The terrorists want to kill me.
- Thread starter 1X83Z
- 290 comments
- 11,142 views
- 3,133
Personally, I feel the UN has resolved many conflicts which had the potential to be disastrous, but these events did not claim global attention because they did not start a disaster. The only reason that these events did not claim attention is because the UN stopped them from happening. Most people only know what TV, radio and the internet tells them. Very few people actually probe around the event and realize the truth.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
This is totally, absolutely, and completely untrue. If that were the case, all the UN would have to do is get a giant rubber stamp that saidthe_undrtaker89
DENIED
and just stamp it on every official UN Form #379-B "Application For Permission To Have A War" that was submitted to them for approval. Then countries would no longer be allowed to go to war and so we'd have world peace!
What an awesome idea. I think there's a stamp like that lying around the office somewhere. Maybe I'll send it to Khouffi Annan with instructions.
- 1,262
I know i was wrong, but what i meant to say was said by halfwaydrift. And it should be that way.
I don't get how Europe could be controlling the states, because last time i checked the Us is part of the UN. Plus they created the Un charter in the Us (san fransico). In 1945.
I don't get how Europe could be controlling the states, because last time i checked the Us is part of the UN. Plus they created the Un charter in the Us (san fransico). In 1945.
- 2,093
neon_duke
It doesn't work that way. The U.N. can go to war itself, based on the U.N. 'constitution'. For this, however, a resolution is always required. The U.N. did not come to a resolution soon enough, and the U.S. didn't want to wait, so they went to war themselves with a few select partners.
Iraq is not a U.N. state, and the U.N. only rules on agression against a U.N. state. So it could not forbid the U.S. to go to war against Iraq. However, the U.N. didn't want the U.S. to go to war by itself, because a U.N. carried decision would bring more authority to the U.N. and thus to its powers to prevent wars through diplomacy - putting pressure to coerce non-U.N. States to do something.
In this particular case, the U.S. was wrong. As it happens, I was wrong too - I initially hesitantly believed the evidence presented by Colin Powell, and hated France for being such an ignorant, opportunistic pig-country. But as it happened, France and the inspection team lead by Hans Blix(sp) were right, and U.S. intelligence mislead us, eager as it was to come up with evidence.
But whatever the damage done to the authority of the U.N., it pales in significance compared to the damage done to the U.S. The cost of the war and the bad PR that will lead many new terrorists to the U.S. will mean that the war achieved the exact opposite of what it set out to do - or at least what the Bush administration claimed it set out to do.
Yes, the ultimate goal of the U.N. is world peace. We don't have a police force, government and justice system in most countries for nothing, and the U.N. is the next logical step - make the world a safer place by trying to set up a justice system that can deal objectively with international conflict. The institution stems from the last Word War, and in a large part from the U.S. itself, because it felt it needed to do something to prevent something like WW2 from happening ever again.
@Ledhed: currently, the U.N. is among others trying to prevent a war between Erithrea and Ethiopia. This is just the one I read about in the newspaper, there have been many more U.N. operations in the past, many of which of course were in Africa. But the U.N. is a big and slow operation, and often comes to late - something which has been addressed in the recent past and is somewhat improving. Currently they are also keeping the peace in Afghanistan.
- 3,425
Arwin , I look at as the UN failed miserably in Iraq . they had ten years to rein in Saddam and did not. The US was stuck there for those ten years with our military footing the bill to keep that idiot contained and all the while he made mockery of the UN . The fact that Saddam did not comply in a timely manner to the terms of the cease fire from his invasion of Kuwait was more than justification enough for the US to remove him. The UN had its chance and made itself by its failure to resolve the situation close to irrelevent, thats the true tradgedy that came out of the Iraq situation. the conflict thats most important is the one that the UN managed through all the cold war to help prevent , that would be WW3 .
we will have to aggree to disagree about what the war in Iraq has cost the US, you seem to be talking about a different war from the one I see from where I am along with the consequences. The war in Iraq was practically bloodless compared to past experiance for one thing. A country was conquered and a government was replaced. When was the last time that ever happened with so few casualties on both sides and so little damage ?
we will have to aggree to disagree about what the war in Iraq has cost the US, you seem to be talking about a different war from the one I see from where I am along with the consequences. The war in Iraq was practically bloodless compared to past experiance for one thing. A country was conquered and a government was replaced. When was the last time that ever happened with so few casualties on both sides and so little damage ?
- 3,401
- Pennsylvania
- Darkdeeds427
It's almost as bad as this, (which I wish I never created) 
My thread: America: Are we too arogant?
My thread: America: Are we too arogant?
lol these guys are talking about terrorist attacks. sounds like uer waiting for em to happen....these attacks could happen anywhere anytime....Its just stupid about some guy talkin about how close he is to a "terrorist attack". LOL theyll bring the weapons through a tunnel 💡 i just wonder how they get there, hmmm maybe theyre invisible
Im sure the war on iraq is helping the situation on terrorist attacks...
Im sure the war on iraq is helping the situation on terrorist attacks...
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Yeah, I wasn't even going to bother saying that. Great revisionism. I don't recall Hussein ever agreeing to 'unconditional' weapons inspections, and even when inspectors were in the country, all he ever did was jack them around. If he didn't have anything to hide, he sure made a big deal out of acting like he did.danoff
- 660
It is a comic from that period.neon_duke
which was the case ... (why did so many people know that, except your president?)neon_duke
Not as bad as trying to make a big deal out of an opportunity : 9/11.neon_duke
Since then the US have destroyed an historical country and lots of historical monuments, which are lost forever. And they continue in Najaf without shame.
And then I personally even don't mind about the people that got attacked (and wounded or killed) in their own country, without any reason, except that their leader was a thread for the Jewish friends of your president.
A luck that besides the rest of the world, also many americans are starting to realise what a criminal took the power in the US (with less then the majority of the votes).
- 660
You wouldn't ask that if you were a bit informed.milefile
Some information readily available :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3632701.stm
Terrorists? Nothing to do with, or are you one of the few that still believe that
Weapons of mass destruction? As most sound thinking people expected : nothing found
Oil? Good to pay the bill afterwards, but not THE reason
"A stable Middle East" Indeed, probably the reason, except that the main thread for stability in the Middle East is Israels actual regime, violating all UN-resolutions and conventions about occupated territories. And they could NEVER do that without the support of the USA.
Off-course 9/11 had to follow, just because of the frustration of the muslim world about this unconditional support of the Israeli crimes. And that's what many people over here thought on 9/11 : the USA has sought for this ... it was just waiting to happen.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,005
- Mile High City
You can't prove it so don't say it.
Oh yes, we were just waiting for the opportunity for thousands of our civilians to be murdered. I certainly know that that evil Bush guy was almost ready to go do the job himself so that he could blame Iraq and take their oil.
If you don't understand our political system that's fine, but you might refrain from calling our leader a criminal.
A history of using their WMDs to gas their own cities and invading our allies to take their oil.
You say that like it's justified. You might want to go get an Al Qaeda brochure and sign up - I'm sure they're looking for people just like you - ready to swallow whatever propaganda is thrown at them as long as it says Bush is bad.
- 6,311
- Hong Kong SAR
Famine
That's plain ridiculous - I was reading the actual government PDF file for about five minutes and thought it was the parody. Talk about dumbing down, this is ridiculous. I haven't been back to the UK in three years and I'm coming in November: do I need to declare my brain at the Red Channel?
- 660
Thx for sharing your view.
No, I didn't mean "waiting for", I meant it was opportunism, reacting on an unexpected situation in your profit.
My idea at that time was : "c'mon, if they respect their country's voting system, they should wait untill everything is properly worked out". But they didn't, they stole the elections, I did not need Moore's movie to notice that.
Btw : if I want to say that he's a criminal, that's my freedom of speech. Not worse than his "axes of evil"
But then, the US organised a fake "witness report" of abuse of civilians by the Iraq army to convince the US public opinion to support the war ...
Who was president at that time? Also a "Bush"
Btw, another result is that we, as European car enthousiasts, are getting it more difficult to travel and drive around in N-Africa and the Middle East, and that's such a nice region! You have deserts, but if we want to drive in the desert, we need to go there, so I'd prefer it'd be peacefull around there
Imo if you invade a country based on a allegation, it's the allegation which has to be prooved, not the opposite.danoff
If "we" means Cheney, Wolfowitch & co, I wouldn't even be surprised. Bush seems to stupid to make such an evil plandanoff
No, I didn't mean "waiting for", I meant it was opportunism, reacting on an unexpected situation in your profit.
I do understand it. I saw the nervous movements of the Bush clan, organising its government in a hurry and doing all it could to prevent the votes to be counted properly.danoff
My idea at that time was : "c'mon, if they respect their country's voting system, they should wait untill everything is properly worked out". But they didn't, they stole the elections, I did not need Moore's movie to notice that.
Btw : if I want to say that he's a criminal, that's my freedom of speech. Not worse than his "axes of evil"
That is right, but, the fact that he was an old ally of the USA, and had a "no objection" by the US consul in Iraq, gives a different colour to that (wrong) move.danoff
But then, the US organised a fake "witness report" of abuse of civilians by the Iraq army to convince the US public opinion to support the war ...
Who was president at that time? Also a "Bush"
No, I wouldn't support them. Btw, I've traveled in the US several times, and love the people and the country. But, there are people, under heavy influence of very conservative - I've often heard them described as religious fanatics ... - circles in the US, trying to reduce your freedom, which better don't belong on the positions they have at the moment.danoff
Btw, another result is that we, as European car enthousiasts, are getting it more difficult to travel and drive around in N-Africa and the Middle East, and that's such a nice region! You have deserts, but if we want to drive in the desert, we need to go there, so I'd prefer it'd be peacefull around there
Danoff
Premium
- 34,005
- Mile High City
I know you're not going to understand this but... that's wasn't the allegation.
Can you say "conspiracy theorist"? I knew you could!
Can you say "conspiracy theorist"?
Yup, not going to deny you that. Just try to use it responsibly.
I'm not about putting colours on the situation. The fact is Saddam invaded one of our allies for oil and we protected our ally. Simple as that. He then broke the resulting cease fire agreement and we went back to war... simple as that.
... you're a conspiracy theorist
We've got lots of kinds of people here. One thing about them is that almost all of them want to restrict each other's freedom. It's really quite sad.
That's getting boring.
- 660
I read 7 posts back - this was about the allegation of hiding weapons of mass distruction. Wasn't that one of the reasons that Bush gave?danoff
danoff
No no. Unless everyone elses opinion is called conspiracy ...That sounds honest. But your president never explained it like that. Btw, when did Sadam break the cease-fire agreement?danoff
Exactly the same here. I used to visit a forum of people arguing for less speed restrictions on public roads ... But it turned out that every one of these people was arguing for other restrictions, like the obligation to drive on the right when you're not overtaking on the highway, or the obligation for bicyclers to wear a helmet, etc ...danoff
People just can't let live and let live. Nice to read that you - besides from your support for Bush
- share that opinion.
- 660
Well said, perhaps a good end to this discussion. Finally, we're all car enthousiasts.milefile
Btw : it hurts to see how the Iraqi's use their aircooled VW's as car bombs! A few weeks ago, I read they even destroyed a VW Brasilia, a rare car, at least in Europe. That's a lot of donor cars lost, which could have been used for spares for my buggy if I'd ever travel to that region.
