Bill introduced to end US participation in UN

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Eh, he tried to kill the guy's father.

Or did he?

 

Anyway, I think this bill is just suggested as pure symbolism for someone who backs Bush's position to try and make some news and see if he can cause any boot-quaking at the U.N. It won't actually pass.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Seriously, if I were Sadaam and wanted a fighting chance, I'd keep my weapons hidden and let the US invade a country with some teeth rather than one that could gum them to death.

 

Maybe the dissenting nations just want to see a cool fireworks display from both sides.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

"Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War"

WASHINGTON, DC—Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences."

 

Courtesy, the Onion.

 

Heh.

[Guest Anglesault]

if we'd just bulk up the fucking inspections and give them the necessary intel, this might not have been the case).

I'm very weary about telling Blix too much. Besides the accepted reasons, I heard a joke the other day, which while exagerated, really isn't, you know?

 

Basically, Bush tells Blix that they have chemical weapons at 543 Iraq Road.

 

Blix then holds a press conference saying that they will check out 543 Iraq Road ...tomorrow after dinner.

 

Low and Behold, tomorrow after dinner, 543 Iraq Road is cleared out. My oh my, how did that happen.

 

Basically, theyre saying that Blix will go above and beyond the call of duty to stop ths war. He showed that recently wih that whole drone fiasco.

 

Just so you know, that scenario was exagerated I don't believe he'd go that far.

[Guest DrTom]

Do you believe we should slaughter their conscripted (mostly against their will) soldiers because of this?

The same troops who were surrendering to camera crews a dozen years ago? The same troops who surrendered to the British during a training exercise a few days ago? Please. The Iraqi army is going to fold so fast, the French will be making jokes about them. The fact that a lot of them are conscripts only makes me think they'll fold that much faster.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

And that means they ALL will do that? Of course not, we've gotta slaughter our fair share of them before the war is over.

 

If you think this is gonna be a bloodless affair, you're insane.

[Guest Kingpk]

Allegations which still haven't been proven...

That's not the UN's job, though. The Inspectors are there to confirm that Iraq has done what the countless Resolutions tell them to, not go sniffing around every corner of the country looking for the WMD themselves. IRAQ (well, Saddam specifically) has to tell the UN that he's disarmed, and must give proof (documents, video of weapons being destroyed, giving access to sites that manufactured and stored them to the inspectors to see if there is nothing fishy going on, etc.) Blix has stated REPEATEDLY that Iraq isn't fully complying with the UN, and Powell brought up the VX gas and anthrax that remains unaccounted for in his two presentations. If Saddam is too pigheaded to do all these things, it's HIS fault the US has to go in.

 

There's something I don't get with these proposals from France and company. They say they want to give the inspectors more time. Do they REALLY think Saddam's going to make a 180 degree turn in 30 - 45 days when he's been laughing at and defying the UN for 12 YEARS and 17 Resolutions? Can someone answer that for me?

[Guest DrTom]

It's not going to be bloodless, but I don't think the Iraqi army has any heart for this war. I'd really be surprised if they took more than a few hundred casualties in battle.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

A hundred more than needed, but that would be welcome to the alternate possibility.

 

As far as the argument as to the fact that "the burden of proof is not on us", then stop using it as a fucking reason for going to war. Use the hard info we have.

[Guest JMA]

I just can't wait for this whole thing to be over. Not that I'm for the war against Iraq or anything. It's just the only thing happening is a bunch of talking and debating. There have been little actions for war or even peace. The whole thing is just a huge clusterfuck. That's all.

 

As you were.

[Guest Kingpk]

I just can't wait for this whole thing to be over. Not that I'm for the war against Iraq or anything. It's just the only thing happening is a bunch of talking and debating. There have been little actions for war or even peace. The whole thing is just a huge clusterfuck. That's all.

Welcome to the workings of the UN, where everyone barks, but no one bites.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

So we whine about it and quit (which, I gather, you're in favor of doing) because they won't sponsor our holy war.

 

There's a solution to stand behind.

[Guest Kingpk]

I'd just like the UN to actually enforce their own punishments for once. How many times has that happened since it's creation?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I don't know, someone wanna look up how many UN peacekeeping missions there have been?

[Guest JMA]

Perhaps the US and its closest allies should start a NEW, smaller (yet stronger) UN.

[Guest Anglesault]

I'd just like the UN to actually enforce their own punishments for once.

THANK YOU.

 

And I think they have to remove Dr. Do Little from chief inspector status so he can stop undermining the whole thing as well. Because if he's basically going to dimisi Iraq's breaking of these rules as irrelevant, well then, you know.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

No. That would undermine the purpose of the UN, and create enemies.

[Guest NoCalMike]

Well our government seems to be rather two-faced in the whole "bio-chemical weapons" stance. On one hand, he has them, he uses them, he will use them on us, then on the other hand, they refuse to believe soldiers in the Gulf War were victims of chemical weapons and just give them so nyquil cough syrup and send them on their way. If I am a soldier right now going to Iraq, and I know any history of the way our government denied "gulf war syndrome" after Persian Gulf war, I would be terrified.

[Guest Anglesault]

I guess that's why you're not a soldier then. Because these guys seem pretty damn eager to get on with it (Which should be automatically assumed when you frigging enlist) You don't hear of too many soldiers voicing their objections.

[Guest B-X]

I guess that's why you're not a soldier then. Because these guys seem pretty damn eager to get on with it (Which should be automatically assumed when you frigging enlist) You don't hear of too many soldiers voicing their objections.

 

If the person I worked for had the option of shooting me because I objected to one of his opinions, I sure as fuck wouldnt speak out.

[Guest SP-1]

I don't think the United States military is in the business of shooting those who voice their disapproval with their orders. I believe it's called something along the lines of, "Permission to Speak Candidly" or some such. When you go in the military, you better be prepared for war. And you'd better get used to following orders. You don't wanna go to war? Fine. Fuck up some orders royally and get yourself court martialied and spend some time in jail. Don't go in the military if you can't handle it, but I don't thin they shoot you. The Iraqi military on the other hand . . .

[Guest Anglesault]

I guess that's why you're not a soldier then. Because these guys seem pretty damn eager to get on with it (Which should be automatically assumed when you frigging enlist) You don't hear of too many soldiers voicing their objections.

 

If the person I worked for had the option of shooting me because I objected to one of his opinions, I sure as fuck wouldnt speak out.

Then you should make a point of not getting the mentally defective gun happy superior before speaking out.

 

Honestly, though, very few people are speaking out because they did enlist. That means they want to or should want to fight.

 

There is no draft right now. These people are there are their own free will.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

During interviews the soldiers wanted to start the war. It's happening anyways so why not get it over with.

[Guest DrTom]

I don't think the United States military is in the business of shooting those who voice their disapproval with their orders. I believe it's called something along the lines of, "Permission to Speak Candidly" or some such.

"Permission to speak freely," actually, and that doesn't apply always. In fact, it is illegal for those in the military to speak out against the President or their more direct superiors. During the height of Monicagate, an officer in the Navy wrote an article about Clinton's shoddy moral character, calling him a liar and a philanderer. Both of which are true, of course, but "the truth is an absolute defense" doesn't apply when you're in the military. He was promptly arrested.

[Guest SP-1]

I don't think the United States military is in the business of shooting those who voice their disapproval with their orders. I believe it's called something along the lines of, "Permission to Speak Candidly" or some such.

"Permission to speak freely," actually, and that doesn't apply always. In fact, it is illegal for those in the military to speak out against the President or their more direct superiors. During the height of Monicagate, an officer in the Navy wrote an article about Clinton's shoddy moral character, calling him a liar and a philanderer. Both of which are true, of course, but "the truth is an absolute defense" doesn't apply when you're in the military. He was promptly arrested.

Aye, that's true. I meant more in the context of orders themselves, no so much speaking out against the Commander-In-Chief. But I suppose there would be a fine line there in the subject of war.

[Guest JMA]

"Permission to speak freely," actually, and that doesn't apply always. In fact, it is illegal for those in the military to speak out against the President or their more direct superiors. During the height of Monicagate, an officer in the Navy wrote an article about Clinton's shoddy moral character, calling him a liar and a philanderer. Both of which are true, of course, but "the truth is an absolute defense" doesn't apply when you're in the military. He was promptly arrested.

Damn. I can't believe that.

[Guest DrTom]

Damn. I can't believe that.

What's so difficult to believe about it? The man was a military officer who spoke out against the Commander-in-Chief. It's a violation of the UCMJ. We're so used to the First Amendment that we take it for granted, but it doesn't always apply, and this was one such situation.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

It's not going to be bloodless, but I don't think the Iraqi army has any heart for this war. I'd really be surprised if they took more than a few hundred casualties in battle.

easy to say when there's no way you'll be one of those few hundred

[Guest evenflowDDT]

I guess that's why you're not a soldier then. Because these guys seem pretty damn eager to get on with it (Which should be automatically assumed when you frigging enlist) You don't hear of too many soldiers voicing their objections.

I'm guessing the reason for this is because most of them don't know about Gulf War Syndrome, or don't believe in it. These are probably the same kids who saw the Gulf War on TV ten years ago and thought "Oooh... cool video game, I wanna play!" Which, I guess in the end is indeed their choice and nobody else's.

[Guest DrTom]

easy to say when there's no way you'll be one of those few hundred 

It sure is. I'm neither Iraqi nor in the army, so it's all good there. And since soldiers tend to die in wars, I don't see what the big deal is to begin with. It's not like we'd be burning Baghdad and raping their women.