Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: deep_eyes on November 08, 2002, 10:33:38 am
-
Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,
Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,
Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure to comply with relevant Council resolutions,
Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;
4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and or 12 below;
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;
6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;
7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;
-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA ;
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;
-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and
-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import and use of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;
8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;
9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
------------------------------
can we say by thanksgiving were gonna see a increase of uh-ohs?
-
or "oh, ya!!!"s, depending on you're point of view
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
or "oh, ya!!!"s, depending on you're point of view
I was thinking along the lines of, its about friggen time. ;)
-
:eek2: Now that's what I call a run-on sentence! :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Did anyone ever think that pissing off someone who supposedly has large stocks of biological, chemical and nuclear weaponry and who has supposedly been developing long-range launching systems is maybe a bad idea?
Cornered animal, anyone?
If Iraq was just left the hell alone they'd MAYBE annihilate Kuwait. If they're attacked or forced into a corner, they'll probably incinerate a large chunk of the Earth, prompting everyone else to do the same, turning the entire middle-east into one smouldering crater filled with millions of bearded corpses.
-
Lets hope it works and stops a war, eh? God knows they haven't finished cleaning up Aghanistan yet. And i'm sure no-one wants a West-Muslim cold war to develop.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Lets hope it works and stops a war, eh? God knows they haven't finished cleaning up Aghanistan yet. And i'm sure no-one wants a West-Muslim cold war to develop.
I do. Teach America a ****ing lesson and cripple their economy in the process.
-
I was thinking along the lines of, its about friggen time. ;)
:yes:
-
I think we need to deal with him slowly and carefully. If hes cornered he will do anything in his power to go out fighting.
-
/me gets comfortable.
i hope everyone likes radiation poisoning - it sure beats a slow death at the hands of our culture.
-
Originally posted by RandomTiger
I think we need to deal with him slowly and carefully. If hes cornered he will do anything in his power to go out fighting.
Or maybe he won't, cripple the American propaganda surrounding him and subsequently undermine the confidence that Americans have in their military and government, which would do more damage than any war he could mount and it'd be a personal kick in the face for Bush.
-
yes see so it's a win win situation, ether we win and an evil tirant that nobody like is removed from power or we lose and the much hated USA gets the biggest embaresment in it's history and many of it's people killed
ether whay you all should be somewhat happy
-
Normally I'd be gleefully happy that thousands of people were about to die, but all the pretense and pointlessness have killed the fun.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
yes see so it's a win win situation, ether we win and an evil tirant that nobody like is removed from power or we lose and the much hated USA gets the biggest embaresment in it's history and many of it's people killed
ether whay you all should be somewhat happy
Good I'm glad the American people have decided to send Bush and pals to the Guillotine :rolleyes:
-
Yesterday, I watched a Discovery channel documentary about Saddam Hussein's rise to power, and his rule since then. Did you know that he is known to have committed at least one murder during his youth? And that his uncle introduced him to politics not because the party concerned thought young Saddam was a great speaker or motivator, but because they needed a competent killer.
Saddam Hussien has systematically tortured and murdered every single Iraqi policitican who might have breathed a word of opposition. He has people killed on nothing more than suspicon of 'treason'. He has top officials killed if they become too popular, so that he has no rival to contend with. He had the ayatollah of the Iraqi Shiite muslims tortured and killed (reportedly by having his beard set on fire), because he feared an uprising of the Shiite majority like that in Iran. He has threatened to use his NBC weapons of mass destruction against his own country before he is ousted from power by force. His own brother-in-law admitted that Saddam was planning to take a nuclear bomb in to Kuweit or Israel by truck, and detonate it. Needless to say, the brother-in-law was later killed by the secret police.
Saddam Hussien's eldest son killed a mnan he held a grudge against by beating him to death in front of a dining hall full of people. No one dared to help the man. Though the son was 'punished' by being sent to the Iraqi embassy in Geneva, he was forgiven only a few years later, and was welcomed back by his father.
The former head of Iraq's atomic energy commision was told to produce nucelar weapons. When he said he didn't know how, he was imprisoned and tortured, before a ten-year period of solitary confinment.
The list goes on...
Saddam Hussein is a bad man...
I realise that the American government is ****ed up, but I know which regime I'd rather live under...
-
an accountable one or a non accountable one?
well, I agree but considering there are other factors involved I do not feel the US is at all justified in starting a war and possibly starting WW3 in the process.
-
I think I have already stated many times around here why this appeasement "let him lie" policy is absurdly stupid, and the funny thing is, after a bit of arguing, people agreed back then. :p A WW3 is probably inevitable at some point anyway; what matters is how it turns out. As I said, it's a good thing that the governments pay no attention to the whining of the masses.
Saddam Hussien's eldest son killed a mnan he held a grudge against by beating him to death in front of a dining hall full of people. No one dared to help the man. Though the son was 'punished' by being sent to the Iraqi embassy in Geneva, he was forgiven only a few years later, and was welcomed back by his father.
:lol: I heard about this one too, but the reason why he killed the guy is pretty funny. See, this other guy was hosting some sort of party on the palace grounds, but Uday (the older son) was also hosting his own party nearby. However, he got mad at the loud noise and music coming from the other party gathering (which was apparently drowning out his own boom boxes), so he went and smashed up the other host. The dead guy was apparently one of Hussein's favorite officers, so he said something like "you have been behaving badly, Uday" and sent him out for a few years. :D :D
-
Well, according to the documentary I watched, the dead guy had been Saddam's food taster. This guy had apparently introduced Saddam to a woman whom Saddam took for his second wife. Uday blamed the subsequent family bust-up on the food taster, and killed him.
And I really don't wanna see a war - hell, I'm making an appliction for the Airforce nexct week, I might find myself fighting in WW3. But if they asked for volunteers to go pop a cap in Saddam's arse, I'd step forward :nod:
-
Oh okay, I think I know which one you are talking about; that was also a similar incident with this man...
-
it's easy to loose track :)
you know what I just realised, this thing was unanamus, meaning even Syria voted for it
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
:eek2: Now that's what I call a run-on sentence! :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol:
Indeed! That whole thing is ONE SENTENCE! Is there a rule that lawyers and politicians can't use periods? :wtf:
-
We will be dead soon... And we didn't even need a sathanas to do it....
(http://www.fattonys.com/images/upload/smily0013.gif)
-
Indeed! That whole thing is ONE SENTENCE! Is there a rule that lawyers and politicians can't use periods? :wtf:
whoa, I just noticed that; that has to be longest sentence I have ever seen... :eek:
I think it is technically valid though, right? Or is it a run-on?
-
Dude, is it not enough that you're a maths nerd? Blimey...
:p;)
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Yesterday, I watched a Discovery channel documentary about Saddam Hussein's rise to power, and his rule since then. Did you know that he is known to have committed at least one murder during his youth? And that his uncle introduced him to politics not because the party concerned thought young Saddam was a great speaker or motivator, but because they needed a competent killer.
Saddam Hussien has systematically tortured and murdered every single Iraqi policitican who might have breathed a word of opposition. He has people killed on nothing more than suspicon of 'treason'. He has top officials killed if they become too popular, so that he has no rival to contend with. He had the ayatollah of the Iraqi Shiite muslims tortured and killed (reportedly by having his beard set on fire), because he feared an uprising of the Shiite majority like that in Iran. He has threatened to use his NBC weapons of mass destruction against his own country before he is ousted from power by force. His own brother-in-law admitted that Saddam was planning to take a nuclear bomb in to Kuweit or Israel by truck, and detonate it. Needless to say, the brother-in-law was later killed by the secret police.
Saddam Hussien's eldest son killed a mnan he held a grudge against by beating him to death in front of a dining hall full of people. No one dared to help the man. Though the son was 'punished' by being sent to the Iraqi embassy in Geneva, he was forgiven only a few years later, and was welcomed back by his father.
The former head of Iraq's atomic energy commision was told to produce nucelar weapons. When he said he didn't know how, he was imprisoned and tortured, before a ten-year period of solitary confinment.
The list goes on...
Saddam Hussein is a bad man...
I realise that the American government is ****ed up, but I know which regime I'd rather live under...
best bit of info i read all week!
and tiara what the hell is that animation?
and im only gone 4 hours and the thread gets ram sacked lol... wow... we all awake today!
-
Originally posted by wEvil
well, I agree but considering there are other factors involved I do not feel the US is at all justified in starting a war and possibly starting WW3 in the process.
Starting WW3? You kidding? People often kid about bombing people back into the stone age, but it's entirely possible. How much of Iraq would have been left after the last gulf war if the US hadn't been using smart weapons and instead had gone for saturation bombing like in WWII?
Besides, the Islamic states aren't a military threat to the West. They lack any form of power projection. Terrorist threat yes, military threat no.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Did anyone ever think that pissing off someone who supposedly has large stocks of biological, chemical and nuclear weaponry and who has supposedly been developing long-range launching systems is maybe a bad idea?
Cornered animal, anyone?
If Iraq was just left the hell alone they'd MAYBE annihilate Kuwait. If they're attacked or forced into a corner, they'll probably incinerate a large chunk of the Earth, prompting everyone else to do the same, turning the entire middle-east into one smouldering crater filled with millions of bearded corpses.
You're fan of Chamberlain aren't you? Or how about the Vicci government.... peace at any price. In other words you're a pussy.
Let's have history kick us in the face when Iraq decides to do something. Here's another idea, how about we attack his ass now... so we're prepared to deal with ****. I'd much prefer that then finding a nuke in NY's subway. When that happens i'm sure you'll say that we brought this one ourselves by letting Saddam live. Europeans and English that act like yourself are only good for two things: fire fodder and assigning blame.
You guys don't give a **** because you don't have to worry about terrorists targeting you. Did we ***** and whine when the SAS kicked ass? We supported, now grow a pair and learn what it means to be an ally.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
an accountable one or a non accountable one?
well, I agree but considering there are other factors involved I do not feel the US is at all justified in starting a war and possibly starting WW3 in the process.
Do laws mean anything? Saddam is in clear violation of mandates and the UN does jack ****, so someone has to. I'm sorry where i come from i don't look the other way when someone kills people and keeps his gun.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Starting WW3? You kidding? People often kid about bombing people back into the stone age, but it's entirely possible. How much of Iraq would have been left after the last gulf war if the US hadn't been using smart weapons and instead had gone for saturation bombing like in WWII?
Besides, the Islamic states aren't a military threat to the West. They lack any form of power projection. Terrorist threat yes, military threat no.
Good to see ya man. Amen.
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
You're fan of Chamberlain aren't you? Or how about the Vicci government.... peace at any price. In other words you're a pussy.
Let's have history kick us in the face when Iraq decides to do something. Here's another idea, how about we attack his ass now... so we're prepared to deal with ****. I'd much prefer that then finding a nuke in NY's subway. When that happens i'm sure you'll say that we brought this one ourselves by letting Saddam live. Europeans and English that act like yourself are only good for two things: fire fodder and assigning blame.
You guys don't give a **** because you don't have to worry about terrorists targeting you. Did we ***** and whine when the SAS kicked ass? We supported, now grow a pair and learn what it means to be an ally.
Um... I think the point is that Saddam Hussein is far more likely to do something nuts when he's cornered and up against the wall. In other words, going to war increases the risk of the aformentioned nuke in NY. That's why it has to be a LAST resort.
The reason i'm opposed to the war is not because I don't think Saddam Hussein has to be removed - he does - it's because he isn;t a threat to anyone at the moment (massive retaliation....) and because Afghanistan is still unstable (and the US / UK have done **** all to try and rebuild that country after they flattened most of it...).
And ally does not mean we are you're ****ing lapdog. This isn;t the USSr and weren't not your sattelite state. got it?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
...and the US / UK have done **** all to try and rebuild that country after they flattened most of it...
Actually, Russia is far more responsible for the destruction of the Afghani infastructure than the United States. As I remember, US strategists had a hard time using high-tech weapons in that conflict largely because everything was already rubble. It was saturation bombing and 10 years of uninterrupted warfare by Russia in the 1980's that created the dump which Afghanistan is today.
-
Let's have history kick us in the face when Iraq decides to do something. Here's another idea,
how about we attack his ass now... so we're prepared to deal with ****. I'd much prefer that then finding a nuke in NY's subway. When that happens i'm sure you'll say that we brought this one ourselves by letting Saddam live.
Quite, because everyone knows you make an argument more sound by weaving it with profanity :rolleyes: I mean wh needs facts when you've got witty rhetoric like "let's kick his ass".
What makes you so sure It will be Saddam Hussain's "ass" you will be "kicking"? I always thought Iraq had a population much larger than one, despite America's best efforts.
Who precisely is the "we" in your argument anyway? You make it sound as if America is a meritocratic state with complete equality for everyone. If the ascension to President, of a man with the cranial capacity of a simpleton, purely because of his family background hasn't woken the American People up to just how "democratic" their state is there's little hope for them.
Europeans and English that act like yourself are only good for two things: fire fodder and assigning blame.
Blahblahblah. Hitler said the same about the Jews, Stalin said the same about the Trotskyites and Saddam said it about the Kurds, congratulations for lowering yourself to their level Moron:rolleyes: The repetition of cliched sweeping statements like this only prove you to be the sheep the previous part of your argument suggests you are. Explain why you think Europeans and English that act in this manner are "good" for "fire fodder".
You show a complete lack of understanding that I've come to Expect from you. The French were very Aggressive at the time of the Second world war and Nevil Chamberlain would have been all too keen to impose his will on a country that was defenseless. It's only been in the last fifty years that they've adopted such a stance.
I'd be prepared to say that an excessively conformative American that's incapable of constructing a coherent argument; resorting to gross generalizations, arrogant assumptions, no facts or proof and all regurgitated from various right wing TV Networks and Politicians is considerably more suited to "fire fodder" than anyone else. How about signing up (http://www.usmilitary.com/priorserviceform.html)
-
Originally posted by Falcon X
Europeans and English that act like yourself are only good for two things: fire fodder and assigning blame
Right! Let's bash a noggin!
*slaps cricket bat in palm*
-
this so called war is only a device by which to expand the USA's commercial interests further into the middle east, and you know it.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
this so called war is only a device by which to expand the USA's commercial interests further into the middle east, and you know it.
But they're Americans silly. Who cares if the spoils of war go to some crooked halfwit. They'll be killing a load on Camel Jockeys that clearly deserve to die for not allowing spies into their country:rolleyes:
-
i wonder if anyones come out with anti-radiation sunglasses for watching nuclear fireworks...
I know it sounds horrible but im actually looking forward to something CHANGING for the first time in 40 years...:D
-
Wheee! The UN has some power afterall. To think I only ever remember them for when they had thier guns taken off them.
Anyway, lets all relax and see how this plays out. I personally hope Saddam gives us an excuse to wipe him out and free his people... and some nice oil reserves at the same time (hey lets not romanticise this).
Btw, for any1 who hasn't noticed - look at my location, I am not American. (as people often think when they see me supporting a war against iraq)
-
1. This has been rehashed over and over again, ad nauseam. Nobody's really posting anything in the slightest bit new here, can we cut the crap and just start going "Are not!" "Are too!"? Frankly, I'd have a lot more respect for someone who had a sensible enough perspecitve on their own bull**** enough not to take it so seriously, and just leve it at that simplistic level. Talking Big Politics isn't making y'all look smart, and it isn't winning any converts. It's making you look like little kids coughing up the half-baked pap your parents mimicked from the news (who gets their crap from god knows where), without sufficient comprehension to get what each other are saying in the slightest. Give it up.
2. Falcon's asking for a mass flaming. Let's do one of those instead, there'd be a lot less crap involved.
-
wow a triple post.. you trying to contend with Stealth or something?
-
are too!!!
-
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by wEvil
this so called war is only a device by which to expand the USA's commercial interests further into the middle east, and you know it.
And?
-
ahh..our staunch capitalist defender returns.
And - well, it's bad enough having the way i live my life dictated as much as it is already. The problem with western culture is that there is no alternative. I can only dread to imagine how depressing a global western-style culture would be :(
-
Hey, my life is kinda fun
-
Originally posted by wEvil
ahh..our staunch capitalist defender returns.
Hey, I like that title o.O
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
are too!!!
are not!!!!!
-
(http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/library/images/posters/communism_logical.jpg)
-
are too!!!!1!!1!!!!
-
How many people here want a war?
Come on, raise your hands. Ok, you guys can leave the room, don't call us, we'll call you.
How many people here refuse to have a war at any cost?
Ok, you guys can leave too.
No really, if you want a war, your pretty much clinically insane. Flat out. I'd also would like to have pacifists be right for once...but pacificism as far as I think only invites someone else to make war on you. Why? Because humans are selfish beings; corrupted by power; the victims and victimizers. We are our own worst enemy.
Now, as I look at it...the Iraqi situation is intolerable. Sadam has several presidential palaces, weapons programs, and kills nuclear scientists if they won't build him bombs. The human cost to his country is whats intolerable about the whole situation. Oh and Iraq isn't the only place in the world where there is pain and suffering...that is everywhere and I wish everyone would try and make a concerted effort to fix that problem but I go back to one of my first points that humans are selfish beings.
Now back to the grand scheme of things. I consider Sadam to be a madman, the point has been made that he would be more likely to use WMD's if he's backed into a corner...but how long do you want to wait before you have to back him into the corner because you are left with no other choice. This is not a rational man by any stretch of the imagination...he has absolute power and control...and if he thinks turning part of the world into scorched earth would be a fun afternoon...then he'd do it. Anything to make those American pigs burn I guess.
The distinction I see between our side, and I mean the people of other nations, and Sadam's side is that we would prefer to live in a world without a madamn who would use weapons like those.
And you can say...well yes, Russia, America, and other nations have those weapons too. I bet not many American presidents have the conscience to press the button to essentially destroy the world...would any of you of the sane people that I weeded out at the beginning do it? Probably not...being the rational people you are and prefering to see the sun rise and set and the sky to be blue.
Sorry...turned into a bit of a crazymans ramble.
The point: No-one should want to go to war, but if you have to fight then there should be no second guesses. If I have to go to war, which I darn well do not, to defend lives of others in a relatively well meaning country that I live in...then I will do what has to be done.
It is the same tired rhetoric...but I think its said in the hopes that one day nobody would have to defend their country with their life.
I leave with a quote.
"It is said that the future is always born in pain. The history of war is the history of pain. If we are wise, what is born of that pain matures into the promise of a better world, because we learn that we can no longer afford the mistakes of the past."
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
are too!!!!1!!1!!!!
are not!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I agree with Icefire
and
are too, are too, are tooooo!!!!
ha! beat that :cool:
-
Yea he's got a point
are not infinity so naaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !!!!!!!
:P
;7
-
damn, he's good, hmmm...
Are 2!!!!
to the infiniteth power * (Graham's number + 1)
-
We're spamming now? Fantastic!
Oo-ee oo ah-ah, ting-tang, walla-walla bing-bang!
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
damn, he's good, hmmm...
Are 2!!!!
to the infiniteth power * (Graham's number + 1)
uh, you are all too and I am not!!!!! ^ (¥¥¥¥¥+p+e+g+C+n+S+G+K+g1+g1000+1) hahahaha!!!
-
And just how many values DIDN'T you assign there? :p
-
apathy rules.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
apathy rules.
Meh.
-
*is glad this thread died so he didn't have to lock it* ;)
-
I won't even bother reading all this. War is wrong! :no: And this topic is gonna oh well....
-
oh so there is never ever a situation were war is not better than some other non-war like corse of action
-
Sandwich, i take back everytihng i sad. You are an evil, evil man.
Did everybody allready forget about Heretics site? take the politcal drab there. :nod:
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Sandwich, i take back everytihng i sad. You are an evil, evil man.
:drevil:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
oh so there is never ever a situation were war is not better than some other non-war like corse of action
The only time war should be waged, is when it is the only course of action that is available. At present, I don't belive it is. If Iraq rejects weapons inspectors, and there is proof of an immediate danger, then I'd support war. But unless there is an immediate danger, I think we should hold off any war until Afghanistan is fully stablised.....
The other worry I have over this whole situ is the US's plan to put a US general (or higher ranking officer) in charge of Iraq for several years to 'pave the way' to democracy. That, i think, will make the current Israali-Palestine problems look like a storm in a very small teacup.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The other worry I have over this whole situ is the US's plan to put a US general (or higher ranking officer) in charge of Iraq for several years to 'pave the way' to democracy. That, i think, will make the current Israali-Palestine problems look like a storm in a very small teacup.
You know, that's something we haven't done since Japan, and look how ****ty they turned out. I don't see this happening though.
-
You mean they wont even bother setting up a random arabic dude to be a puppet ruler? Blimey...
But... what's wrong with Japan, Blue? Those guys love Merkin Land, and a few more US-loving arab countries might come in handy for calming things down over there...
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
You mean they wont even bother setting up a random arabic dude to be a puppet ruler? Blimey...
They will, they'll set up whoever they think is best (who won't be a pain in their ass, least they hope)
But... what's wrong with Japan, Blue? Those guys love Merkin Land, and a few more US-loving arab countries might come in handy for calming things down over there...
There's nothing wrong with Japan, that was the point I was kinda hinting at. The only time I can think of when the US took total control over a nation was Japan, and look what we got.
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
There's nothing wrong with Japan, that was the point I was kinda hinting at. The only time I can think of when the US took total control over a nation was Japan, and look what we got.
Really small electronics? :lol:
-
Well, you finally convince another nation to give a damn about baseball, and yet you still have only American teams in the World Series... you crazy forgeign types, you crack me up :lol:
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Well, you finally convince another nation to give a damn about baseball, and yet you still have only American teams in the World Series... you crazy forgeign types, you crack me up :lol:
*points to the Motreal Expos and Toronto Blue Jays*
Blue Jays won it a few years ago if I recall correctly
-
1. Two countries don't constitute a 'World' series
2. Canada isn't even a real country
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
2. Canada isn't even a real country
HI! YOU'RE AN IDIOT!
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
1. Two countries don't constitute a 'World' series
2. Canada isn't even a real country
Do you know how hard it is to play 162 game season just in the United States and Canada? Can you imagine trying to fly halfway around the world for a 3 game series then swinging back to play at home? It'd be a disaster
And I think of Canada as more of a country than Britland :D
-
now look who's looking for war (http://wire.ap.org/APnews/main.html?PACKAGEID=iraq2&SLUG=IRAQ%2dUN)
I liked this part
"But parliament said it ultimately will trust whatever President Saddam Hussein decides"
:lol:
-
2. Canada isn't even a real country
Wow, sorry diamond, but that was pretty stupid.. considering the sheer amount of Canooks that lurk round' these parts, your lucky you aren't in a igloo with a moose antler up your ass right now. :drevil: :wink:
:blah: associated press? the websites don't even show anything different other than a banner.
-
isn't it like the 51st state or something...
it will be soon enough,
or I'm not an evil imperialist american !!!
muhahahahaha
:drevil:
-
Actually i think it's more like puerto rico, or American Samoa, save the official name, America Junior. :wink:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
now look who's looking for war (http://wire.ap.org/APnews/main.html?PACKAGEID=iraq2&SLUG=IRAQ%2dUN)
I liked this part
"But parliament said it ultimately will trust whatever President Saddam Hussein decides"
:lol:
Well you know he WAS voted in by 100% of the population
-
lol, the ones who voted against him last election are dead, so people know better this time. :D
-
Why doesn't Bush do that?
I guess that would be a little messy.. by he could do the nation a great favor by just disposing of the retards in Florida.
"Well sir, i forgot who i voted for because I ate my chads"
"chads? what the hell would those have anything to do with proving who one?"
"I duno, but they taste mighty fine.. a lot better dun dat slop dey feed us back at teh retirement castle."
-
not haveing anyone running against him doesn't hurt ether
-
Abuse from assorted Canadians
Hey, blame South Park, not me... ;7
Anyone remember that clip from RA2, where the Merkins have lost most of the States, and you see the general in a new office with a Maple Leaf flag and a view of the mountains in the background and he says "I know... *sigh*... Canada..."
Alright, I'll stop...
Actually while I'm here, everyone else voted for Saddam, right? I mean, you know, I did, I was just wondering if you guys did as well...
-
Why is there this hostile thing between American and Canada? (I always wondered)
-
Same reason we don't like the French (no offence to HLP members of the Gaulish persuasion)
-
There is a very good reason American's think Canada is the 51'st state. Its because it would bring them up a few notches to best country ever! :)
Sure our military sucks, but who needs a military when everyone considers Canada to be a bunch of harmless peacekeeprs :)
-
Where's that picture of the guy in the rubber dinghy with the gun? You know, the "Canada sends its navy to assist the US" one...
-
were going to war. were going to war.
---------------------------------------------------
"We plan to be in, swift, quick, remove sadam, and be back intime for the superbowl!":ha:
-
Oh dear, it's all going to hell... Click! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2447963.stm)
I like the way the Iraqi parliament goes through the charade of the decision making process, as if anyone but Saddam has any authority in that country... and Saddam's son Uday (a known murderer, much like his old man) is the one making a call for a peacfeul result? Didn't see that one comming...