BF2S Forums World War III Announced

Sorry, mikkel, but when did the US electrocute people and hang them by their arms?...not to mention simply killing dissenters.  Saddam was a general problem and a threat, "not a trustworthy dictator" was just a simple way of stating that he shouldn't have been ruling a nation.  The US even sold Iraq the component parts for chemical weapons and Saddam had used chemical weapons in the '80s and 90's.

Yes, the US has plenty of WMDs, but we don't use them on innocent civilians on a regular basis!  Human rights violations, well there is a whole other thread about that one..."oh no! they won't tell me which way is east!"...  You call Bush a dictator.  While you and I may disagree on some of his policies, slinging around names which don't apply is immature.  (dictator: n. 1.a. A ruler having absolute authority and supreme jurisdiction over the government of a state.  b.  A tyrant)  The US still has a checked and balanced government.

+lowing's info

Now that we have both had our little share of personal attacks, let us get back to debating.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

THE SAME UN that UNORGINALNUTTAH endorses and is so fond of!!.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scre … s1441e.pdf

read it ALL for yourselves and shut up about it!!

And here's the full story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Securit … ution_1441

Well that is just great!!........I give you the resolution itself, and you are going to give me wikipedia to read. Gee thanks.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well that is just great!!........I give you the resolution itself, and you are going to give me wikipedia to read. Gee thanks.

The resolution is meaningless without the events surrounding it.  You do know the events surrounding it, right?

You are the big UN fan here, I pointed out in their own documents that they "recognized" the threat of WMD's in Iraq. Please don't even try to elude this or disect it until you can break it down to mean what you want it to mean. This isn't the bible.

Just acknowlege the point that I was trying to make and let it go. I don't care what yours or Wikipedia's interpretation of the resolution is. It is stated clear and plain in black and white that the WMD's WERE RECOGNIZED AS A THREAT BY YOUR  PRECIOUS UN!!! It wasn't invented by Bush to start a war.

In all other posts, you hold the UN on a pretty high pedistal. But now, that they saw what Bush saw in Iraq, their resolutions are "meaningless".

can you sayyyyyyyyyyy..............flip flop?

Last edited by lowing (2006-05-11 03:28:14)

lowing wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well that is just great!!........I give you the resolution itself, and you are going to give me wikipedia to read. Gee thanks.

The resolution is meaningless without the events surrounding it.  You do know the events surrounding it, right?

You are the big UN fan here, I pointed out in their own documents that they "recognized" the threat of WMD's in Iraq. Please don't even try to elude this or disect it until you can break it down to mean what you want it to mean. This isn't the bible.

Just acknowlege the point that I was trying to make and let it go. I don't care what yours or Wikipedia's interpretation of the resolution is. It is stated clear and plain in black and white that the WMD's WERE RECOGNIZED AS A THREAT BY YOUR  PRECIOUS UN!!! It wasn't invented by Bush to start a war.

In all other posts, you hold the UN on a pretty high pedistal. But now, that they saw what Bush saw in Iraq, their resolutions are "meaningless".

can you sayyyyyyyyyyy..............flip flop?

I think you need to practice your comprehension.  I said the resolutions are meaningless without looking at the events surrounding them.

unorginalnuttah,

just admit that the UN whom you support, thought that there was WMD in Iraq. Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee

Last edited by lowing (2006-05-11 03:36:43)

lowing wrote:

Ahhhhhhhh so you are saying that the UN didn't look at the surrounding events before making this resolution. Well hey, it is your UN.

No, I'm saying there were events surrounding this resolution which need to be considered, rather than taking it out of context and using it as justification for a war.  Saddam had agreed to comply with UN requirements, so in that sense the resolution was successful.  Iraq claimed to have disarmed, and there were no weapons found, so maybe just maybe they really had.

lowing wrote:

It was ACCEPTED by the world that the INTEL about the WMD's was accurate!! It wasn't a Bush war monger conspiracy theory.

lowing wrote:

unorginalnuttah,
just admit that the UN whom you support, thought that there was WMD in Iraq. Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee

To me that seems like two completely different statements. 

Let's talk about the first: It was accepted by the world that Iraq hadn't complied with weapons inspections, but I don't see where it says the UN accepts that he definitely has weapons of mass destruction... it says that if the remaining weapons (which came from where, originally?) have been disarmed that this needs to be independently verified.

The second: The UN thought that there might still be WMDs.

lowing wrote:

I think so, I don't recall a dictator ever being VOTED out of office

Ever recall one being voted in?

mikkel wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Sorry, mikkel, but when did the US electrocute people and hang them by their arms? [...] Human rights violations, well there is a whole other thread about that one..."oh no! they won't tell me which way is east!"...

Since Abu Ghraib.

If you honestly believe that your little quotation there is what people are complaining about, you're either immensely ignorant to the whole argument, or you need to stop watching FOX News.

But hey, if you so firmly believe that their problems are that trivial, I'm sure that you wouldn't mind being taken from your home, flown half-way around the world and kept from your family and loved ones without a chance to protect them from the war going on in their back yard, being held with absolutely no charges without ever having committed any of the crimes that they're casually suspecting you of, and being treated in violation of human rights for four years. Imagine how that would be, knowing that your wife and children were in the middle of a warzone, waking up every day feeling helpless to protect them, and not even knowing if they were still alive. I'm sure you can do that. You are man enough to ridicule it on the internet.

Holding a person under arrest without charges is a violation of human rights, and not meeting the minimum requirements for the treatment of prisoners is violation of human rights, too.  These two violations happened on a massive scale as a direct result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so I'm afraid any argument of trying to stop human rights violations just went down the drain there.

RAIMIUS wrote:

Saddam was a general problem and a threat, "not a trustworthy dictator" was just a simple way of stating that he shouldn't have been ruling a nation.  The US even sold Iraq the component parts for chemical weapons and Saddam had used chemical weapons in the '80s and 90's.

So the madman is the problem, but the people supplying the madmen are okay?

Saddam might not have been the most pleasant of fellows, but his actions were on a local scale, not the global scale problems that Bush is directly responsible for either through active or passive stances. That just isn't valid. If you're going to attack countries just 'cause the leaders adopt unethical stances, start with half of the African continent, then Israel, the US and China. These are all responsible for more deaths than Iraq could ever hope to be.

RAIMIUS wrote:

Yes, the US has plenty of WMDs, but we don't use them on innocent civilians on a regular basis!

I believe the US still holds the record for most innocent civilians killed with Weapons of Mass Destruction.

get the fuck outta here about abu ghraib.  A few bad apples do not spoil the bunch and regardless, what our reservists did there is nothing compared to what saddam did to his people  for 30 years, dont be retarded.  Nobody died in abu ghraib because of torture

the point is, gunslinger, that the US decided unilaterally that they would not support the UN and not follow due process. The reasons for that are unknown to me.

I do suppose, however, that the US government thought that it would take the UN too long to decide on military action against Iraq or that the UN would never have done that at all.

So they decided to go ahead themselves, undermining the UN's efforts in the process.
I'll be the first to admit that the UN doesn't function as good as it should, and that its effectiveness is limited due to internal issues. The UN needs reform.
But that doesn't mean we should drop support totally or bypass them when we feel we can. IMHO.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

get the fuck outta here about abu ghraib.  A few bad apples do not spoil the bunch and regardless, what our reservists did there is nothing compared to what saddam did to his people  for 30 years, dont be retarded.  Nobody died in abu ghraib because of torture

A few bad apples do not spoil the bunch? That seems to be what the US' is living by in respect to Guantanamo.

I don't think you grasp my point.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

Resolution 1441 was passed on evidence shown by Powel to the rest of the world. Much of this evidence has turned out be suspect at best. The Resolution was passed by the US & UK strong arming the countries involved.
'Minutes after Yemen voted against the resolution to attack Iraq, a senior American diplomat told the Yemeni ambassador: "That was the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast." Within three days, a US aid programme of $70m to one of the world's poorest countries was stopped. Yemen suddenly had problems with the World Bank and the IMF; and 800,000 Yemeni workers were expelled from Saudi Arabia.

haha, shit, its not their money to begin with.  Why does the world feel thst the Unites States is compelled to give aid to every shitty little country in the world

Because the rest of the world does. It's called humanity.

Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-11 09:03:55)

Horseman 77 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

haha, shit, its not their money to begin with.  Why does the world feel thst the Unites States is compelled to give aid to every shitty little country in the world

Because the rest of the world does. It's called humanity.

I feel we have done and given more than our share in money material and Lives.

No one seems to apreciate it.

Lets take care of things at home and Flat out Bribe or Pay for our allies.

At least we will know where we Really stand with them if We have a Written Contract.

Actually, per GNP, the United States ranks very, very low on foreign aid spendings. Much lower than your "share".

Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-11 09:18:25)

mikkel wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Because the rest of the world does. It's called humanity.

I feel we have done and given more than our share in money material and Lives.

No one seems to apreciate it.

Lets take care of things at home and Flat out Bribe or Pay for our allies.

At least we will know where we Really stand with them if We have a Written Contract.

Actually, per GNP, the United States ranks very, very low on foreign aid spendings. Much lower than your "share".

So we have 80 trillion and give 15 billion and some other nation has 1 million and gives 10 grand and that makes the Starving people feel better, Because "SnackoStan"gave 2 doughnuts out of the Ten it made that week, Instead of The Hundreds of Tons of Food and medical Supplies the USA sends ?
Forget this "Per GNP" krap. How much money does your Country actually give compared to say, The USA?
Besides We should put our citizens first and no one " including you "has the right to tell us otherwise. Why cant we demand services rendered for our own money if we decide to? Our money, our food, our soldeirs,

Our say

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-11 09:49:31)

Horseman 77 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

I feel we have done and given more than our share in money material and Lives.

No one seems to apreciate it.

Lets take care of things at home and Flat out Bribe or Pay for our allies.

At least we will know where we Really stand with them if We have a Written Contract.

Actually, per GNP, the United States ranks very, very low on foreign aid spendings. Much lower than your "share".

So we have 80 trillion and give 15 billion and some other nation has 1 million and gives 10 grand and that makes the Starving people feel better?
Forget this "Per GNP" krap. How much money does your Country actually give compared to say, The USA?
Besides We should put our citizens first and no one " including you "has the right to tell us otherwise. We cant we demand services rendered for our own money if we decide to?

"Forget this "Per GNP" krap."? Are you sure you know how the real world works? In the real world, generosity is measured not in raw numbers, but in the impact it has on the country donating the money. What makes the starving people feel better is money for aid. If you're giving a miniscule amount of the money available to you compared to what other countries give, you've quite obviously not given "more than your share". What you hold back hurts twice as much as what you give benefits.

My tiny country of about 5 million people gave $2,1bn in foreign aid assistance in 2005. That's 0,81% of our GNP. The US gave $27,5bn in foreign aid assistance in 2005. That's 0,22% of the US GNP.

The share of my country's financial capabilities devoted to foreign aid is five times higher than that of the US. This places my country among the five out of twenty-two UN members that are reaching the goal of 0,7% of the GNP donated to foreign aid that the UN agreed to for developed countries in 1970. The deadline for reaching this goal was 1975. This also places the US 21st out of 22 on that list, only exceeding Portugal by 0,01%. This means that they are donating less than half of the average of those 22 countries.

No, the US is not donating their share. Since you're going on about alliances, perhaps you could consider the US alliance to the UN before talking of treason. The US is -obligated- by the UN to donate 0,7%. This figure was arrived at by the member states, the US being -highly- influential. Before complaining of dishonoured alliances, perhaps the US should honour theirs to the UN.

This figure was decided in part by the US, the US voted in favour of this, and by being a member of the UN, the US wowed to follow this just like every other UN member. This isn't something that just suddenly dumped in. This is a 36 year old agreement, and if the US can't live up to the obligations they themselves agreed to, then I can assure you that they is plenty of room for criticism.

So yes, I do indeed think that people have the right to tell you otherwise.

Last edited by mikkel (2006-05-11 10:16:25)

mikkel wrote:

-Human rights violations - Iraq [x] - US [x]

If you're going to attack a country, make sure that you aren't being a hypocrite, and if you're going to attack a country for human rights violations,
make sure you aren't committing them yourself.

Are you trying to be Funny, The U.S.human rights violation? an 18 year, old Blue eyed girl making you wear a Dog leash Pales compared to, Mass graves, genocide, People being shredded alive, Beheadings, mutilations, etc. I wonder if you are being realistic?