Proof Iraq needs to be dealt with!!!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by train, Sep 21, 2002.

  1. train The Wildcard!!!...

    The rest of the article goes into how the Pentagon gave Bush plans for war, so I didn't see it as important...

    This is all we need to get going, France and Russia were waiting for the U.N. resolutions, and Iraq opened it's big mouth... Hopefully France and Russia will now come around to join the U.S. and British push for some serious action.
  2. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    You know, I can see the Russians coming to our side - they need a customer for all that oil they want to sell...as for the French... dunno. They always have a tendency to hate everything we do...

    -Ferret

    "...except Jerry Lewis, of course...":D
  3. Ura Feline Lord of the Pit

    So this is enough reason to invade a foreign country and go to war?
    I guess this means the world has to destroy the U.S. because of all the U.N. resolutions its rejected or veto'd. Or how about for all the transfer payments the U.S. supposedly owes to the U.N. but hasn't paid because the U.N. refuses to act as a total puppet for the U.S.
    In fact, I don't think there would be many countries left in the world if everyone just ganged up and attacked them because they rejected a U.N. resolution.
    Considering all the sber rattling and agressive behavior coming from the U.S. government lately I'd say they're more dangerous than psycho Saddam, especially with the new "first strike" policy Dubbya recently put through. They're quickly becoming the international "good guy" gestapo.
  4. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    At times I wonder why we have the United Nations. It never accomplishes anything. I think the only reason that it exists so that the US can use it as a tool to keep an eye on their rivals.

    With the Cold War over, there really isn't anything to stop us from acting just like the old Soviet Union in the 70's...

    -Ferret

    "...ever see Canadian Bacon?"
  5. TomB Administrative Assistant

    I still remember a time, not all that long ago, when the UN was anything but a tool for the US. For many years the UN was the soapbox from which the radicals of the world spoke out against our policies, which is what makes it even more ironic now when we use the same "tool" against them.

    Pretty funny, eh?

    Or not. I actually thought it was fairly hypocritical when the US got the UN to back the Desert Storm conflict a decade ago, since we hadn't really listened to any of their dictates for quite some time before that, and while I'm not surprised at the world's outrage over the WTC massacre I've yet to see any concrete proof of a connection between Saddam Hussein and bin Laden. I think, more than anything else, as has been stated elsewhere, this is just Dubya trying to finish what his dad started to do in Desert Storm and decided not to complete (for whatever reason) by eliminating Hussein.

    Under the guise of enforcing a UN resolution...

    Ura, like it or not we are the international "good guy" gestapo, and any attempt to shirk that responsibility tends to be met with stern reproach. Actually, either way the US is usually found to be at fault - when we enter conflicts were bad guys for sticking our noses in, and when we try to stay out we're being isolationist in our policies.

    It's a "Catch-22" kind of thing...
  6. train The Wildcard!!!...

    If Bush is finishing Dady's work, for whatever reason, so be it... It should be completed by someone... doesn't matter who...

    As for The U.S. using the U.N., They're only puppets until they cut the strings... What they're afraid of is being a League of Nations... that's why they may seem to be pushed around.

    What we should think about when a nation refuses U.N. resolutions is the fact that the U.N. resolution is already a much weaker position than we(U.S.) would take, so if they won't make the U.N. happy - they must be up to something...

    That's when they need to be dealt with - before they can actually do anything.
  7. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Of course. It's better to be proactive than reactive. In all honesty, no one wants to see another 9/11. This is a given. But, just invading a country is not the way to do it. The best way is too seize their assets to prevent any future terrorist activities.

    The real problem is that we fear Iraq getting nuclear capabilities. We worry that if they have 'The Bomb' they'll use it on our supposed allies. Lots of countries have had nukes in the past and we never did a thing about them. Perhaps, this is about Kuwait. But, then again, other countries invaded and we never didn't lift a finger to help.

    Sure, we're the 'Good Guys' - like Chuckie from Child's Play.

    -Ferret

    "...not like Chuckie from the Tampa Bay Bucs..."
  8. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Wonderful trilogy with an occult following... Bride of Chucky was just a little weird...
  9. Ura Feline Lord of the Pit

    TomB:
    To an extent it still very much is that soapbox as it's still pretty much the only safe place for those 'radicals' to voice their opinion and have it heard by leaders of almost every other country in the world. Its like the WWF and a media circus in one little bundle. It can be highly effective when it works, but unfortunatly has been plauged in recent years with accusations of backroom dealings and espionage. Something that has even been kept very quiet in the media.

    I have nothing wrong with the U.S. taking on the responsibility of being the world police, but there is a wrong way and a better way to act on that responsibility, and personally I think that the U.S. government picks the wrong way more often then not when it comes to situations like this. The U.S. certainly shouldn't just ignore things and keep its nose out, but it does need to learn just how much to stick its nose in and how. Try to be more like the Lone Ranger rather then the Gestapo. Its a big ideal I know, but the U.S. of all countries in the world should have the ability to do it.

    Train:
    Actually the U.S. knows it needs to stay in the U.N. just as much and the U.N. needs it. For differing reasons though. For the U.S. the U.N. is sometimes the only diplomatic communication and way to keep tabs on places that pretty much hate or at least dislike the U.S. without raising suspicions. It also knows that it needs to stay in to maintain the balance that keep the other major groups in the U.N. from getting an edge over them such as the British Commonwealth countries (well known for sticking together,) or China. The U.N. likewise needs the U.S. to make its policies more enforcable and have a better influence behind them. The problem is that the U.S. is one of the largest rejectors of various U.N. resolutions and rarely decides to play with the team unless its trying get the team to do something it wants.

    So does this mean the U.S. will "invade" itself and wipe itself off the map only to replace its own government with a puppet government that will report to no one because the original government is gone? Or should I just rip the U.S. section out of my atlas because its going to nuke itself off the planet?
    I mean really, with talk like that you're either in denial of that crap the U.S. stirs up, you just think it should apply to everyone but the U.S., or you would also like that policy enforced against your own country whatever the ends.
    The U.S. is almost always "up to something" but there is rarely anyone thats going to stop them.

    I certainly believe there should be some real active enforcement, but I also think those rules should apply to everyone equally, not just to those we brand a radical dictator, a tyrant, or a terrorist.
  10. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    I like your plead for equality, but we all know that this cannot happen in a world where people have different government types, different skin tones, and different languages. As long as there are these silly barriers the US will spit on everyone else...

    Why can't we be more like the Canadians? They like everyone...

    -Ferret

    "...except for those guys in Quebec - can't they learn English?:D "
  11. Ura Feline Lord of the Pit

    Ferret:
    This is most certainly the truth of the state of the world. An unfortunate side effect of being human today. :(

    LOL! :D
  12. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Ferret:
    This is actually a bit harder than it looks. It's been shown that Al-Queda has been transferring their assets into gold and other "untraceable" currency to prevent account freezes and whatnot...
  13. train The Wildcard!!!...

    I believe in one thing - If we can't back up the bark, which we can, we shouldn't think of doing so. If we bark and the U.N. or anyone else doesn't like it - they may say something, but they leave us alone for a reason, we can back it up...

    The U.S. is probably the fore-runner in stirring up crap... But we carry a big stick, bunches of them, all rocket powered and computer aimed... Does that give us the right, no. But we do it anyway...
  14. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Seizing assets is easy. If we cannot re-rout them through banks, steal it from their vaults....

    -Ferret

    "...dishonesty is the SECOND-best policy!"
  15. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Take it from their vaults? What vaults? The ones buried beneath tons of rubble in Afghanistan? Or the ones being carried around by the Al-Queda members, which I noticed haven't exactly been stamped into the ground?

    :)
  16. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    No, the ones in Saudi Arabia - Bin Laden's home country...

    -Ferret

    "greed is good!"
  17. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    What does Saudi Arabia, the country that disowned bin Laden and cooperating with the US, have to do with his assets? If he had his assets there, you can be sure they'd been frozen by now (which some may have).

    It's been reported that he and Al-Queda have converted to gold and other transportable currency and could be moving back to Sudan since he was set up there before Afghanistan. The US could deal with Sudan, but gold is pretty hard to track down and "freeze" :)
  18. Ura Feline Lord of the Pit

    The only way to counteract using gold for instance as currency is to either A) raid everything and everyone comfiscating everything from bricks to your mama's dentures if they have gold in them, or B) flood the international market from federal gold reserves to devalue it.
    Both options really suck and aren't that feasable
  19. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I also seriously doubt that all or the majority of the gold is in one central place. It's probably scattered among the various groups and cells spread out in the world.

Share This Page