War on Iraq: Bush is gettin pwned

[BTs_Colin]

Do I need to say it again?

If the UN was smart they'd get the US the hell outta the Gulf and ask them to provide money/tactical support to other UN countries that would undertake the actual fighting. It's not America's war if its actually a violation of UN accord. It's every UN countries war.

UN = UNITED NATIONS! As in everyone united.

Now all you pacifist Euro countries should remember your roots and get out there!!! I wanna see some GG pwnage.

[kami]

What is so wrong about being a pacifist? To think that war is a thing of evil and that peace is the only right way? It might not work in all situations but it's a good philosophy nonetheless.
Colin, you just want some nice war footage, huh? Why don't you go watch an action flick in that case?
A big part of the argument is how to interpret the 1441. If they really broke it or not, the US has already decided but the UN decision is still pending. I will support any decision the UN makes because everything the UN decides is decided by all the members together.
I'm not sure I agree with this completely but anyway: Thinking that the UN is bad is like thinking democracy is bad because it's too slow and unefficient.

[BTs_Colin]

Probably shoulda put in a smiley.



Theres a few to make up for it.

Seriously I just got sick of  this the first time this thread was active. We will honestly just have to wait and see what happens.

Of course US foreign policy is always debated. It always will be.

I just sometimes think it's hard for Bush to see reality for his 10 gallon hat.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

What is so wrong about being a pacifist? To think that war is a thing of evil and that peace is the only right way? It might not work in all situations but it's a good philosophy nonetheless.

Kami, you said it yourself.  The thing that's wrong with thinking peace is the only right way is that it doesn't work in all situations.  Think that over.  Thinking that peace is the ONLY right way, when knowing it doesn't work in ALL situations is the flaw that I've been talking about.

It's PEACE AT ANY PRICE that's wrong.  

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to find the peaceful way or trying to find a way to avoid war.  Only a fool would disagree with that.  But only a fool would sit back and let his life or liberties  be snuffed out because he wouldn't raise a hand to stop it.  Ideals are great, but not practical.  Do I respect the comittment of some pacificsts, yep.  Do I respect their beliefs, for the most part.  Do I think that the ones that are fanatical about it in the face of evil are fools, yep, that too.

That doesn't seem to apply to you, but you get what I mean?

Thinking that the UN is bad is like thinking democracy is bad because it's too slow and unefficient.

That is one of the down sides to democracy.  Nothing is perfect.  It doesn't mean it shouldn't be improved.  Both the UN and the American Republic (not democracy) could stand many improvements.  So, there shouldn't be anything wrong with bitching about how long it's taking the UN.  The longer they take, the worse things could get.  I mean, some of this shit has been going on for 10 years.  Is it really unreasonable to expect quicker action from them?

[kami]

Of course peace isn't always possible but I think it should be on every man's agenda to try and achieve peace. I just find it distasteful to use the word pacifist as a curse.

When many countries have different opinions, it takes time, same as in a normal democracy but on a bigger scale, of course waiting 10 yrs is not ok but what can you do about it?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Well, you could say "get off the pot or I'm going to go in and do it myself", which is pretty much what the USA government has said.  And will most likely do if the UN doesn't.  (and expect half a dozen other countries there as well, even without UN support, if it comes to it).

Like I said early on, the USA doesn't have to have UN permission to declare war, they can do that all alone.  It's just better to have it.

[Cossack]

Hmmm I want to take a look at the countries that support the war. Ehem I will start:
                                  Estonia
                                  Latvia
                                  Lithuania
                                  Poland
                                  Slovakia
                                  Czech Republic
                                  Slovenia
                                  Romania
                                  Bulgaria

Now someone who knows history, tell me what these countries all have in common. They are all former communist countries, what do these countries want? Membership into the EU and NATO. They are going to get into NATO by sucking up to the United States, the big dog. Its a simple political manuver. You think Bulgaria is actually gonna send troops to the Gulf? Spain is an exception and I have no clue why they are pro-war. I'll read into it later.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Cossack, why did you leave out countries already in NATO that support it (besides Spain)?  The UK and Canadian government said they'd support the US, so have a few others in NATO (I need to look them up as well, because I'll say somthing stupid like Norway and be wrong off the top of my head).

While still others in NATO say yes, but they want to give the UN more time.  

You make it sound like America is standing alone, instead of just out front.

[abe]

cossack
spain, portugal, the UK and italy are all exceptions. germany and france (nobody cares about the stupid belgians) are the real exceptions in this situation, because they are stubornly refusing to come to turkey's defense and are threatening to alienate our most important muslim ally. what kind of message does it send to
turkey if, instead of coming to it's aid in time need, we simply turn our backs on the only true bridge between the arab world and europe/ the west and the islamic world we have? the way these countries are threatening to undermine NATOs credibility is sad and i only hope they will change their minds. for nato to work, all members have to come the defense of another member, without asking questions or holding long meeting. otherwise, the purpose of the nato mutual defence pact will be defeated and we could simply arrange ad-hoc alliances with freindly states at our convenience.
true, those eastern european governments are all trying to suck yankee cock and don't really care how unconvincing colin powells evidence might be. but you can't blame them for wanting to be on the winning side, for once (ie US), and not the Soviet Union's. i dont think bulgaria will send any troops, but why would they....they arent even in NATO. the czech republic, poland and hungary are however, and i think there is a very good chance they will send troops and equipment (mostly to support US and UK combat troops).

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Much of our domestic policy extands to the global stage so how about this:


IN the USA we operate on one judicial platform :INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY so why is it that I hear that Iraq has to prove its INNOCENCE? it doesnt make sense I mean we have nothing more then a hunch that they have weapons and it tingles our spine so that we think we have proof which we dont and we are now prepared to carry out the death penelty WHY it makes NO SENSE.

[kami]

Germany and France (and Belgium, and no it's not unimportant, no countries are unimportant) doesn't want to support Turkey at this time because they think it might give the message that the war has already started. Turkey is in no need to defend itself anyway.

[abe]

way to be shortsighted kami,
the US and the UK are likely to be going to war within the next two months. if we are going to move heavy equipment like Patriot SAM missles etc. for turkeys defemse there is no point in doing when the war starts, because by the time the stuff gets there, the war will pretty much be over.

and zaitzev, this is the same point you bring up all the time about saddam being innocent etc. and everytime people tell you the same thing: SADDAM IS ALL BUT innocent. he is a parolee and the parole officer (UN) has been slacking....

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Well, I could Bucc Bucc and point out every slightly flawed detail in his post, but I think if you view the large picture, we're all essentially in agreement.  But Bucc. . .lay off Bander at least a little.  Can you say "depleted uranium" properly in your second language?  

And I think most of the American stereotypes he mentioned were justified. . .afterall, they are just that.  They don't have to apply to everyone (or even everyone on this board) to be true.  When you look at MOST of the people in this country (to use another stereotype, the one's who support bush ) they really are hamburger loving airheads.

But I will take issue with Pyrex's idea that Hussein is a threat of equal to Hitler.  Yes, when Europe ignored germany after WWI they allowed Hitler to build a huge army and assemble massive power.  However, Hussein is tightly watched, he's economically sanctioned, and he keeps to himself.  In truth he's no longer a real threat to anyone except himself and his own country, and that's not really another nation's business.

Also Bucc, tasty is right in that the United States is still the only nation every to have used nuclear weapons against an enemy, and one of very few ever to have used chemical and biological agents.

Hmm, it seems that back at the start of this post Bucc was acting like Bucc and was doing his usual act but wasn't really being straight about it and so he was being chided by loudnotes about it.  Maybe it isn't just my paranoid mind seeing Bucc do this wrongly.

[Cossack]

My last post didnt mean to show that US was standing alone. I worded it badly. I meant to show you that these eastern european countries are probablly just sucking cock to get into NATO. You also forgot Russia being in NATO (to a degree). My news is a bit outdated seeing as I dont have cable and only have access to local news. Forgive me if I dont notice something. Tell me do they support war right now how it is, or when they have more credible evidence?

Also could you give me a list to where I could find the countries that are pro-war or not? I cant seem to find one.

[*DAMN Bander]

@Abe:


Abe: Eigentlich recht cooles posting. Naja, ?ber EINIGEs k?nnt ich jetzt wieder mit dir streiten aber im grossen und ganzen akzeptier ich eh deine meinung. (wtf: neuen diktator installieren? wie w?rs denn bitte mit demokratier? ah geht ja net, weil wir ja bl?derweise alle oppositionellen iraker schon von saddam t?ten haben lassen. naja halt a neuer diktator her. das ist arsch mann.

Kosovo also had benefits to the U.S.:

For excemple some of the biggest "european" U.S. bases who are now located in (still devastated) bosnia.

And hell yeah i am not saying everyithing u do is shiat (like that uranium ammunition). Lets say i respect your opinion for a basic fact: u obvously take some time to think about what someone has posted.

und sorry die beleidigungen. aber da hatte ich gerade kamis "islam analyse" gelesen und die war so derartig schwachsinning dass ich mir gedacht habe die spinnen einfach alle. is ehhhh wurscht was k?nnen wir schon machen? aber ich wett mit dir - der irak ist dran. wurscht wieviel geredet wird. bush hat schon beschlossen. die saudis sitzen auf nem wackeligen sessel: at last most of the 9/11 terrorists AND osama himself are from Saudi Arabia. I dont think these relations are to be called "friendly".

servas Abe ~

[Cossack]

Seems like these countries are in favor of protecting Turkey from Iraq if they are attacked, that seems to be the main subject. I am dissapointed in France, Germany, and Belgium for not sending troops into Turkey. After all they have published a concern with viable reasoning.

[abe]

wurscht wieviel geredet wird. bush hat schon beschlossen

da bin ich mit dir 100 prozent einverstanden. bush will einen krieg. glaubst du aber nicht auch, dass saddam diesen krieg nicht verhindern koennte? es gibt genug laender in europa die ihm eine zweite (eher funf hundertste wenn du mich fragst) chance geben wollen und wenn er ernsthaft mit der UNO kooperiert (etwas was er bisher nie getan hat) koennten die Amerikaner nicht viel tuen. aber wie kann man einen man wie saddam, ohne gewalt oder zumindents die drohung der gewalt, zwingen mit der UNO mitzumachen.

i dont know if i would qualify the US bases in kosovo and bosnia as assets. in fact, americans are generally very much against UN/NATO peacekeeping, so that these troop commitments in the balkans are more of a liability. besides, the US has bases in hungary, poland and the czech republic now that they are in NATO. bases there are just as good as bases in former yugoslavia.

the problem with installing a democratic regime in iraq right away is not so much that the opposition and future potential leadership has been killed off, imo, but that iraq has never had fair elections and that there is no democratic culture or civil society in that country. if we held elections there tomorrow, people would probably vote along family, tribal and ethnic lines, rather than on the issues, which will create a joke of a government. i think a semi-democratic ruler like Karzai is what is needed in Iraq and i have a feeling that that is what will happen. on a more sinister note, i heard about a plan of the US military to run the public admistration in iraq. this would be disasterous!! then again, i dont know if this is true or just speculation.

ich verstehe, dass du es nicht gerne hast wenn leute uninformierte beitraege zum thema afghanistan oder islam machen. das gleiche funktioniet aber auch umgekehrt: ich habe es nicht gern wenn leute die gleiche art von dumbheiten ueber amerika ausspucken. ich bin mir selber aller probleme der amerikanischen gesellschaft durchaus bewusst (feuerwaffen, ungesundes essen, beschissenes schul system etc). aber das ist nicht alles was es dort gibt, wie du selber geagt hast. und erzaehl mir bitte nicht, dass oesterreich perfect ist.....ich hab auch dort gelebt (wien) und es gibt dort genauso viele spiesser und dumme leute wie in amerika. und danke,uebrigens, das du mich enlich ernst nimmst......und auch nochmal sorry von mir, wenn ich dich auch etwas beleidigt hab.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Hmm, it seems that back at the start of this post Bucc was acting like Bucc and was doing his usual act but wasn't really being straight about it and so he was being chided by loudnotes about it.  Maybe it isn't just my paranoid mind seeing Bucc do this wrongly.

Hmm, seems that the only chiding that Loud gave me was to try to forgive a possible translation error of Banders.  When he said he could "Bucc" me, that's not chiding.  To be chiding, it would have to be something bad.  I don't consider him picking apart my post bad at all.

You'll also notice he said overall, we were on the same page.

Not a very strong example there Bondo.

Much of our domestic policy extands to the global stage so how about this:


IN the USA we operate on one judicial platform :INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY so why is it that I hear that Iraq has to prove its INNOCENCE? it doesnt make sense I mean we have nothing more then a hunch that they have weapons and it tingles our spine so that we think we have proof which we dont and we are now prepared to carry out the death penelty WHY it makes NO SENSE.

Zaitsev, since it's been said at least a dozen times (half those by me), I have to believe that you just don't fucking bother to read answers to your own questions.  And Bondo wonders why I insult you?  Read before you keep repeating yourself!

IRAQ AGREED TO PROVE THESE THINGS AS PART OF THE PEACE SETTLEMENT AFTER THE GULF WAR.  IN OVER 10 YEARS, THEY STILL HAVEN'T.  

If you read back a little you will find more detail, including the resolution number and everything.  It's all back there.  Please read it.  Then take into consideration the PAROLE example I gave you a while back.  You know about Parole right?  Where you have been proven guilty, and you have agreed to have restriced rights?  Since Saddam admitted guilt and agreed to these conditions, that analogy is much more fitting.

Now, what part of that doesn't make sense to you?

Turkey is in no need to defend itself anyway.

Kami, this was to start PLANNING for defense.  Not to actually start preperations.  This wouldn't have involved the moving of any men or weapons into Turkey, just the discussion of what would be needed and by whom if it came to that.  These talkes are what France, Belgium and Germany veto'd.  That's what I find aweful.  If it were the actual preperations, I could at least see their point (and possibly even agree with it).

Cossack, no worries man.  The BBC web site had a good article a few days ago on where many of the nations stood.  And Yes, while I wasn't taking those former eastern block countries into my argument, I agree that they probably are doing much sucking up to get their foot into NATO as well.

[Cossack]

Either way, we are going to see a large amount of protests. Hell the war hasnt started and we already have them. We may have some European governments in our favor but we dont have their populations.
Another reason I think NATO is not getting into Iraq, is because it is a defense orginization. US is attacking Iraq. I happen to think alliances are evil myself, but it is not stated in NATO that you have to help eachother in offensive actions. I am drunk and my post probablly dosent make sense. I think I am delirious.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Yeah Cossack, not get on GR and NetFone.

The NATO part is about Turkey more then anything else right now.  And Turkey is talking about defense in case they are invaded by Iraq.  Think it likely or not, that's still the case, and France and Germany (and not to leave out Belgium) are being asses for not holding up thier end of it and talking about it like they should.