the UN

[Cloud No.9]

the un can't have stood aside at rwanda. the countries in the un stood aside with rwanda. that includes the us.

iraq had two main goals after th first gulf war. to keep power and not be bombed and invaded. to appear powerful a nice few nukes will do that. but not allowed them. so what you can do is appear like you have them while showing that you have destroyed them. their neighbours aren't going to invde becausr they think they have weapons while the un is content because it has seen what it needs to.

alleged means the us claims it and iran denies it and there is no conrete proof to prove it.

on the contrary to feeding and defending the world many world argue you starve, control and imperialise the world and only defending and feeding when it sees fit.

9-11 was a concequence of american actions. 9-11 didn't happen because a few got bored one morning and there was no good tv on and they fancied a good chuckle. they choose one country, one set of buildings with one aim and one motive.

[War Angel]

9-11 was a concequence of american actions.

911 was a result of hatred towards the Western world, its way of thinking, ideaology, and actions. The United States stand at the spear-head of the Western world, with its powerful economy, influencial media and cultural icons and norms. The Islamic terrorists despise those signs and symbols, and sought to harm and damage them - and they did so on the eleventh of September, 2001. The events of that day were NOT acts of retaliation or any sort of a counter-attack or counter-measures - it was a display of prowess, audacity, hatred, and an open decleration of war.

[The Redneck]

the un can't have stood aside at rwanda. the countries in the un stood aside with rwanda. that includes the us.

The UN did stand aside at Rwanda, among other things. The leader of the General Assembly ordered them to deliberately stand aside and allow the slaughter. This was not, in any way, shape, or form, a decision of the US.

iraq had two main goals after th first gulf war. to keep power and not be bombed and invaded. to appear powerful a nice few nukes will do that. but not allowed them. so what you can do is appear like you have them while showing that you have destroyed them.

So you're telling me that Sodom obeyed the resolutions, but just pretended that he hadn't?

alleged means the us claims it and iran denies it and there is no conrete proof to prove it.

And when they say flat-out that they're going forward with it? How much evidence do you need--are you looking to see Manhattan under a mushroom cloud instead of underwater?

on the contrary to feeding and defending the world many world argue you starve, control and imperialise the world and only defending and feeding when it sees fit.

And those people are mighty short on evidence. Meanwhile, who does everybody run to when there's a disaster?

-11 was a concequence of american actions.

Yup--as Al-Quaeda's "Prince" in Iraq, Al-Zarqawi, appointed to his position by bin Laden, says, "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," And ""Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion... [qhich is] against the rule of God."

If only we would have nationwide forced-conversion to islam, stick all our women in hajibs or abiyahs or burkhas or whatever else they're called (except the ones we stone to death), abolish democracy, and help them kill Jews, they would become our best buddies...

The United States should not only leave the UN, but form a different organization. Iraq and Afghanistan, now that they're free nations, Israel, Taiwan, Austrailia, and the Eastern European nations freed by Ronaldus Maximus. An organization in which democratic countries can work for common goals and against common enemies, rather than paying our money into an organization intent on dragging us down to the level of the lowest common denominator.

[Cloud No.9]

it looks that way with sadamma really seeing that he never denied yet but noone found anything. chances are they never found anything because he never had any or........ as you would have me believe he made some top secret ultra hidden diding place for all his weapons programs. had no intention of using them. but hid them all stowed away in the middles of the desert as a handy paper weight.

you're link about iran actually proves me correct. having a nuclear program is not a crime. they have a nuclear program which is no big deal. kinda need one to have nuclear power. they dent any nuclear weapons. the un says the have nuclear weapons. the only person that think they have nuclear weapons is america and isreal. and so to deal witht he problem the want to stamp anpther muslim country into the ground. which is why maybe the muslim world hate you so much.

you don't feed africa. your bank charge huge interest rates to starve the people to death. you stand back in sudan, in burma, in zimbabwe, in korea, in ethiopia. you just called yourself the defender of humanity so explain to me why these countries have not warranted your attention.

the jihad against america is not based on religion. hence why they've never bothered bombing france, sweden, norway, italy. they bomb you out of all the countries in the world because of the things you have done.

[DocFrance]

You know, saying that the WTC attacks were a result of America's actions is like saying a person was mugged because he had too much money.

[Cloud No.9]

actually it's like saying going up and punching men in bars/pubs is going to end up with you having a beer bottle in your face.

[The Captain]

"you don't feed africa. your bank charge huge interest rates to starve the people to death. you stand back in sudan, in burma, in zimbabwe, in korea, in ethiopia. you just called yourself the defender of humanity so explain to me why these countries have not warranted your attention."

That in essence, was my point in that no country exists right now that can claim moral superiority to another since all of us were guilty of turning the other way when millions were being slaughtered, and still are in fact.

Take care all.

[ShunNakamura]

Simply put not even the super power of the world can be everywhere at once... infact we haven't even solved our problems at home..

You know I wouldn't try to force a company to sell to me when they are having problems... it is likely to be a subpar product.

Yet the US is demanded upon, the US does what it can.. but you can't do everything, and everyone and everycountry has lapses of thought. I am certian that the people during the cold war really thought that communism was a threat large enough to warrant what was done then, though in hindsight we can find some/several mistakes.

Hindsight may be 20/20 but regularly we don't see so well.

So why doesn't swedan take up the burden of protecting the world? yes they aren't as powerful, but overall they probably have a similar chance of acheiving it as the US.

Also keep in mind few countries these days seem willing to cooperate with the US. If you won't cooperate with the US why should the US cooperate back?

From what I have read and heard the US has been willing to take many compromises... but yet other countries give up little... how can that be? A marriage won't work htat way unless you have an amable partner.. but the US isn't amable.

The UN has problems... the Countries in it(including the US) have problems, and very few will see eye to eye, or will compromise. So we are at the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" stage.. and that won't accomplish much in diplomacy.. not quite the same as war.

[The Captain]

"Simply put not even the super power of the world can be everywhere at once... infact we haven't even solved our problems at home.."

That may be true, but the question still is, why Iraq and not Sudan or Rwanda or South America or Central America? That's what bothers me, that we went into Iraq under less than ideal circumstances when many more obvious places were calling for help.

Take care all.

[Cloud No.9]

it isn't about time, resources or money. saving africa from debt could be done with the simple swipe with a pen and would cost about the same as invading another middle eastern country or destroying another multi-lateral community.

what comprmises has america taken recently? kyoto? nuclear non-proliferation? hans blinx? war cirmes court? human rights and war crimes? i see very little compromise when it comes to amercan policy.

it seesm with so little compromise and so much destruction it is little wonder countries will not cooperate with america.

the un though right now does need to be slimmed down, not in countries but in how it operates. get rid of the vetos for a start. though only to have caused a problem once in serbia (france never got to use it before the iraq war) it is something that needs to be ended. perhaps a greater representation of countries at the security council as well but with a smaller mandate. this is slowly happening but the un needs to be rebuilt before it is useful. i hate to admit it but it requires the worlds most powerful nation to be with it not undermining it constantly or jumping in head first. the us needs to be in the un to make it work successfully

what needs to happen now is for american to come back into the arms of the un so we can get started back on creating a better world for everyone not just for the richest and most powerful in this world. the sooner that happens the quicker and more effecient things get done.

[ShunNakamura]

Well I wasn't trying to advocate that we should just junk the un.. It needs fixed... before then it is useless. And unfortuneatly.. any changes, reasonable or no, will be viewed suspicious if the USA tries to push it. Perhaps another country can try? if not then the USA will have to go through with fixing it.. however it is viewed best fixed.. if that means complete rebuilding(3rd times a charm) like we did from the League of Nations to the United Nations.. then so be it.

[lordblazer]

WEll intelectually and morally cloud your right.But in real life.This will never happen.There will always be wars and even after america isnt a super power.There will be wars fought for many reasons.There will be conflict.Countries will always argue and bicker.As far as i can see.We need to shut down our space programs due to the fact that we can barely get along with people of our own species.Yeah sure if some outside force comes and invades we will become one but thats only when we fend off the invasion.Once that happens i think more bull between our own kind will come.The UN was a lot bettter than the league of nations because the UN actually tries to enforced there treaties.But treaties are useless.

[ShunNakamura]

It was asked why Iraq in this thread here is a quote of why.

And there were reasons to attack Iraq over other targets. My disaggrement with the war is more to deal with timing and handling rather then where and whether it happened.

-Iraq was weak

good way to stretch our military muscles, not to mention we could aviod the mass civilian casalties that seem to occur in bigger wars.

However if we were just looking for a weak country ot attack, well africa also could use the help we are delievering to the Iraqi's, perhaps moreso.

-Iraq is well placed.

Iraq's location is good for future assults into the countries that abuse thier peoples(after all the US should focus on Helping people.. so we are). Africa would be well placed only to help other Africans, Iraq is in the middle, we can help the ME and the Africans.. imagine that.

-Sadam is well known.

This helps get our message accross. Talking out a ruler who is well known for his abuse and atrocities will tell everyone that we mean buisness. Afterall, when you think abusive ruler many people would have said Sadam or Iraq a while ago... or at least at my school that is what happened.



All are good reason for Iraq.

Korea isn't well placed, even if they had publicity before the war. However they also may have caused massive casulties... which wouldn't be good. so Iraq was an obvious choice.. we just mismanaged some of it and attacked to early, IMO.

If we were going to fight a war against any kind of mistreatment of people Iraq is a good place to start. However I do think things need solved at home.. but right now that needs to be done with reasearch.. before that is redirected, so we can find what is wrong, throwing money won't help. Thus we can throw money at war.. just wish the government would worry about fixing itself a bit more.

[lordblazer]

Iraq is a bad palce to start.first of all it was all about the oil.Second of all the president lied to the people yet the people so so dang stupid to re-elect him.I mean why do people let families dynasties get set up in the political world.

[ShunNakamura]

Well I coudl care less for the real reason. But the points above were good points. Although the downside is that Iraq has oil.. and we have an oil guy in power.. meh... I don't let that concern me much.. Bush may be doing it for the oil(though I hear debate on that), however there are other viable reason for it, even if Bush didn't consider those.

And yeah.. I am anti-Bush and so was my school district.. or was it anit Kerry.. what ever it was, it was close.. like 51% to 49% cloes.