Two Things

[ClubDiggler]

Originally posted by chloe_cc2002@10 April 2003 - 23:56
um...the US does arrogate to itself the desire to do everything where it is convenient...go to www.hrw.org and check it out yourself.

On that note there is an excellent article I thought is worth reading titled "Give Iraqis Justice Not a US Puppet Show"....on the hrw.org page also...

Well, well, well......



I've never been an advocate of US foreign policy in every issue nor believe the US
has always been right.

Having said that; I must add that to argue that the US should not
get involved here just because it has not been involved in every single
inhumane act in the world is not valid. The US cannot do it all.

Regarding the article you describe. I thoght it made sense. The Iraqi Justice system may not be
the best equiped to handle this type of trial. Nevertheless they need a say in the matter!!!

[j2k4]

I see a problem developing here; a conflict between the utter necessity of doing it right, well, and comprehensively, and the "need" of the "peanut gallery" for us to fold our tent and go home.

I hereby cordially invite the latter to go F**K themselves-If you don't like how we (the coalition ) do what needs to be done, feel free to go to the U.N. and secure one of their wonderful resolutions, or go get a bigger, better coalition (remember all our "willing" members, too) and overpower us.

I recommend finding a nice comfy perch, some good snacks/refreshments and relaxing. We will let you know when the job is finished.

Remember-We are VERY arrogant, and we know what's best.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by zhelynd@10 April 2003 - 17:16
>>I'm sorry...When you clean your house, do you clean the whole house all at once?
>>Or do you set priorities?
>>Oh, I'm sorry.
>>Maybe you can afford 1000 cleaning ladies, all waiting for you to blow a whistle so they can start cleaning at them same time.
>>Maybe you prefer not to clean your house at all.
>>I mean, after all, it's not fair to clean the dishes if the bathroom is dirty.
>>And you can't clean the bathroom if the livingroom needs vaccuumed.
>>My appologies to you sir.

It's funny, I dont think it's appropreiate to refer to such global environment as "your own house", you are actually cleaning somebody else's house for a price, and obviously u won't clean the house where u won't get any returns. My point is simple, killing Saddam is more of an long term investment for the US. Primary objective of this war is oil, secondary objective maybe to establish a more strong US influence world wide, the well being of the Iraqis probably came in at third or forth.

And to hell with Congo, it has no military or economic significance in the world so US is probably gonna send in a few peacekeeping rangers and probably give the country some food. This is reality.

Mmmm...Well...you could be right...NOT!

We were trying do see the world your way, but some rats in the Middle Eastern room of this one small planetary home, of which I am a part, decided it would be a good idea to fly planes into three of the buildings in the USA wing.

They were taught that this was a good thing to do.
Just like Saddam's army was taught that killing civilians and trying to blame it on the enemy, or pushing children between you and the enemy so the enemy wouldn't shoot, was a good thing to do.

Do you believe thats a good thing to do?

How do you deal with rats?

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@11 April 2003 - 12:40
I agree that the UN needs to be re-organised, but that can only be done if all countries actually complie with the treaties, otherwise we might as well forget the whole concept...like we did with the League of Nations.

It has been said, the USA is the most powerful country in the world, and it has over half of the worlds GDP in its economy....if the USA wont abide by the treaties, why should anyone else? Because they say so?



I would disagree with this statement though....

Both were designed in a time when war was declared, there were no terrorists, (not in any organized sense, unless you counted the school bully and his gang of toadies), and two countries had just been foiled in their plans for world domination.

Just because the USA had not experianced terrorism, does not mean it was not around before September 11th.

Ask just about any other country in the world.....terrorism has been around for a long time, or is it only terrorism when its directed at USA?

My understanding, (this is based on memory and a lack of time to search for a link right now to coraborate it), is that terrorism is a product of the 70's that began to manifest itself more, in the 80's and 90's and reached epic proportions around the time Bush Jr. took office.

I never said it didn't exist until the US was attacked.
But when the UN and the Geneva Conventions came into existance, terrorism wasn't really a word that was much used.

[chloe_cc2002]

Carlos the Jackal was known as one of the first 'terrorists'.

There are other examples.

Anyway, under the present definition of terrorism, at least legally I think that it pre-dates even Carlos.

[tracydani]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@11 April 2003 - 12:07


Traci,

I'm not sure who you were replying to but just as a side note, I wanted to be sure you were aware that the UN was a US idea.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm

I was replying to z in the post before mine.

I am out for most of the next couple of days but will check out your links when I get back tonight.

I had heard that the UN was a US idea, but I think the idea is a good one. It just needs to change and not assume that the charter members(if those are the few who have the voting majority(as far as veto power and such)) know all and can decide between themselves the fate of the world.

Each country needs an equal vote.

I am pretty embarrassed at how the US has supported(or not) the UN. It has been a few years since I first heard the we don't pay our dues to the UN, and now we actively go against the UN's wishes.

I really can't see how anyone can support/justify the war we are in if it goes against UN(and by default the worlds) wishes.
For myself, I support the need for the war as I have said, but only with UN backing. Now for me it doesn't matter if they find 10 times more then expected of the WMD. It will not justify, after the fact, that we have done what we have.

And I belive that a large portion of the world thinks the same way. That is why I have asked will Saddam win in the end. Unless the world does look the other way, we may soon lose the bigger war.

[soopaman]

Originally posted by chloe_cc2002@12 April 2003 - 02:52
Carlos the Jackal was known as one of the first 'terrorists'.

There are other examples.

Anyway, under the present definition of terrorism, at least legally I think that it pre-dates even Carlos.

I think Terrorism goes back way before Carlos The Jackal. Terrorism is a tactic to instill fear in a population. Variations of which are as old as civilization. Check this for more info:

http://www.terrorismfiles.org/encyclopaedi..._terrorism.html


Hope you find this of help.

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by soopaman+12 April 2003 - 03:45--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (soopaman @ 12 April 2003 - 03:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--chloe_cc2002@12 April 2003 - 02:52
Carlos the Jackal was known as one of the first &#39;terrorists&#39;.

There are other examples.

Anyway, under the present definition of terrorism, at least legally I think that it pre-dates even Carlos.

I think Terrorism goes back way before Carlos The Jackal. Terrorism is a tactic to instill fear in a population. Variations of which are as old as civilization. Check this for more info:

http://www.terrorismfiles.org/encyclopaedi..._terrorism.html


Hope you find this of help. [/b][/quote]
Thats a good link. Thanks.

My point, though, was that although it existed prior to the 70&#39;s, it was not common.

And I don&#39;t personally consider the activities of the KKK to be terrorist acts.

They were a bunch of morons in white sheets who thought the way to save the world was to kill everyone that did not share their view.


Hmmm...Ok...They were terrorists.

Terrorism only really became a worldwide organization within the past couple of decades.

Now terrorism can destroy or control whole countries.

The UN proved its inadiquacies to deal with this real threat when it refused to deal with a known terrorist sponsor, Saddam&#39;s Regime.

And, the fact that one small country can veto a UN majority vote, I&#39;m sorry but thats just wrong.

What if that one small country was under terrorist control?

Peace

edited to make one sentence more readable to a wider audience.

[ClubDiggler]

Originally posted by tracydani+12 April 2003 - 09:06--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tracydani @ 12 April 2003 - 09:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ne1GotZardoz@11 April 2003 - 12:07


Traci,

I&#39;m not sure who you were replying to but just as a side note, I wanted to be sure you were aware that the UN was a US idea.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm

I was replying to z in the post before mine.

I am out for most of the next couple of days but will check out your links when I get back tonight.

I had heard that the UN was a US idea, but I think the idea is a good one. It just needs to change and not assume that the charter members(if those are the few who have the voting majority(as far as veto power and such)) know all and can decide between themselves the fate of the world.

Each country needs an equal vote.

I am pretty embarrassed at how the US has supported(or not) the UN. It has been a few years since I first heard the we don&#39;t pay our dues to the UN, and now we actively go against the UN&#39;s wishes.

I really can&#39;t see how anyone can support/justify the war we are in if it goes against UN(and by default the worlds) wishes.
For myself, I support the need for the war as I have said, but only with UN backing. Now for me it doesn&#39;t matter if they find 10 times more then expected of the WMD. It will not justify, after the fact, that we have done what we have.

And I belive that a large portion of the world thinks the same way. That is why I have asked will Saddam win in the end. Unless the world does look the other way, we may soon lose the bigger war. [/b][/quote]
I am not sure if you are pro or anti veto power. I lost you a little
with the double parenthesis. Anyway I think veto power must be
abolished. The large majority should decide.

You said you support the need for war, but as long as the proper
precedure is followed.

So if the UN was to decide &#39;Never to go to war with the Iraqi regime&#39;
I guess you would be OK with that too right?

So to take it a step further; you would let the Iraqi people continue to
suffer and allow Saddam to build a larger reserve of weapons for the sake
of procedural preservation&#33;

Please correct me if I am wrong; I am just trying to understand&#33;

[ClubDiggler]

missprint.