UN Passes Iraq Resolution

[Guest EricMM]

So you don't believe that they have nukes?

 

And you'd rather see the brutal dictatorships stay up?

 

Take offense with them setting them up, register to vote and don't let it happen again, but don't complain when bad people do good things.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

I don't believe Iraq has nukes. They've been the most watched country for over a decade, and have had any such materials confiscated from them for years. Even if they had the materials, all previous attempts they had at creating nuclear weapons had failed.

 

I'd rather not see any brutal dictatorships, however the U.S. only sees fit to dismantle those in the name of its business interests (in this case, oil).

 

I registered to vote and voted. My candidates didn't win. War is never a good thing, particularly not unjustified war.

[Guest DrTom]

Simply put, I'm not going to trust these unconfirmed claims unless they can be backed up with physical evidence.

Yes, because the government ALWAYS LIES to the people about things like this. But I bet you'd be willing to swallow this jagged little pill with a nice glass of warm milk if the President had a (D) next to his name, wouldn't you?

 

And I really don't see how the Right keeping building up and tearing down their own brutal, terrorist-supporting dictators accomplishes anything other than killing my friends and innocent foreign civilians.

Because it frees people from tyranny. Democratic principles should be spread, and if we're going to start going into the countries that staunchly support terrorism, we might as well improve the lot of the people while we're in there. Since we don't deliberately target civilians with military action, I'll ignore the last thing you said there.

 

I don't believe Iraq has nukes.

They don't. Right now. But reliable reports give them nuclear capability in six months. It's good that we refuse to be inactive about this. If Saddam does build a few nukes and wipes out Israel because we failed to act, I would hold every snivelling, spineless, apologist coward like you in the Left responsible for it.

 

I'd rather not see any brutal dictatorships, however the U.S. only sees fit to dismantle those in the name of its business interests (in this case, oil).

Ok, one more time that I really hope is the last.

We get about 10% of our oil from the Middle East. We could easily replace their production by buying from Alberta and Russia, and drilling in Alaska. Between Alaska, our own reserves, and what we have in shale, we have access to more oil than HAS EVER COME from the Middle East.

Is that clear enough for you, finally? This ISN'T about oil.

[Guest EricMM]

Between Alaska, our own reserves, and what we have in shale, we have access to more oil than HAS EVER COME from the Middle East.

 

Are you sure we have that much Shale? I've read in my environmental texts that the ME has like 67% of the world's crude oil supply, I'm just saying, that's a lot of shale!

 

How long would our reserves (or Alaska for that matter) last if we had to subsidize ourselves? Not too long, we use sooooooooo much oil daily. But I agree totally that there are plenty of markets that are looking to sell to us. But the worlds supply of oil won't last 100 more years at the current rate of use and GROWTH, not at all.

 

Which is of course why I'm a huge proponent of efficency and alternative energy sources being researched and implemented sooner rather than later. I don't want to leave future generations in the dark, hell I don't want to be in the dark...

[Guest DrTom]

I have no problem with alternative energies, as long as they're viable and cost-effective. But I'm not going to buy a solar-powered car ten years from now if it costs $50,000, goes no faster than 65 mph, and doesn't work if it's cloudy for more than eight hours.

 

The oil figures I've seen come from Army environmental reports. They presume we'd drill in Alaska, where we have a ridiculous amount of untapped oil that the unsteadier element of the Left (better, Eric?) won't let us access because a few fish might die in the process. Combined with buying from Alberta, Russia, and Venezuela for a few years, we could replace all the oil we get from the Middle East and not bat an eyelash. It'd be worth it just to fuck over all the terrorist supporters in that part of the world.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Simply put, I'm not going to trust these unconfirmed claims unless they can be backed up with physical evidence.

Yes, because the government ALWAYS LIES to the people about things like this. But I bet you'd be willing to swallow this jagged little pill with a nice glass of warm milk if the President had a (D) next to his name, wouldn't you?

I don't care what the President's political affiliation is, a lie is a lie. If you're going to press that kind of B.S. onto me, you might as well suck it up and realize that if that same Democratic President never produced any reliable evidence you wouldn't believe it either. Or worse, when this war does nothing but incite more terrorist groups/attacks and leaves thousands of American soldiers with Gulf War (pt. II) Syndrome, you'll conveniently ignore that, but if it was a Democratic President you'd be up in arms.

 

And I really don't see how the Right keeping building up and tearing down their own brutal, terrorist-supporting dictators accomplishes anything other than killing my friends and innocent foreign civilians.

Because it frees people from tyranny. Democratic principles should be spread, and if we're going to start going into the countries that staunchly support terrorism, we might as well improve the lot of the people while we're in there. Since we don't deliberately target civilians with military action, I'll ignore the last thing you said there.

Oh, OK, because trading one dictator for another does SO much for the starving, oppressed citizens of a country. And given all the evidence to the contrary in every war the U.S. has ever been involved in, if we don't deliberately target civilians with military action, then our military is even more incompetent than I thought they were.

 

I don't believe Iraq has nukes.

They don't. Right now. But reliable reports give them nuclear capability in six months. It's good that we refuse to be inactive about this. If Saddam does build a few nukes and wipes out Israel because we failed to act, I would hold every snivelling, spineless, apologist coward like you in the Left responsible for it.

Saddam's got no reason to attack Israel. He's Iraqi, not Palestinian. By the way, the mere fact that I'm standing up for what I believe in instead of just going along with all this patriotism rah rah B.S. means I'm less of a blind coward than you'll ever be.

 

I'd rather not see any brutal dictatorships, however the U.S. only sees fit to dismantle those in the name of its business interests (in this case, oil).

Ok, one more time that I really hope is the last.

We get about 10% of our oil from the Middle East. We could easily replace their production by buying from Alberta and Russia, and drilling in Alaska. Between Alaska, our own reserves, and what we have in shale, we have access to more oil than HAS EVER COME from the Middle East.

Is that clear enough for you, finally? This ISN'T about oil.

It's always been about oil with the Middle East & Iraq. A long long time ago, before it was a free country, we owned 25% of the oil fields in Iraq. When they underwent revolution, we lost that oil, and we've hated Iraq ever since, because we want that oil back. Gulf War I was about oil, Gulf War II is no different. And Iraq has been "close to nuclear capability" since before the first Gulf War, but we didn't mind back then because Saddam was fighting against Iran. Besides, you know as much as anyone else that us whiny snivelling liberals would never let drilling occur in Alaska.

[Guest Big Poppa Popick]

let me point out something

 

It was stated a very long time ago that the world's crude oil supply would have run out in 1970..

 

then they said 1980...

 

now its 100 years.

 

This is assuming current trends. Pundits such as these forget one little fact.

 

Innovation.

 

Innovation in fuel technology has led for us to utilize, catalyze, and convert energy fuel such as oil better.

 

Any argument that says our oil supply is running out...is silly and belies that the individual espousing such has no idea about what they're talking about

 

Besides, we're less than 10 years out of having fuel cell technology being mass produced...Toyota and Nissan already have working copies, vastly expensive, but give them time to refine the process and let the demand rise. Prices will fall, quantity will rise, and well have our solution.

 

However, whoever said something about 10% of our oil is also wrong. Just look at what happens to Gas prices when OPEC actually works.

 

If you have any other economics based questions, just ask me, your resident econ expert and 2 years away from a phd in it

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

So Iraq invading another country had nothing to do with the Gulf War, eh?

[Guest DrTom]

If you're going to press that kind of B.S. onto me, you might as well suck it up and realize that if that same Democratic President never produced any reliable evidence you wouldn't believe it either.

Since I don't think Al Gore would have done a whole lot differently (I don't really like Gore, but he's always been very positive on the militay), I wouldn't question it. We're doing what is right, and we're doing it for the right reasons. When Clinton attacked Iraq on the eve of his impeachment, I had a large problem with the timing of it, but not the action itself.

 

Oh, OK, because trading one dictator for another does SO much for the starving, oppressed citizens of a country.

Afghanistan's doing a lot better now. We wouldn't replace Saddam with another dictator; we'd have to do some nation-building, and while I share the President's reluctance to do that, there are times it simply has to be done. Take out Saddam and his network, take out the fanatical religious leaders, and allow Iraq to start over. Tabla rasa.

 

if we don't deliberately target civilians with military action, then our military is even more incompetent than I thought they were.

We've done so in the past. We have not in the past several campaigns. There is no reason for that trend not to continue.

 

Saddam's got no reason to attack Israel.

Sure he does: he hates them. He's funded as many homicide bombers as the Saudis have. Saddam's a big financial player in giving a puppet like Arafat the support he needs to maintain that sham of power he has. Saddam would love to attack Israel. Add the fact that Israel is our closest ally, and there's another reason.

 

By the way, the mere fact that I'm standing up for what I believe in instead of just going along with all this patriotism rah rah B.S. means I'm less of a blind coward than you'll ever be.

Oooh, finally, some growth between your neck and your tailbone. I knew you had it in you. If you want to stand up for your beliefs, that's fine. I happen to think what your beliefs lead to (inaction) is dangerous, and considering the consequences, that's why I term those beliefs cowardly.

 

Gulf War I was about oil, Gulf War II is no different.

Wrong, and wrong. There's no point in me mentioning Saddam trampling all over Kuwait, since it obviously won't sway your opinion that them thar good ol' Bush boys were just a-tryin' to grab some o' that A-rab's oil, yessiree.

 

And Iraq has been "close to nuclear capability" since before the first Gulf War, but we didn't mind back then because Saddam was fighting against Iran.

Circumstances change. That's what a lot of leftists fail to understand. "But the US helped bin Laden 15 years ago when he was fighting the Soviets!" you say. Yes, because he was waging a successful campaign against our perceived enemy, and hadn't made himself a threat to us. In the intervening years, he's more than done that, so we're committed to going after him. Global politics often force you to throw your hat in with someone, only to pull it back a few years later and try to wedge your boot up their behind. If you don't believe the claims about Saddam's impending nuclear capability, fine. But know this: in the past few months, he has smuggled and purchased on the black market many of the components necessary to make atmic bombs, including the important radioactive ones. You don't put stuff like that in storage for a few years until you can use it.

 

Besides, you know as much as anyone else that us whiny snivelling liberals would never let drilling occur in Alaska.  

Of course. There's probably an "endangered" fish in the water, and a spotted owl 10 miles away that might have to inhale the oil fumes. Heaven forfend we take care of our own people before the wee creatures.

[Guest spiny norman]

Afghanistan's doing a lot better now. We wouldn't replace Saddam with another dictator; we'd have to do some nation-building, and while I share the President's reluctance to do that, there are times it simply has to be done. Take out Saddam and his network, take out the fanatical religious leaders, and allow Iraq to start over. Tabla rasa.

 

The Taliban was set up because the United States was worried about the growth of communism in Afghanistan after the Russians marched into it. And now we've replaced an extremist Muslim Government with another extremist Mulsim Government and are meant to say "That'll do the trick?" like we did with the Taliban?

 

Because whatever works short-term is bound to work long term.

 

Anyway, I'm going to create a completely hypothetical situation here. Let's say it is peacetime. None of this tension going on as there is now.

 

Suddenly, Hussein threatens the United States. If the USA don't convert their political system to the ways of Iraq, Hussein will attack them. Iraq is also worried of the amount of nuclear weapons in the United States, and says Bush either destroys them all, allows Hussein's men to come in and take them or Iraq will atack the United States themselves.

 

What would we do?

 

We'd laugh at him, and probably go attack him is what we'd do, with full UN support, after all, we've been threatened.

 

Then why is it not that way, and not sound anywhere near as absurd if it Bush making the demands to Hussein!?

 

The whole idea that some countries are more trustworthy than others is utter BS. Don't get me wrong, I think Hussein should destroy their weapons. But I think all countries with nuclear weaponery should destroy them, because no country, no matter how good and righteous they are, should have that power.

[Guest EricMM]

I have no problem with alternative energies, as long as they're viable and cost-effective. But I'm not going to buy a solar-powered car ten years from now if it costs $50,000, goes no faster than 65 mph, and doesn't work if it's cloudy for more than eight hours.

Of course, such a car would be a fucking joke. Efficency is not being cold in the dark, it's getting heating and light for a fraction of the environmental and economic cost.

 

The oil figures I've seen come from Army environmental reports. They presume we'd drill in Alaska, where we have a ridiculous amount of untapped oil that the unsteadier element of the Left (better, Eric?) won't let us access because a few fish might die in the process. Combined with buying from Alberta, Russia, and Venezuela for a few years, we could replace all the oil we get from the Middle East and not bat an eyelash. It'd be worth it just to fuck over all the terrorist supporters in that part of the world.

It's not even the mining that I mind the most, I'm more against the Bush energy solution being "more drilling, more refineries." I don't feel that's a solution, I feel that that's a stopgap measure. Global warming is already going to fuck us up, we don't need to make it any worse, and the faster we switch the better is all. Pollution is really bad for everyone involved.

[Guest TJH]

The Taliban was set up because the United States was worried about the growth of communism in Afghanistan after the Russians marched into it. And now we've replaced an extremist Muslim Government with another extremist Mulsim Government and are meant to say "That'll do the trick?" like we did with the Taliban?

 

You retard. The Taliban did not form until 1994, and swept in to power in September 1996. What happened:

The Communists overthrew the Afghani government. The Soviets wanted to turn Afghanistan, contrary to the will of the people, into another satellite. The people resisted, in the form of the Mujahideen. The U.S and others (rightfully) supplied them with training, weapons etc. The Soviets withdrew, and the U.S stopped suppling anyone. The country was then ruled by the Mujahideen for a while, until the Taliban overthrew them.

 

Anyway, I'm going to create a completely hypothetical situation here. Let's say it is peacetime. None of this tension going on as there is now.

 

Suddenly, Hussein threatens the United States. If the USA don't convert their political system to the ways of Iraq, Hussein will attack them. Iraq is also worried of the amount of nuclear weapons in the United States, and says Bush either destroys them all, allows Hussein's men to come in and take them or Iraq will atack the United States themselves.

What would we do?

We'd laugh at him, and probably go attack him is what we'd do, with full UN support, after all, we've been threatened.

 

Difference. Iraq is a rogue state, uses WMD's on its own people, invades neighbouring countries and attacks them unprovoked, and is in violation of several U.N resolutions. Iraq bad. U.S and allies good. Oversimplification? No.

 

The whole idea that some countries are more trustworthy than others is utter BS. Don't get me wrong, I think Hussein should destroy their weapons. But I think all countries with nuclear weaponery should destroy them, because no country, no matter how good and righteous they are, should have that power.

 

Wrong. If America came out and said it was going to destroy its nukes, do you seriously think China, Russia, North Korea etc. would agree? No, they wouldn't. It would be ideal to have a world free of nukes, but we are not living in an ideal world, we are living in a real world, where people are not always nice and friendly as you misguidedly think they are. There is good and evil in this world, and ideological fools like you cannot seem to realise that.

[Guest spiny norman]

"You retard"

 

Wow, that was imaginative. I don't think your post needed any more, you completely shut me down there with your intellect and your savoir-faire. Bravo!

 

"The Taliban did not form until 1994, and swept in to power in September 1996."

 

Okay, blame my history teacher for that.

 

"Iraq is a rogue state"

 

The United States was willing to go against the wishes of the entire United Nations and attack Iraq. Hell, if the UN had've taken any longer in passing the resolution I'd say the United States probably would've attacked. Therefore the USA was going to be a rogue state.

 

"If America came out and said it was going to destroy its nukes, do you seriously think China, Russia, North Korea etc. would agree? No, they wouldn't."

 

Okay, so why isn't the United States giving them the same treatment as they are Iraq? Why hasn't the United States demand they give up their nuclear weapons or be attacked? Hell, China is one of the most oppressive countries in the world. Could it be because the United States has stronger trade routes with those countries than Iraq? Could it be that, dare I say it, that the USA has ulterior motives!? But no, as you said, the US is good.

 

"There is good and evil in this world, and ideological fools like you cannot seem to realise that."

 

And ideological fools like yourself don't see that the evil's closer to home than you would like to admit.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Anyone ever notice how well Mujahideen rolls off the tongue? Say it out loud once or twice.

 

Mujahideen.

 

Saddam's got no reason to attack Israel. He's Iraqi, not Palestinian.

 

So why did he have scud missiles launched into the country during the first gulf war?

 

Saddam's gotta go. Russia and China aren't giving suicide bombers money to do what they do, and they're not attacking us. Iraq is. Saddam is.

 

Russia and the US have had nukes for over fifty years now, and neither have come close to using them aside from the two we dropped in WWII. They aren't stupid, and we aren't either, MAD is an effective deterrent. Terrorists don't give a shit if we nuke the hell out of them in retaliation, though. Therefore, it's NOT an effective deterrent, so something else has to be.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Saddam's got no reason to attack Israel.

Sure he does: he hates them. He's funded as many homicide bombers as the Saudis have. Saddam's a big financial player in giving a puppet like Arafat the support he needs to maintain that sham of power he has. Saddam would love to attack Israel. Add the fact that Israel is our closest ally, and there's another reason.

While this is true (pretty much everyone in the Middle East hates Israel), Saddam wouldn't use nukes on Israel because, although it would wipe out all the "heathen" Jews & Israelis, it would also contaminate the land so the "rightful" denizens, the Palestinians, couldn't live there, and also obliterate several key Muslim religious sites. That'd get the Muslim extremists & Jihad mad at him, which would actually be somewhat interesting to us but completely undesirable for him.

[Guest DrTom]

The Taliban was set up because the United States was worried about the growth of communism in Afghanistan after the Russians marched into it

I think the inaccuracy of this has been pointed out to you. I don't blame your history teacher for it, though; I blame you and you alone, since information like this was all over the place following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

 

Then why is it not that way, and not sound anywhere near as absurd if it Bush making the demands to Hussein!?

Because we're spreading democracy, not tyranny. All tyranny does is brutalize, oppress, enslave, and dishearten its people. A democratic government does the opposite on all counts.

[Guest DrTom]

BTW, Iraq's Parliament offically rejected the UN resolution, which means they don't plan to cooperate with the demands. The final decision rests with Hussein, of course, and it's pretty obvious which way he's going to go.

 

Kill him now.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

To be fair, I don't think that the US should force democracy on other countries. Let them do as they want, as long as it doesn't affect you. If they pose a threat to you, then by all means get involved, but otherwise it is a waste of time.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

You retard. The Taliban did not form until 1994, and swept in to power in September 1996. What happened:

The Communists overthrew the Afghani government. The Soviets wanted to turn Afghanistan, contrary to the will of the people, into another satellite. The people resisted, in the form of the Mujahideen. The U.S and others (rightfully) supplied them with training, weapons etc. The Soviets withdrew, and the U.S stopped suppling anyone. The country was then ruled by the Mujahideen for a while, until the Taliban overthrew them.

Just wondering, can it be said that the US was right to support the mujahideen in the Afghan-Russian war? Surely it was a Russian matter, and the argument that the Russians were trying to control the Afghans doesn't change the fact that had they remained in charge, life in Afghanistan could well be a lot better. Not super perhaps, given Russia's economic collapse, but a lot better than the hellhole it is today. The same argument that the US is using for Iraq (save people from despotic regime, impose better one) could easily be applied in Russia's case. The Mujahideen were not nice people, a large proportion were blood-thirsty savages. This raises a larger question - were any of the third party actions taken by America during the Cold War to ward off Communism really necessary? The shattered lands of South America, South-East Asia and Africa surely did not have to become battlegrounds between the superpowers. America's greatest weapon is the Big Mac, Walt Disney, the baseball cap. Because in the end that's what people want. I can think of only a few occasions in the last hundred years when America genuinely needed to apply military force. I don't think Irag at present is one of them. In fact, the only place I see in the near future that should be considered for US aggression is Saudi. Iraq and Iran will cease to be athreat in the natural course of time. Saudi suffers from a terrible mish-mash of corrupt tycoons wanting to hold on to their money, thus placating the hate-filled fanatics in their country who preach poison to the rest of the Middle East. It is they who need to be cut off.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

All right folks, the moment Sadaam says he won't accept the resolution, send in the planes.

 

I don't think he's THAT dumb... right?

 

Okay then, never mind. I guess Doonesbury's strips of the last several weeks were pretty good at predicting at what was going to happen, what with B.D. being reactivated for the war just yesterday.

 

Fo sheez,

Kotzenjunge

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Okay, then. We should declare war on him then. We (well, assuming the Americans are with us) can have him out of power by the weekend.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I have one comment about this because it's gotten way too far involved for me to simply jump in...

 

The reason we shouldn't drill in Alaska is because it's on a fucking nature reserve. Entire species of animals live on that reserve; they aren't found anywhere else in the fucking world. It's not "one or two fish", it's wild game such as caribou who primarily live on that spot. Drilling would essentially kill off their species and throw off the ecosystem of the area.

 

There's a lot more implication than "Just a few fish!"

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

I don't think they should drill either. You are going to be invading the Middle East anyways, just stay there and take over the oil for yourselves.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Okay then, never mind. I guess Doonesbury's strips of the last several weeks were pretty good at predicting at what was going to happen, what with B.D. being reactivated for the war just yesterday.

B.D.?

 

BTW, Iraq's Parliament offically rejected the UN resolution, which means they don't plan to cooperate with the demands.

 

Iraq has a parliament? I thought they were a dictatorship... how is their government set up?

[Guest Slapnuts00]

BTW, Iraq's Parliament offically rejected the UN resolution, which means they don't plan to cooperate with the demands.

 

Iraq has a parliament? I thought they were a dictatorship... how is their government set up?

I don't know for sure, but if I were to guess, it's a dozen mustahce laden Arab men in fatigues that say "yes, Sadam" to anything he proposes, and are promptly "removed" if they ever say "no". Just a guess though.

Another thing I don't understand here. A lot of the liberals are yelling that we can't drill in Alaska to get oil because it's a nature reserve, in fact, I agree with that. But then when we want to go take control of Iraq, they yell "It's all about oil! That's all the U.S. wants!" Well, I'm not saying that's true, but let's say there's some truth to it. Why is that a bad thing? The fact remains we need to get oil, so we could either drill up nature reserves in Alaska which would be wildy unpopular, or get it from the Middle East, and kick out an oppresive, dangerous regime while we're at it. I don't see what the problem is here? In doing so, yeah we'd get more oil, meaning not only would we wipe out Sadam and prevent him from doing more harm, but would avoid having to harm the reserves in Alaska. Makes sense to me, I don't understand why the "oil" factor would be a BAD thing, from that side...

[Guest TJH]

Okay, blame my history teacher for that.

 

I didn't even learn that in history, but I had the intelligence to find out for myself.

 

The United States was willing to go against the wishes of the entire United Nations and attack Iraq. Hell, if the UN had've taken any longer in passing the resolution I'd say the United States probably would've attacked. Therefore the USA was going to be a rogue state.

 

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the U.N passed the resolution unanimously.

 

Okay, so why isn't the United States giving them the same treatment as they are Iraq? Why hasn't the United States demand they give up their nuclear weapons or be attacked? Hell, China is one of the most oppressive countries in the world. Could it be because the United States has stronger trade routes with those countries than Iraq? Could it be that, dare I say it, that the USA has ulterior motives!? But no, as you said, the US is good.

 

1. They already have nukes, so they could use them.

2. China haven't invaded anyone, used chemical weapons on their own people etc. etc. Also, they have shown that they won't use them. Iraq gives every indication they would.

 

Hamburglar, I'll answer you when I have a bit more time.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

To be fair, I don't think that the US should force democracy on other countries. Let them do as they want, as long as it doesn't affect you. If they pose a threat to you, then by all means get involved, but otherwise it is a waste of time.

The arab middle east just isn't ready for Democracy on the scale of the west yet

[Guest Ram]

To be fair, I don't think that the US should force democracy on other countries. Let them do as they want, as long as it doesn't affect you. If they pose a threat to you, then by all means get involved, but otherwise it is a waste of time.

Well, technically a democratic government reduces a threat or future threat. Optimistically, we can assume the majority of people aren't evil and mean and stuff and would mostly disagree to be a threat to anybody. A dictatorship would likely end up being a threat somehow, someway. They always end up that way eventually.

[Guest spiny norman]

"You seem to be ignoring the fact that the U.N passed the resolution unanimously"

 

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I said the US stated they would attack Iraq if the UN had've held out any longer in passing the resolution, and would've attacked no matter what decision they came to.

 

"China haven't invaded anyone, used chemical weapons on their own people etc. etc."

 

Yeah, they haven't. That's not to say they've not used other injust means on their people. China is a country under the rule of an evil government.

 

The sooner people start realising the utter hypocricy at play here the better. Look outside the square, and don't be so gung-ho in supporting the USA's military involvement. That's how Vietnam came about.

 

 

 

BTW, how do you use quotes properly? Sorry, I'm a ditz.

[Guest TJH]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that I said the US stated they would attack Iraq if the UN had've held out any longer in passing the resolution, and would've attacked no matter what decision they came to.

 

But the U.N did pass the resolution. So, basically, you're whole idea rests on an event that never actually happened. And would the U.S have gone in without U.N? I doubt the U.N would ever have said no. What the U.S said was in my opinion, mainly to get the U.N moving. If they hadn't, we'd be waiting forever.

 

 

Yeah, they haven't. That's not to say they've not used other injust means on their people. China is a country under the rule of an evil government.

 

The sooner people start realising the utter hypocricy at play here the better. Look outside the square, and don't be so gung-ho in supporting the USA's military involvement. That's how Vietnam came about.

 

They have done injust things to their people, and I'm sure the U.S would rather have a more democratic government. But China is becoming more democratic, and things are changing. And how exactly would the U.S change the regime in China?

 

BTW, how do you use quotes properly? Sorry, I'm a ditz.

 

Okay: [*quote*]BTW, how do you use quotes properly? Sorry, I'm a ditz.[*/quote*]

Just take out the asteriks.