10-27-2004, 12:32 PM
"The secretary of the UN said so. You are a pretty smart guy but I do think he's smarter and has more knowledge on the subject."
The UN is corrupt and i'd support the U.S. pulling out all money/support from the UN. Most people don't want to lose our veto power though. (I don't think that will matter long if we pull out but whatever) But most people do think the UN needs to undergo some serious changes.
"Once again, there were weapons inspectors let in. They weren't allowed to fininsh because Bush patience was gone and he invaded."
You've gotta be shitting me. The weapons inspecters were repeatedly thrown out of his country for absolutely no reason other than Saddam didn't want them there anymore. This breached the UN resolutions but hey, the corrupt UN was making money from Saddam now, what do they care about enforcing their resolutions? The U.S., however, did care and we did something about it. I think Bush's biggest mistake was saying we are going there mostly for WMD's. He should have said he was upholding the UN's honor and enforcing the resolutions Saddam so blatently ignored.
"The UN resolution did not promise war. It said something along the lines of 'if they don't comply there will be serious consequences'."
He got serious consequences didn't he? What else are we gonna do when he ignores all our resolutions? Tell him he's a bad man? Tell me, if after WW2 the Germans decided they were going to ignore what the other countried said they had to do and started rebuilding another nazi army, would you be against going to war with them again too?
"The US sees this resolution as saying there would be war if they didn't comply and all the countries opposed think that the resolution didn't say that."
Most the other countries opposed were either worried about their oil or had illegal oil for food program kickbacks going with Saddam.
"And this is very important since I see resemblance with WWII: Why do you believe its the US right to invade a country on their own. Do other countries also have this right? What if Spain, who also suffered a devestating terrorist attack, decided to invade Moroko where some of the terrorists came from?
Seriously, this scares me that a country can do this and get away with it. Last time this happened Saddam invaded Kuwait and he didn't get away with it but the US does."
If Moroko (is that how you spell it?) supported terrorists and was not willing to work with Spain then yes, i'd support Spains decision to invade their country and take care of the problem themselves. However, Spain is obviously full of cowards so that isn't going to be happening any time soon. They suffered a devestating terrorist attack and they wanted to bow down before the terrorists and ask forgiveness. BTW a little know fact, Spain was again attacked AFTER their government changed and bowed down before the terrorists. They're just lucky their government stopped the attack first. So again, how does anyone support the claim the terrorists just want to be left alone? Didn't work for Spain obviously.
The UN is corrupt and i'd support the U.S. pulling out all money/support from the UN. Most people don't want to lose our veto power though. (I don't think that will matter long if we pull out but whatever) But most people do think the UN needs to undergo some serious changes.
"Once again, there were weapons inspectors let in. They weren't allowed to fininsh because Bush patience was gone and he invaded."
You've gotta be shitting me. The weapons inspecters were repeatedly thrown out of his country for absolutely no reason other than Saddam didn't want them there anymore. This breached the UN resolutions but hey, the corrupt UN was making money from Saddam now, what do they care about enforcing their resolutions? The U.S., however, did care and we did something about it. I think Bush's biggest mistake was saying we are going there mostly for WMD's. He should have said he was upholding the UN's honor and enforcing the resolutions Saddam so blatently ignored.
"The UN resolution did not promise war. It said something along the lines of 'if they don't comply there will be serious consequences'."
He got serious consequences didn't he? What else are we gonna do when he ignores all our resolutions? Tell him he's a bad man? Tell me, if after WW2 the Germans decided they were going to ignore what the other countried said they had to do and started rebuilding another nazi army, would you be against going to war with them again too?
"The US sees this resolution as saying there would be war if they didn't comply and all the countries opposed think that the resolution didn't say that."
Most the other countries opposed were either worried about their oil or had illegal oil for food program kickbacks going with Saddam.
"And this is very important since I see resemblance with WWII: Why do you believe its the US right to invade a country on their own. Do other countries also have this right? What if Spain, who also suffered a devestating terrorist attack, decided to invade Moroko where some of the terrorists came from?
Seriously, this scares me that a country can do this and get away with it. Last time this happened Saddam invaded Kuwait and he didn't get away with it but the US does."
If Moroko (is that how you spell it?) supported terrorists and was not willing to work with Spain then yes, i'd support Spains decision to invade their country and take care of the problem themselves. However, Spain is obviously full of cowards so that isn't going to be happening any time soon. They suffered a devestating terrorist attack and they wanted to bow down before the terrorists and ask forgiveness. BTW a little know fact, Spain was again attacked AFTER their government changed and bowed down before the terrorists. They're just lucky their government stopped the attack first. So again, how does anyone support the claim the terrorists just want to be left alone? Didn't work for Spain obviously.