Did You Know...

[dragburn]

Yes, I suppose so, if that's the case sorry. English is not my native language and sometimes I dont get the point in a clear manner. You may have noticed that for my posts, anyway. 

166146[/snapback]

np mate! just trying to clear up confusion for everyone so those supporting the same views dont lash out at eachother.

[Anastasia]

i personally think that the U.S. should go into total isolationism and become independant from these middle east oil countrys.

166149[/snapback]

 

But we'd have to give up our SUVs and buy cars that get more than 15 mpg!

[i92guboj]

np mate! just trying to clear up confusion for everyone so those supporting the same views dont lash out at eachother.

166150[/snapback]

 

Yes, that'd be a waste. Thanks for that dragburn.

[dragburn]

and thats a bad thing anastasia? ;p

 

edit: actually we might not have to give up those 15 mpg suvs. alaska has plenty of oil but we have a bunch of environmentalists standing in the way. i firmly think that yes endangered species conservation is important but if the loss of some non endangered animals keeps U.S. citezens out of the worlds crosshairs then by all means do so. i also cant stand moral vegetarians and like Maddox's idea of eating three kinds of meat when ever in the presence of a moral vegitarian.

Edited May 31, 2005 by dragburn

[Anastasia]

That was sarcasm.

[giannis]

believe me giannis i agree with you. i dont see why our soldiers had to die for those in another country. i personally think that the U.S. should go into total isolationism and become independant from these middle east oil countrys. problem is is that only the elite or a part of the major 2 parties can really afford to run for president. i personally am going to try and change that though. my brother is allready beginning his ascent through the political ranks (school board currently) and i plan to do the same. our government needs a major overhaul on domestic and foreign policy in order to keep the people of the U.S. safe and out of harms way.

166149[/snapback]

 

Amen to that bro. Hopefuly your brother won't get corrupted along the way. On the mean time (before your brother becomes the president) I recomend voting for the Liberterians (that's what i did atleast) if you have to choose between elitists it is usualy best to go for the intellectual ones.

 

Ok I hate beating a dead horse but one last thing and then i'll remain sillent. Probably this will make ppl who still think that Mr Bush went to Iraq to save human lives to reconsider:(Notice the year)

 

In December 2000, Iraq shut off and then slowed down its oil exports in an attempt to extort control of oil revenues. According to the United Nations, as of January 10, 2001, Iraq's reduced exports had already amounted to lost revenue totaling US$1.4 billion dollars.

 

Baghdad's recent insistence on selling its oil in Euros rather than US dollars, which is the worldwide industry standard, will likely result in Iraq losing $250 to $300 million yearly in conversion fees and lost interest. 

 

this is my source (the one i could find atleast. Although this is common knowledge in Europe, ppl in the States seem to ignore it... i wonder why?what is FOX doing?)

[dragburn]

That was sarcasm.

166157[/snapback]

did you see the smiley?

[Anastasia]

and thats a bad thing anastasia? ;p

 

edit: actually we might not have to give up those 15 mpg suvs. alaska has plenty of oil but we have a bunch of environmentalists standing in the way. i firmly think that yes endangered species conservation is important but if the loss of some non endangered animals keeps U.S. citezens out of the worlds crosshairs then by all means do so. i also cant stand moral vegetarians and like Maddox's idea of eating three kinds of meat when ever in the presence of a moral vegitarian.

166156[/snapback]

 

The point is that they're extremely wasteful, and there is no point to it. If a truck built in 1988 can get 20 miles to the gallon, why can't we do better now? We have the technology, so why don't we use it to maximize efficiency? Our economy is based on the availability of cheap oil, and if that is no longer available, what would we do? Why tear up Alaska when our time and money could be better spent finding and putting to use alternative sources of fuel?

[dragburn]

getting the consumers to abandon thier wastefulness is impossible unless the corperations were influenced as they allready have a major monopolie. (sp?) the thing with alaska is that it holds plenty to make the U.S. completely independant from other oil sources. this buys time to help implement alternative fuel encouragement. i personally am a fan of ethanol but the world standard is gasoline so automaking corperations arent likly to convert their product.

[Anastasia]

getting the consumers to abandon thier wastefulness is impossible unless the corperations were influenced as they allready have a major monopolie. (sp?) the thing with alaska is that it holds plenty to make the U.S. completely independant from other oil sources. this buys time to help implement alternative fuel encouragement. i personally am a fan of ethanol but the world standard is gasoline so automaking corperations arent likly to convert their product.

166165[/snapback]

 

They've already started: hybrid cars.

[dragburn]

and how many models of hybrid cars are coming out? do they equal that of the suv population? how many new models of suvs are coming out?

the corperations are seeing a market for hybrid cars at the moment but as soon as the U.S. can get a healthy oil reserve the market will dwindle and hybrid cars might be out of work.

 

edit: sry if im like gone for an hour. dinner calls.....

Edited May 31, 2005 by dragburn

[Anastasia]

Hybrid cars offer power through both gasoline and another power source (typically electricity), so they will be able to function with or without oil around.

[dragburn]

yes but without them being a fairly hot commodity a corperation deems them worthless since they wont be making money from it. the consumer actually dictates what gets sold and what doesn't by their purchasing patterns. when oil reserves are replenished the comsumers most likely will go back to thier old patterns since they no longer see the need for a special vehicle that saves them money. they however see a need to (pardon my cliche) "Keep up with the Jones" and most likely will gravitate back to status symbols like suvs and midlife crisis sports cars.

[Arnieman]

Alright, time for me to blast this thread wide open... er, add my two cents.

 

1.) WMDs. Hello? How do we know they had any?

Well, as someone "kindly" pointed out, 18 years ago "who knew where Iraq was?" Well, obviously the US Government, because we were the ones to give them WMDs. We thought they'd fight off Iran, and we wouldn't have to worry... seems after they went into Kuwait, we had to tell them to get rid of the weapons... 12 years, several UN resolutions (I believe the number was around 15?), and one bombing raid later, Saddam was STILL refusing weapons inspectors. I'm sorry, but if you have to tell someone the same thing over and over, and they barely pretend to listen, chances are they're just laughing at you. It's more like a spoiled child, that you have to actually put some force to your words to get them to stop. But no, we should have waited and given Saddam another stack of toilet paper... er, UN resolutions.

 

2.) Things would have been better off if we hadn't gone in.

If so, consider a few things here. One, what about all the demonstrations and the toppling of Saddam statues? What about the people praising the American liberators? Or maybe that's just bull I'm getting fed. Still, I found a caption on one of those death toll lists on that site where I counted 98 names of people who died to a suicide bomber at a major Kurdish campaign headquarters. Now, we know if Saddam had kept in power, they wouldn't have been able to meet like that to have died en masse. THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT RIGHT.

 

Oh, and for another thing, let's say we had been right about Saddam pursuing nukes, and we did nothing. I'd hate to have to say our wake-up call was a nuke sent to Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, London, and/or Washington DC. Do you really want to live with that?

 

3.) You know we're just in it for the oil; as soon as we've sucked up every last drop, we're gonna pack up and leave scorched Earth.

Read the first post of this thread. Not to even TRY and suggest that anything can be worth the shedding of innocent blood, but read that list, and THEN tell me we're just leaving scorched Earth. That's a hell of a lot of schools and hospitals and whatnot to be leaving them with nothing.

 

4.) The Iraqis don't want us there.

Hmm. Look back at number two. Then explain to me why there are no major Iraqi groups fighting us, and that the majority of attacks are coming from Jordanian, Saudi, and other nationals who have joined Al Qaeda?

 

I have to ask this. If you have a plan to get out, why don't you share it? And if you don't have a plan to get out, why do you have to keep ranting about it? Right now, whether we were right or wrong, time will tell. However, now that we're there, we've only got the option to keep going. If we don't, take a look at those numbers again, because they, and those more that get added, all will have been in vain.

 

EDIT: typo.

Edited May 31, 2005 by Arnieman

[AuricRal]

uhh.... well how many times must this topic be reopened with the same opinions coming again and again... point is the american govt. is rebuilding/raping (you decide) iraq and nothing u can do about it

[Arnieman]

I'm just getting tired of hearing the same bull come up over and over. We're in this war, like it or not. Naysaying is as potent ammunition to the terrorists that are killing us, that we are still fighting, and that we went in to fight (whether they were there or not, I'll leave that up to history), as if we just give them the guns and bombs ourselves.

 

Have we learned nothing from Vietnam?

[i92guboj]

Alright, time for me to blast this thread wide open... er, add my two cents.

 

I'm sorry, but if you have to tell someone the same thing over and over, and they barely pretend to listen, chances are they're just laughing at you.  It's more like a spoiled child, that you have to actually put some force to your words to get them to stop.  But no, we should have waited and given Saddam another stack of toilet paper... er, UN resolutions.

 

And... who is the one to inspects the USA? Should any other country ask for the same to yours and shall you refuse for sure, or encover it as well. Dude, what are you talking about? ALL the countries that can have nuclear and/or biological stuff DO HAVE FOR SURE. Think a little about it. What a spoiled child? Would the USA listen in such situation? And if it were the opposite?

 

I agree with you that a dictatorial government is never a good thing (some years ago there was one in my country, so I know what I'm talking about. But no country in the world have the right to invade any other just because of that if they do not get a direct reason that affects that country itself.

 

Ah! Another thing, in some declarations Bush located Spain in Central America on anyway it is called in english, I hardly could believe that he knew about the location of Iraq. It's just an ignorant cowboy that rules the world. Nothing good. That does not mean that the rest of people from the USA don't know a bit of geography. As I said, not all people in the USA have, nor remotelly, the same ideas nor the same culture.

 

2.) Things would have been better off if we hadn't gone in.

If so, consider a few things here.  One, what about all the demonstrations and the toppling of Saddam statues?

 

Yes, a show that people offered to the soldiers that conquered their countries. What would you expect?

 

I know that not all people were so happy with that regimen, but that does not mean that they like better being invaded by the USA army. I would do the same. Think about:

people did show happy when Hitller was powerfull, would you behave on a different way? I know the answer: NO. They are just doing what they think is better for them.

 

The USA soldiers are known to have commited also some non-so-cool things, like tortures and so with prisoners. And some periodits were also killes by USA fire under, at least, strange circumstances. In such situation I would break all the statues that I need to make the invasor feel happy.

 

What about the people praising the American liberators?

 

Look the previous paragraph.

 

Oh, and for another thing, let's say we had been right about Saddam pursuing nukes, and we did nothing.  I'd hate to have to say our wake-up call was a nuke sent to Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, London, and/or Washington DC.  Do you really want to live with that?

 

As I said, so many people have nukes, are you gonna invade them all? Then I'm going to Mars, bye.

 

3.) You know we're just in it for the oil; as soon as we've sucked up every last drop, we're gonna pack up and leave scorched Earth.

Read the first post of this thread.  Not to even TRY and suggest that anything can be worth the shedding of innocent blood, but read that list, and THEN tell me we're just leaving scorched Earth.  That's a hell of a lot of schools and hospitals and whatnot to be leaving them with nothing.

 

The worse is that there are people that thinks that the wars never have to do with economic interests, when the truth is that most times it is that way. If there isn't really eny economic interests in the USA government the beg Bush stop shaking Ariel Sharon's hands, because he is a killer.

 

4.) The Iraqis don't want us there.

Hmm. Look back at number two.  Then explain to me why there are no major Iraqi groups fighting us, and that the majority of attacks are coming from Jordanian, Saudi, and other nationals who have joined Al Qaeda?

 

Because is the only resource that the USA army has not blocked. Easy one.

 

I hate radicals and I believe that that's not a way to solve nothing, but to invade a country and couse so much suffering just because you SUSPECT something seems also very radical to me.

 

Another cent.

Edited May 31, 2005 by i92guboj

[Mireille]

I wonder howany civilians Sadam would have killed/disappeared in the same timeframe?

166124[/snapback]

 

 

Much less. Otherwise people wouldn't miss him today.

[giannis]

But no, we should have waited and given Saddam another stack of toilet paper... er, UN resolutions.

166192[/snapback]

 

 

I don't know what they teach in schools at Hicksvile Tennesse, but here in the western world, the UN is not a paper factory. The UN is the best thing (no matter how imperfect) the human spirit has yet to offer. It was established after WWII when the memories of how it feels to be bombed were still fresh. It was established to protect the weak of the promote peace (Unfortunately since the US is in the Security Council the latter has prouven quite an arduous task ). A UN decree/resolution is not toilet papper, it is the word of every country and every nation on this planet. But I guess you are right calling it toilet paper, after all it was our USA who made it toilet paper in the first place. You see the UN used to have prestige. Take Milosevic for example, his activities in Cosovo were render illigal by international law and UN decrees, and now he is on trial for War Crimes. Now consider Mr. Bush by all means and standards he is waging an unsunctioned war, but he is not on trial, he is playing golf in Washinghton. Yet no one has the power to do anything about it. So go ahead call UN resolutions toilet paper, they were certainly not intended to be used for cleaning your rectum but our beloved president certainly made them so.

 

 

1.) WMDs. Hello? How do we know they had any?

Well, as someone "kindly" pointed out, 18 years ago "who knew where Iraq was?" Well, obviously the US Government, because we were the ones to give them WMDs.

166192[/snapback]

 

 

 

First of all Saddam never had WoMD, i don't know where you get your info about “we gave the weapons to them“ but it certainly is not from any credible sources.

 

Here is what Dick Chainey (Our Vice president) said b4 the war about the notorious WoMD. Notice the "Will be able" and "tries to".

 

more time to husband his resources, to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons programs, and to gain possession of nuclear arms. Should all his ambitions be realized, the implications would be enormous for the Middle East, for the United States, and for the peace of the world. The whole range of weapons of mass destruction then would rest in the hands of a dictator who has already shown his willingness to use such weapons, and has done so, both in his war with Iran and against his own people.

 

 

It is true that Saddam has an arsenal of chemical weapons (mustard gas, phosgene,sharin etc.) and he has used it in the past. BUT DUDE EVERY FRIGGIN COUNTRY IN THIS PLANET HAS AND IS ABLE TO PRODUCE MUSTARD GAS, heck the recipe for Sharin is on the internet. And i don't know about you but when I think of weapons of mass destruction i think nukes not a pre WWII chemical concoctions whose effectiveness whither on the first rain drop.

 

 

and one bombing raid later, Saddam was STILL refusing weapons inspectors. I'm sorry, but if you have to tell someone the same thing over and over, and they barely pretend to listen, chances are they're just laughing at you

166192[/snapback]

 

Dude again, I don't know where you get your sources from but Saddam did accepted UN inspectors in his country. And those inspectors stayed there the aloted time provisioned by international law. They found nothing, nada.

 

Here are the dates for the Inspection proceedings. do a google search to cross referance me.

Iraq invites chief weapons inspector to Baghdad for talks on resuming inspections August 2002.

December 8, 2002. UNMOVIC inspection teams began inspecting sites in Iraq.

 

And out of these Inspections came nothing, except the resignation Scott Ritter a chief UNSCOM Inspector under a lot of pressure from the US.Initially he claimed that US/UN did not act to help UNSCOM investigate suspected Iraqi weapons sites,but later he came clean and said that the entire inspection program was unwarranted and Iraq had no WMD (I guess he had a consience after all).

 

More specifics abou the inspections are here where among others you can find the following 2:

 

"The IAEA issued a report on January 27, noting that there was no evidence of Iraqi nuclear weapons development....[]the Chairman of UNMOVIC, Hans Blix, asked for more time to continue inspections. However, the USA appeared determined to go to war with Iraq based on the evidence of non-compliance in the UNMOVIC report, and on US intelligence, indicating substantial illegal weapons development."

 

really? substantial illegal weapons development. almost 2 years in the war and we havent seen any of the substantialy developed Weapons of Mass destruction.(how come? )

 

 

 

I'm just getting tired of hearing the same bull come up over and over.  We're in this war, like it or not.  Naysaying is as potent ammunition to the terrorists that are killing us, that we are still fighting, and that we went in to fight (whether they were there or not, I'll leave that up to history), as if we just give them the guns and bombs ourselves.

 

Have we learned nothing from Vietnam?

166192[/snapback]

 

You know what I am tired of hearing the Bull-smeg about how by attacking Iraq we are protecting our selves from Terrorism.

 

Evidence for Iraqi involvement in the attacks is iffy, or circumstantial at most, The only connection between Iraw and Terrorists is the alleged meeting between hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraq official (never stated the rank probably a clerk in an embassy) in Czechoslovakia. Which latter was dropped since investigators realized that M.Atta was probably in the US at the time of the alleged meeting (It took them a while to realize that because it takes a special kind of person to figure out that you can't be at two places at the same time). More info here

 

 

And yet you are eager to state that by going and Deposing Sadam we protected America from terrorism. Poor soul, you are mistaken we just oppened pandora's box. We made the USA the prime enemy of the Islamic world. The suicide attacks you see in Israel(Used to be the prime enemy of the Islamic world, but now it is the USA) will become everyday reality in New-York. What do you think that the Iraqi kid who lost his parents and siblings in one of our bombing raids will do when he gets his hands on an airplane ticket for the USA? Go Sight-seen? I don't think so.But don't worry Mr. Bush and his entourage can always take a ride on the Air-force 1, it is you, I, and Mr. American Patriot Jr., who will get blasted into oblivion by an Iraqi exchange student, in the middle of time's square..

 

You see there was one thing that they did not do right last time they were there, they allowed the Iraqi goverment to manage it self, and deceide the fate of it's ppl (Wow, they must have been realy stupid, I mean in todays time and age who does that???). Yet for almost 10 years everything was going nice and smooth, our economy was thriving (Thank you Mr Greenspan.), Jenniffer Aniston was dating Brad Pitt, and the poor ppl of Iraq were giving away their oil for food ad medications (what a deal!!! thank God they had oil or else the embargo would not have left a single Iraqi alive today). Yet the arrogand, evil-doing, and ominous iraqi goverment in the year 2000 desided to change masters (or pimps depending how you interpret it) and side with europe (that was a big no-no). That could have been a disaster for Gerge Bush and his oil-mongul friends. Luckily Georgy boy was the supreme commander (and chief) of the best war machine this planet had ever seen. He was going in Iraq (just like his father) but this time he would set things streigth. Saddam is out, and we need a new "democratic" (*cough* papet*cough*) goverment that will kiss his ass and give him all their oil). the only thing missing was an excuse, something to persuade Mr. American Patriot to pay for the war (his oil-mongul friends didn't have any pocket change on them at the time) and send his son to die (His oil-mongul friends send their sons to Canada). Luck shone upon George bush and on a nice september morning two planes stroke the WTC, the rest is history.

 

So I don't want to hear crap about Iraq and Alquida.The only connection those two have is a Q in both words.

 

Have we learned nothing from Vietnam?

166192[/snapback]

 

Sure we lerned a couple of things.

1) Millitants cannot capture anything but cannot be captured as well.

2)THe goverment Does things withouth taking into account public opinion.

3) The MEDIA LOST the WAR not the Troops (hint: Tet offensive).

4) It is never too late to Stop the crimes, we have a voice we have an opinion and IT IS NOT UN PATRIOTIC to ask for peace, and save Vietnamise/American/Iraqui Lives.

 

Ok I think that settles Number 1 of your arguments. 2,3,4 left. I will return later to answer b/c I am too tired to type anything else. However do me a favour. I am putting the effort to give me sources just so to make clear that what I say it is not hearsay. It would be really nice to do the same especialy for the

 

explain to me why there are no major Iraqi groups fighting us, and that the majority of attacks are coming from Jordanian, Saudi, and other nationals who have joined Al Qaeda?

166192[/snapback]

 

 

was it the Esquire? Vogue? or Cooking made easy?

 

anyhow , again try to post some sources/names/dates/ and i will come back latter.

Thank you.

 

 

EDIT: Smeg I messed up the Quotes... i'll fix them l8r i got to go to lecture.

EDIT2: Quotes fixed( i guess it did not take that long ).

Edited May 31, 2005 by giannis

[dragburn]

first of all i would like to say: The UN is not an equal representation of all of the countries within that union. If further proof is needed to show how much of a puppet figurehead the UN is just look at its geographical location.(off the coast of NYC)

I don't know what they teach in schools at Hicksvile Tennesse, but here in the western world, the UN is not a paper factory. The UN is the best thing (no matter how imperfect) the human spirit has yet to offer. It was established after WWII when the memories of how it feels to be bombed were still fresh. It was established to protect the weak of the promote peace (Unfortunately since the US is in the Security Council the latter has prouven quite an arduous task  ). A UN decree/resolution is not toilet papper, it is the word of every country and every nation on this planet. But I guess you are right calling it toilet paper, after all it was our USA who made it toilet paper in the first place. You see the UN used to have prestige. Take Milosevic for example, his activities in Cosovo were render illigal by international law and UN decrees, and now he is on trial for War Crimes. Now consider Mr. Bush by all means and standards he is waging an unsunctioned war, but he is not on trial, he is playing golf in Washinghton. Yet no one has the power to do anything about it. So go ahead call UN resolutions toilet paper, they were certainly not intended to be used for cleaning your rectum but our beloved president certainly made them so.

not every country in the world is represented by the UN.

on another note i ask: who the f*ck gave the U.S. of A. the right to be police and peace keepers of the world? we are one country and should stay that way. if the world wants peace keepers then a separate entity other than the UN needs to be created. idealy it would have 1 representative from every country on the planet and a military force consisting of all countries in equal mass. essentially it would be a world government completely sovern and interdependant upon the entire world.

unfortunatly that most likely will not happen within the confines of our lifetimes.

Oh, and for another thing, let's say we had been right about Saddam pursuing nukes, and we did nothing. I'd hate to have to say our wake-up call was a nuke sent to Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, London, and/or Washington DC. Do you really want to live with that?

if some country has a nuke then who cares? do you know how many nukes the U.S. has? about enough militarized nukes to blow the entire planet to dust floating in space 5 times over at the very least (and even more stockpiled parts just waiting to be assembled and put into use). the United States of America has no right whatsoever to be peacekeepers of the planet. moreso the patriot act has been passed through congress and the senate and is being used. the patriot act is illegal in its entirety. it violates the constitution of the United States of America and anyone who voices their oppinion is illegally imprisioned (violates amendmant 1 of the Constitution) and held without knowledge of what they are being held of and without benefit of council (violates amendments 4, 5, & 6 of the Constitution). and besides the patriot act is not withstanding because of and i quote Article 6 paragraph 2 and 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." If you are a citezen of the U.S. i urge you to write your congressman and ask if they voted for or against the patriot act (this is almost not nessecary since it passed through with flying colors) and ask if they realize that there vote for the patriot act was illegal and they now can be tried for lying under oath. dont think this is a futile effort. when i visited Washington D.C. my representative's assistants informed me that they regard every 1 persons oppinion who bothers to express it to their office as 1000 other voters who simply havent gotten off their butt to say something. but i digress. by preemptively solveing the problem we are denying that government the right to have due process. and why is the world placing its faith in a union that cannot even respect its own rules?

[i92guboj]

who the f*ck gave the U.S. of A. the right to be police and peace keepers of the world?

166949[/snapback]

If you were not a man I would kiss you in your mouth!

[Arnieman]

I don't know what they teach in schools at Hicksvile Tennesse, but here in the western world, the UN is not  a paper factory.

First off, I don't think insulting a town based on the opinions held by someone who doesn't live there, nor has ever been there, if that town even exists, helps your argument any. You obviously don't know anything about me, or where I live; I politely ask you to reserve such undeserved ridicule until you have a clue. Also, if you are implying something about either my education, or that of some town in Tennessee that may or may not exist, please keep your argument above baseless insults.

 

As for the "toilet paper" comment, I was making an allusion. I didn't mean that the UN literally is producing toilet paper. Rather, I was referring to the fact that each UN Resolution would likely have to be printed up as hard copies on paper. Now, if Iraq was ignoring these same resolutions (which, I hold to be true, and you seem to disagree with me on), those pages of resolutions would be effectively worthless, having about as much value as toilet paper. I still have to ask one question here. I counted 16 resolutions cited by the US as violated by Iraq. I think I counted more when I started skimming these resolutions, and also after doing a search of the UN Resolutions pertaining to Iraq. Even if he was following the resolutions, which I don't feel is the case with so many repeating resolutions, why does it take 16 resolutions to say the same thing? Wouldn't YOU stop taking someone seriously if you had to be told 16 times to do or not do something, but they never put any force behind their words?

 

*adding more later in rebuttal to the responses to my previous statements.*

[Daxon]

Please watch where you're fanning your flames giannis: I live in Texas.

 

And one note:

 

So go ahead call UN resolutions toilet paper, they were certainly not intended to be used for cleaning your rectum but our beloved president certainly made them so.

 

Not sure on the best way to phrase it.. but it's not the president that made it like that. It's two countries.

 

And I like to stay out of political arguments, so if you want to drag this out with me, let's take it to PMs. Not going to read the topic anymore.

Edited June 7, 2005 by Daxon