So now I will explain you something, [censored]

[[censored]]

What I am saying is that one basis to judege whether or not the US is acting justly when it comes to foriegn policy and specificaly military aggression to gauge the consequenting decisions of the those nations we already believe to be just.

thus I believe it is reasonable to assume that if these just nations believed the US was likely to act in a unjust manner in regards to military force they would make actual decisions, spend resources and create partnerships to protect themselve from the US.

The US and European responce to the USSR after world war 2 would be one example from history.

When I look around the world I currently do not see the nations I believe to be just reacting in this way. I only see nations who I believe to be unjust reacting as I described. Thus it would not be rational to believe A) the US acted unjustly in regards to Iraq or that B)that those nations I believe are just feel strongly that the US action in Iraq was unjust.

Rather is seems more likely the action was either judged as just or not unjustly enough warrant significant concern.

The above takes no position on whether or not action in Iraq will be later viewed as a mistake. It quite possibly could.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
and that is far from true basically because most people feel apathy for the suffering of others,

[/ QUOTE ]

when I said this I of course meant empathy, apologies.

Mack

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and that is far from true basically because most people feel apathy for the suffering of others,

[/ QUOTE ]

when I said this I of course meant empathy, apologies.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't catch that. that is funny.

[Felix_Nietsche]

.......No Repect.


The law excisted, but there was no police in place to authorize it, but that does not relieve US from the criminal-stamp.
************************************************** **
There was an armistice signed after the first Gulf war. Iraq promised to abide by the terms of the armistice. They did NOT on SEVERAL occasions. They even fired upon coalition aircraft. Hussein even tried to assassinate Bush41 on his visit to Kuwait. Because of the actions of Saddam Hussein and his violations of the armistice, the USA was free to attack Iraq at any point they chose to (clinton did several times). But Bush43 chose to go thru the UN. This was respect the UN did not deserve. What he encountered was a corrupt UN taking bribes from Saddam Hussein and ignoring their own resolutions. I would love to see the USA leave the UN and kick them out of New York...

Take North Korea.
Are you aware that the USA is still legally at war with North Korea? North Korea would not sign a peace treaty. There is only a cease fire. When I was in the Army is was common knowledge that fire fights occured between US soldiers and North Korean soldiers. North Korea is also a mass counterfeiter of US dollars. The equipment to make money is made by a Swiss firm and North Korea purchased this equipment and is engaged in mass counterfeiting of US money. To me, this alone is grounds for war.

Right now the USA is involved in worthless negoiations with North Korea. Bush43 thinks the Chinese will help to keep North Korea from going nuclear but he is wrong. The policy of China is to surplant the USA influence in that region and they see North Korea as a way to tie up the USA. Don't be surprise if the USA attacks North Korea without the UN's 'permission'. We do not need it. The USA is a sovereign nation subject to ONLY its laws.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Many nations are back on the track of trying to build a stronger military to increase their "number of votes" in the world parliament. US is not certain to stay ahead in that game mid- & longterm so the Iraq war might backfire.
************************************************** ***
A strong economy is the foundation for having a strong military. This has been truth for every war since the beginning of man-kind. Western-Europe has adopted a social welfare state economy that is anti-business (high taxes puntive laws) with high overhead due to the social programs. Europe can't support a strong military and their social programs at the same time.

I have my doubts they can continue to fund their social programs. It is WISHFUL thinking to believe Europe can build a strong military.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Take North Korea.
Are you aware that the USA is still legally at war with North Korea? North Korea would not sign a peace treaty. There is only a cease fire. When I was in the Army is was common knowledge that fire fights occured between US soldiers and North Korean soldiers. North Korea is also a mass counterfeiter of US dollars. The equipment to make money is made by a Swiss firm and North Korea purchased this equipment and is engaged in mass counterfeiting of US money. To me, this alone is grounds for war.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that explains how they spend 23% of GDP on the military, the cheeky fuckers are doing it with ripped off notes, that really is taking the piss.

Mack

[BadgerAle]

If theres any international bribing its by the US rather than the UN, how do you think they got all those small countries to give their support (though not contribute any cash or troops obviously) to the Iraq war? I suppose thats whats called diplomacy but don't tell me that the US has any moral highground here. On another level I suppose its a co-incidence that an oil company-bankrolled leader has the idea of invading a unthreatening country full of oil and starts giving out contracts? The US is a Corrupt Den of Snakes and They Deserve......

[wh1t3bread]

You make no sense. So the government gave out a contract to Haliburton (who happened to be personaly tied to the Vice President). Big freakin deal!!! This isnt a new concept. Playing favorites is a way of human life.

If the Iraqi people had to pay for Haliburton's contractors or if the US used Iraqi oil to pay for Haliburton's contract then you have a point.

But that is most definitely not the case. Part of my paycheck goes to pay for Haliburton's contract and that most definitely is the case.

[BadgerAle]

[ QUOTE ]
You make no sense. So the government gave out a contract to Haliburton (who happened to be personaly tied to the Vice President). Big freakin deal!!! This isnt a new concept. Playing favorites is a way of human life.

If the Iraqi people had to pay for Haliburton's contractors or if the US used Iraqi oil to pay for Haliburton's contract then you have a point.

But that is most definitely not the case. Part of my paycheck goes to pay for Haliburton's contract and that most definitely is the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

The significance is that the war will generate a lot of money for an industry which has bankrolled the president. This is a conflict of intrests on gargantuan scale. Most of what you said as a counter is completly irrelavent.

"Playing favorites is a way of human life. " what? you're not so self rightous when it comes to the Bush goverment?

[MMMMMM]

The U.N. is chock-filled with corrupt and brutal regimes, murderers, those who rule by pure thuggery, etc.

You view your own government or parliament as an elected group of largely responsible, decent leaders and officials. The same cannot be said for a great many member states of the U.N.

Imagine for a moment that your own government were filled instead with assorted murderers, pirates, rapists and other villains. Would you then view its stamp of approval as conferring or denying legitimacy? Why then should decent democratic countries--such as the U.S., Norway, Sweden, England, Australia or Japan--have to consider the votes of despotic regimes as somehow conferring legitimacy or not?

Better that all non-Democratic nations should be kicked out of the U.N., or, alternatively, that free nations should leave the U.N. and form their own body. Then your point might carry more weight.

I don't think the U.S. or any other free country should have to consider the opinions of thuggish, totalitarian, massively human rights violating countries, when deciding what is right or wrong. Nor do I think such regimes should have any say in a global body meant to protect human rights, when they are the most egeregious violators of human rights on the planet.

Certain countries in the U.N., and the opinions of those countries, are deserving of respect. However the same cannot be said for many other regimes (or for the opinions of those regimes). So: when the time comes that the U.N. itself is more representative of the rights it purports to strive to uphold, then its own consensus views will be more worthy of respect.

As for European views of pacifism and diplomacy: that's all great until you face a determined and aggressive foe.

Europe has long slumbered, so to speak, and even now would prefer not to fully acknowledge the ultimate force of the surging menace which is building to confront it.

Sometimes it is better to take the fight to the enemy before he fully arms to take the fight to you. In this case the enemy was Saddam Hussein; and also, radical Islam, and those who support it, and support terrorism, and those who would wish to destroy the West. These enemies are/were implacable and continually trying to arm and seek out new ways to inflict damage. Trying merely to defuse the situation will not provide a long-term solution, and playing only defense will not work either due to the enormous assymetrical advantage the attackers possess. It would also be folly to require the approval of despotic regimes (with diametrically opposed interests to our own) before taking action. Hence well-considered pre-emption is a good strategy.

In the case of Iraq, pre-emption may have come a bit too soon. It is probably better to be a bit early than to be too late, however.

At any rate even if you disagree with the attack on Iraq or the idea of pre-emption, it is folly to require the approval of thuggish states, despots and dictators, before taking reasoned action.

Europe is sleepy enough to not fully realize the growing dangers threatening us all. As radical Islam builds in Europe, it will eventually become apparent to even the most dogmatic multiculturalist.