights by not letting Iraq have them?  Or because the USA has some?  I can read it both ways.

And the honset answer is, Iraq gave up the right to have them at the end of the Gulf War.  If they wanted that right back, they should have taken it up with the UN, not just disobeyed.

I voted the UN one...it isn't America's place to dictate global law, that is the UN's purpose.

I agree with bucc on this one.

(http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/banana.gif)  ::)

 I think I worded this poll in an awkward manner.

 Frankly, I believe that the rights of any nation that threatens the security and stability of the world are null and void. Iraq is no exception. This is to say, I think war with Iraq has been more than justified for sometime now, hence 'believing any action is understandible'.

   While I too think that being French is like the new plaid and highly unreasonable and silly, I also think that the UN has failed in it's duty. Rather than taking into consideration of many, it applies its concerns to the few. (Those few being terrorist nations) In effect the UN has picked up where the Leauge of Nations left off,  a governing body without a backbone or a decisive leader.  The only effect the United Nations has had as of late is prolonging the growing hostility between allied nations and Iraq, and for Iraq to use the UN as a platform to elevate their minimal power to a global level.
 Despite anything you may think of my reasoning, ask yourself this.

 Would you feel secure living in a world with Iraq as a recognized nuclear power?

And the UN dictated in Resolution 687 that Iraq must submit proof of destroying all weapons of mass destruction and to fully comply with weapons inspectors by allowing them unfettered access.

The US is just the only country with the balls to stand up against this.

I haven't seen any evidance that Iraq has threatened the security or stability of the world.

And Ace, just like it isn't the US's job to create world law, it isn't the US's job to enforce it other than assisting the UN.

Perhaps you should watch the news then? :-)

I've heard that they potentially have WMD in violation of resolutions but unlike N. Korea I've heard no treatening by Iraq other than "We will defend ourselves if attacked".  Unless you are going back to Kuwait, but that isn't a reason for THIS war.  Sorry, I do watch the news and I've seen no threat to world security given BY Iraq.

Ditto that Bondo.  To rephrase a common theme, I think the US is a greater potential threat to world security than any other nation.

Well, some have said i am a communist..but maybe a worker strike is the only way...lol.

Anyway...

I was a firm believer that the US only used the U.N. as a tool to support its decisions, but after i read through and watched Colin Powells speech.  I saw how much of a threat Iraq could be. THREAT they key word, most of Powells accusations require much interpretation and could be viewed differently by each person who sees the informantion.

But just let me say that we may be considered "evil" and maybe we should stay out of other countries agendas, but this could come down to the saftey of many countries, not just the USA.

I am sorry for my horrible spelling ;D ;)

The Jackal (FrEaK for life!)

Out of the many people here that have said it's not the USA's business and we should let the UN handle it.  I'm going to be very interested in hearing their comments if the UN decides to enforce it's own resolutions.

From day one to the present day, my position is that it is the UN's business.  If they decide to have war and it makes it through the security council vetoes...then I'll think the war is necessary and worth fighting.

The thing that irritates me with France is that are acting like they are a real power of some kind, using their "morals" as a guiding light.

The truth of the matter is that France only has a Security Council vote because we needed an additional partner to have more combined votes than the Communist bloc (U.S., U.K., France;Russia, China). However, it is now evident that this Iraq problem is exposing their true selves - masquerading as a world power but with no real substance.

There are three scenarios the French can use, and all three hurt them after their foolish opposition to the United States.

1) France gives in to U.S. demands

France is then viewed as a giant pussy (to those who dont already view them that way) with no real power in the world's debates and politics. Chirac et al are ridiculed for being soft and France's opinion is laughed at by the world for years to come.

2) France abstains

Again, France isn't taken seriously because they don't have the balls to take a stance on an issue. Like #1, France is laughed at by the world for years to come.

3) France continues opposition

THe UNited States bypasses the UN Security Council, making it essentially null and embarrasses France in the process. We prove that the French have no input in world affairs and again they are laughed at.

This is more of a France bash than anything else, but oh well. They have dug their hole six feet deep and are ready to go in feet first within the next few weeks.

I would have to disagree with a few things here. Threatening world Stability and Peace makes your rights void as you say but recent polls say that 82% out of over a half of a millio people belive the US is the biggest threat to World Peace. Though some of them may be I doubt ALL of them are crazy zealots.

Has the US lost its backbone only because it will not go to war? What times are these where we repremand france for simply asking for more evidence. Is it not because the more evidence they seek is not there and we would like to Attack anyway? It is human nature to attack when we feel pressured however we should applaud france for theyre withheld attitutde because I agree, There still is not proof enough to kill. Bucc you made a good point in that Iraq has to show they DONT have it but before we go to war I still just need a little more proof that they DO have it.

Lastly, in your last sentence I probably wouldnt but I dont feel safe with GWB in charge either  and maybe, just maybe Collateral Damage would come into effect.

I voted ?need a hug?.

About France not being a real world power, are there any real world powers at all except for the US today? No.

I think you mean "We prove France, German, Russia, and the puplic opinion of nearly the whole world's view that the US thinks it is all powerful and can disregard everyone else."

How  is the US attacking without the UN support proving that the the countries that don't support the US are weak or unimportant?  It just shows that the US is the big asshole country that so many people think and it makes the US DESERVE more terrorist attacks.  Someone needs to show the US that it is just one of hundreds of countries in the world and that it isn't higher than the others.  I would hope it would be done diplomatically, but I fear that neither diplomicy nor a real war would be capable of showing the US that it is wrong to act superior and only terrorism can be used.

Kami - China

Bondo - Don't lump them all together.  It's not an us or them situation in the UN.  Making it sound that way puts you in the same frame of mind as Bush.

This is a quote from Newsweek, written by Fareed Zakaria, he writes the World View column in every issue:
?During the early 1990s many believed that the bipolar world of the cold war would yield to a world of many powers. But Europe, which was to have become a mammoth actor on the world stage, showed itself to be a disunited continent, and one in economic crisis. It actually slipped in its share of world GDP and military spending over the last decade. Japan's economy also went sour. Russia moved in a few years from being a great power to a great power vacuum. China and India, for all their growth, remain developing countries. The only one left standing was the United States of America, rising taller than any nation in history.?

Just a little explanation to why I think that there is no competition to the US.

Bondo, the truth is that France is the only real opposition toa  U.S. backed invasion of Iraq. If you look at all of the countires you just named, none of them are willing to shoot themselves int he foot and strain their relations with the United States.

As for your "whole world" in opposition, last time I checked, most of the world supported us in our actions.

Another thing on the French...did anyone hear/see Chirac basically go off on all the countries close to joining the EU or NATO that backed the United States. He sounded very frustrated because he realizes exactly the same thing that I posted above - France has dug its grave, and it is about to go in feet first.

As it has been said many times here before, if the United Nations cannot enforce its own resolutions, it will probably go the way of the League of Nations. We will take action that we think better provides security for our own country, with or without the approval of what appears to be a hollow Security Council.

Only France?...so all the talk about Germany not supporting the war and having the US shut down its bases there is just my imagination.  France, Germany, and Russia as I had mentioned, and China whom I didn't mention have all voiced concerns about US acting outside of the UN.


I've not seen one country that a majority of the public supports war without UN approval (not even the US judging by the poll in the latest issue of Time).  The US is the only one I've seen above 20% support of an attack outside UN mandate.  Sorry, but I made it clear that I was talking about public opinion of nearly the whole world and it is shown to be the case.  I never said the leadership of the countries.

its funny how the us always starts acting like the world police as soon as the can gain something out of it, may it be oil, new pipelines or whatever. i mean, bush & co earn bucks with every bomb they drop, his whole family has its money in weapon manufacturers.

in many other conflicts the us didnt give a shit, i suppose those countrys didnt have any oil to offer...

usa fightin iraq has nothin to do with balls, unless u think goliath had balls fighting vs david. the usa should watch their foreign politics and basically shut the fuck up and act like any other country of the western world, participate in the un and wait till the un made decisions.

usa is not the chosen country, and its not standing for the good people in the world. bush and his predecessors have killed much more civilians than bin laden and all terror networks combined. the rambos amongst u should read some michael moore and get peaceful. war cannot be the answer...

besides, fighting wars has been a constant factor in the american economy, their wealth is to a certain extend based on war...

and i believe bush uses war to make people forget what shitty politics he is doing in the country. he is just trying to put peoples focus on iraq.

and, america elected bush and deserves such a retard as a president, u can see in this forum alone that his brainwash seems to work on many people...

u little army boys, go to school, read books, watch discovery channel, do anything -  but dont stay deaf and blind. for the sake of world peace!