Bill introduced to end US participation in UN

[Guest Powerplay]

If you truly care about their lives, you wouldn't be pushing for war nonstop in an attempt to make them martyrs.

 

Whatever, though. If such a resolution was passed in the UN, with the threat of a multilateral war against Saddam as the reprecussions for not complying to such inspections with teeth, Saddam would not attack them.

Oh Christ, calm it already. Look at who YOU are pushing: Inspectors who have been ineffectual in doing ANYTHING in the last 12 years involving Iraq. People die in war, Tyler. We know that, and you need not remind us in every one of your posts as if by repeating this as if we didn't realize this in the first place. Will people die? Yes. Will some civilians die? Sadly, yes. How many will die if we DON'T take Saddam out of power?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

How many are dying right now?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Also, read what I said before.

 

Inspections, as they're happening right now, don't work. Guess why? Because they've got minimal resources and manpower, not to mention dick for intelligence.

 

Give them those, and they will be oodles more successful.

[Guest SP-1]

If you truly care about their lives, you wouldn't be pushing for war nonstop in an attempt to make them martyrs.

 

Whatever, though. If such a resolution was passed in the UN, with the threat of a multilateral war against Saddam as the reprecussions for not complying to such inspections with teeth, Saddam would not attack them.

Please, Tyler. That's a pathetic attempt at trying to prove a point, and in extremely poor taste. What cause, exactly, would they be martyrs of? Martyrdom generally has a purpose, the martyrs representing a cause. Since you bring up this strange, demented option, I'd like to know what cause you think I wish to see people I love martyred for. Tell me, Tyler, because I'm waiting to hear about how much of a bastard you percieve me to be since you're saying I wish death upon a father figure and a brother if he's called back into service. Also upon many members of my church, since a great deal of our families are headed by husbands of recent/present military service. Tell me. I'm dying to know, man.

 

I've never pushed for war. Not once. But I understand that we do not live in a world of ranbows and horseshoes where everyone cooperates sooner or later. My friends, family members, and mentors in military service understand that, too, or they wouldn't have chosen to get involved with it. We've given Saddam 12 years and many chances to disarm on his own and he hasn't. Paranoid dictators don't keep weaponry around in defiance of a World Council's resolutions for no reason. If you think they do then hand me some of whatever it is your smoking. Or better yet, don't. I'd rather live in the real world.

 

If I could take my mentor's place at his station, or my brother's, or any of the people that I know who are in the military and are called to this conflict, I would. And unlike the meaningless way many would toss off such a sentiment, I think about what I say and I speak with conviction. So keep your assumptions of character to yourself and stick to the topic.

 

Your plan is flawed, places civilians in peril, and puts our troops, whom most of us DO care about, in unneccesary harm. No attack on my character or feelings about soldiers at war will change that so let's stay off of a topic you know nothing about.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Please, Tyler. That's a pathetic attempt at trying to prove a point, and in extremely poor taste. What cause, exactly, would they be martyrs of? Martyrdom generally has a purpose, the martyrs representing a cause. Since you bring up this strange, demented option, I'd like to know what cause you think I wish to see people I love martyred for. Tell me, Tyler, because I'm waiting to hear about how much of a bastard you percieve me to be since you're saying I wish death upon a father figure and a brother if he's called back into service. Also upon many members of my church, since a great deal of our families are headed by husbands of recent/present military service. Tell me. I'm dying to know, man.

 

The martyrdom would be for America, for our country. We've done that plenty of times with soldiers, and subsequently placed them high on a pedestal afterwards. I don't think it's too much to suggest that our dead servicemen/women can be considered martyrs.

 

Upon leaving high school, about 1 in every 3 of my friends joined the military and are currently in the service. Why? Because the Republican budget cut student financial aid. That's another story for another time. Regardless, I don't exactly wish to see my friends put into a situation where they can, and probably will, die (especially if chemical weapons are involved, read CNN.com for reports of Iraq's likelyhood to use them). This is why I can't understand why people want war. If you beef up inspections, God dammit, it will do some good. The military thing was an example; it probably wouldn't even be needed. Saddam is a million times more worried about living in his presidential fucking club-med resorts than having his weapons... the only reason why he's being defiant now is because he knows we're going to discredit ourselves in front of the war and make HIM a martyr. If we threatened multilateral military action if he doesn't comply with INSPECTIONS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE TEETH, he would fold quickly.

 

I've never pushed for war. Not once. But I understand that we do not live in a world of ranbows and horseshoes where everyone cooperates sooner or later. My friends, family members, and mentors in military service understand that, too, or they wouldn't have chosen to get involved with it. We've given Saddam 12 years and many chances to disarm on his own and he hasn't. Paranoid dictators don't keep weaponry around in defiance of a World Council's resolutions for no reason. If you think they do then hand me some of whatever it is your smoking. Or better yet, don't. I'd rather live in the real world.

 

Why does anyone hold weapons of mass destruction? Why does anyone have banned weapons?

 

Deterrance.

 

Granted, he's used VX on the Kurds and whatnot, and it was a rather stupid and horrible decision on his part. That's part of the reason why I want him gone as well. However, he's also not that stupid. Unless he's under extreme duress and there's a 0% chance he's staying in power anyway (LIKE RIGHT NOW), he's not gonna fire his WMD. The reason is simple: he's living it up right now. Those presidential palaces are comparable to Versailles.

 

If I could take my mentor's place at his station, or my brother's, or any of the people that I know who are in the military and are called to this conflict, I would. And unlike the meaningless way many would toss off such a sentiment, I think about what I say and I speak with conviction. So keep your assumptions of character to yourself and stick to the topic.

 

If you saw it as a character attack directly at you, it wasn't. However, I'm sick of people saying they care about the lives of our soldiers and, on the other hand, press for them to be sent into deadly combat. That's the OPPOSITE of caring about their lives.

 

Your plan is flawed, places civilians in peril, and puts our troops, whom most of us DO care about, in unneccesary harm. No attack on my character or feelings about soldiers at war will change that so let's stay off of a topic you know nothing about.

 

See above about the plan.

[Guest MrRant]

What is the point of having soldiers if there is never any combat?

[Guest SP-1]

Bush is the only feasible martyr for America. There's a difference between Martyrdom and Respect. It's the same principle of why I still support war even though my loved ones may have to serve in it. They knew it was a possibility and chose to serve their country in the military. I respect their decision, and I respect their courage. That doesn't make them martyrs. It simply means I love them enough to let them live their lives as they choose. That's a part of loving people, too.

 

I hope we don't make the potential mistake of making a "martyr" or Saddam. Though I suppose he'd only be a martyr to terrorists. Saddam's people are more of a concern on my end, though. And their oppression needs to end. Saddam's extravagant lifestyle comes at the cost of alot of the Iraqi people's basic needs, and certainly at the cost of their freedom. I'd rather see Saddam's own people rise up against him, for therein is a better measure of justice to me. But if keeping him from waiting around and continuing to support the terrorist cells that operate in his country is a result of war, then it's neccessary. Don't forget that it's entirely possible that a terrorist group that Saddam unofficially helped out somewhere will kill someone YOU love some day. Terrorism holds that over us all. Taking one more supporter of it out is a goal everyone should value, I think.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

It wasn't a national issue to disarm Saddam until very recently, and you cannot deny that with any ounce of your existance, no matter how pro-war you are.

 

If we had been proactive about this for 12 years, he'd have been disarmed ages ago. If you ran a country and someone left it up to you to completely disarm any weapons you had, would you?

 

Doubtful.

It doesn't matter. He signed a paper VOWING to do so. He did not do so. Just because we lacked leadership for a nice chunk of the past 12 years doesn't excuse HIS material breaches.

 

It's like saying it's the police's fault if a convicted child molester doesn't inform them that he has moved into the city.

-=Mike

Lacked leadership?!?

 

CLINTON BOMBED IRAQ FOR KICKING OUT INSPECTORS AND WAS FUCKING BITCHSLAPPED BY THE "LIBERAL MEDIA" FOR WAGGING THE DOG!

 

You're absolutely incorrigible!

 

We want him to disarm, so we should have gone through and FORCED him to disarm. Does it say anywhere in there that we have to go in and slaughter their military (a good chunk of which was likely conscripted against their will) in order to disarm them? NO! That means we take ahold of his balls, send that country SWARMING with weapons inspectors, and make the fuck sure we find that shit. When we find it, we destroy it. Simple as that.

 

How is that not a feasible solution?

 

It would SURE AS HELL avoid this holy war we're beginning. We're absolutely BEGGING some extremist to smuggle a nuke into our country, all in the name of Allah. We're acting like these are the damned crusades all over again (Bush's saying this is a crusade, saying God is on our side, etc) and forging a war against Islam now. Regardless of how secular Iraq is, our repeated militaristic attitude towards them is seen as ANOTHER attack against Arabs and Islam by that faction of the world. We are PUSHING FOR WAR, not wanting anything to DO with peace. It sure as hell looks bad to me! Given our attitude, we're making extremism look less 'extreme' to the Arab world.

Clinton bombed them for 3 days and then abandoned it. Obviously, he didn't intend to actually do ONE darned thing about it. It CLEARLY was a "Wag the Dog" scenario for him.

 

OK, let's go back to 1991. We don't invade Iraq because our coalition will protest. So, we give Saddam the ceasefire. He doesn't live up to his word, but he's not in deep rejection of the rules yet. We give him time.

 

He then boots out the inspectors. What Clinton SHOULD have done is invade and level Iraq. Level every little building in that hellhole until Saddam follows the rules. If Iraqis die, it's Hussein's fault.

 

And, if Iraq WON'T disarm --- which they clearly will not --- can you come up with ANOTHER possible way to disarm Iraq besides us attacking them? Sending more inspectors will be useless because Iraq will simply not allow them to inspect the correct areas and will simply delay and delay until they finally get the weapons he desires. I love it that you think MORE inspectors is the solution, since Hussein can simply deny them any entrance into his weapons factories.

 

It's no feasible because it still requires us to deal with Iraqi lies and, at this point, we're tired of it. We've given him so many chances and he failed. He tied his own noose.

 

Guess what --- Muslim extremists hate us NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. We can NOT attack Iraq and they will STILL want us to die. So why should we walk on egg shells over the possibility of upsetting them?

 

Maybe it's TIME for a "Holy War". Maybe it's time we stop cow-towing to a collection of morons who have bastardized a religion. We have given them chances and the Muslims, if they don't like it, can kiss off.

 

If the Saud family opposes us, we should remove ALL troops and let them fall. If Kuwait opposes us, ditto. The wish to cut off the oil? Feel free --- the Middle East has NOTHING else to offer besides that, so they'll suffer far more than we will. Any terrorist attack us and we make whatever country sent them regret that decision more than Japan regretted Pearl Harbor.

 

I have no tolerance or patience for cow-towing to Muslim extremists. They've NEEDED to be dealt with very harshly for decades now.

 

That time might well be now.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

It's that kind of attitude which will lead to a nuclear holocaust. I hope you can deal with that.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Hey guys?

 

Religious governments are BAD. They lead to Mutually Assured Destruction with nuclear weapons.

 

"Launch your nukes! Allah has guaranteed me 259,876 virgins on the other side!"

 

Thank god the Russians understood that everyone dying on both sides was a bad thing.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

It's that kind of attitude which will lead to a nuclear holocaust. I hope you can deal with that.

I suppose the quivering under the table, "Let's not offend the loonies" line of thinking is much more compatible with long-lasting peace.

-=Mike

[Guest Blue Bacchus]

That's the kind of dumb fucking attitude that could cause another world war.

You sound like that COULDN'T happen already with this war in Iraq

[Guest Plushy Al Logan]

I know everyone says the UN serves no function...

 

...but I don't like it. I think we're making a big mistake if this is passed.

Pat Buchanan always said, that if he were elected President, he would have the Marines, evict the U.N. from U.S. soil.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Pat Buchanan always said, that if he were elected President, he would have the Marines, evict the U.N. from U.S. soil.

Remember that Pat Buchanan's views are so extreme that they're usually shared by only a fraction of Conservatives.

[Guest Plushy Al Logan]

Pat Buchanan always said, that if he were elected President, he would have the Marines, evict the U.N. from U.S. soil.

Remember that Pat Buchanan's views are so extreme that they're usually shared by only a fraction of Conservatives.

I'am a fraction of that fraction.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Alright, well, as long as you're not RobJohnstone making threads asking why the Bible isn't taught in school anymore and telling us we were all educated stupid for not questioning the Holocaust, you're allright.

[Guest Plushy Al Logan]

Alright, well, as long as you're not RobJohnstone making threads asking why the Bible isn't taught in school anymore and telling us we were all educated stupid for not questioning the Holocaust, you're allright.

I hated him, he always went after when I was posting here under a different name.