US MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ Y or N?
- Allister Fiend
-
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 9:39 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida USA
by Allister Fiend » Sun Mar 09, 2003 7:37 pm
Originally posted by Allister Fiend
I will post a link as soon as one is put up.
Allister Fiend
here is the link I promished from an earlier post.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605557,00.html
Allister Fiend
- Anton
by Anton » Sun Mar 09, 2003 10:18 pm
Gentlemen.....
Just a brief note on what seemed a common theme in a number of your posts....
Many of you seem to be whining about having 'a day job'.. (thereby implicitly saying I have some sort of unfair advantage vis a vis info. etc.)
...I have always had a 'day job'...
.You don't really think a left-wing writer can make a living writing radical essays do ya?
....And, indeed, I may or may not get time to respond to the plethora of previous posts tonight....
...but I have a little child care to take care of at the moment...
Anton
Just a brief note on what seemed a common theme in a number of your posts....
Many of you seem to be whining about having 'a day job'.. (thereby implicitly saying I have some sort of unfair advantage vis a vis info. etc.)
...I have always had a 'day job'...
.You don't really think a left-wing writer can make a living writing radical essays do ya?
....And, indeed, I may or may not get time to respond to the plethora of previous posts tonight....
...but I have a little child care to take care of at the moment...
Anton
- Rule of Wrist
by Rule of Wrist » Mon Mar 10, 2003 2:02 am
This thread is getting pretty pointless. Nobody is going to change anybody elses' opinion. Each side can point to article after article, report after report , source after source. What it boils down to is that unless someone was personally involved with an event, and saw what went on with his/her own eyes, then that person's statements can be called into question.
The question I think it boils down to is: Who do you believe?
The major choices, as far as I can tell, are: The press, US gov, French gov, German gov, Iraqi gov, UN leadership. That's not a hell of lot of choice. All have a history of deceit, ugliness, and will follow their own interests. So if you can't believe anyone, what do you do?
I take the side that will benefit me and those who think like me. In this case, the US government. Sure they have done some questionable things. But I have traveled the world and have yet to see some place with a better system. Nobody is perfect. But they are the best out there. There is no other country on earth that provides a better oppurtunity for life and happiness for its people than the good ol' US of A. As proof, how many people try to immigrate to Russia, or Germany, or France, compared to the US? Case closed.
The other thing about a discussion like this is that when two diametrically opposed viewpoints cannot be resolved through discussion, other means must be sought to resolve the conflict of opinion. This is the reason for the invention of weapons in the first place. Some things cannot be resolved without the use of force. In those cases, those with better weapons and more force win. The US has the most weapons, the most gold, and the will to use them both. If that pisses the rest of the world off, so be it. But like I said in an earlier post, the US will not withdraw from its position of power until it either collapses from internal forces, or is defeated militarily.
Either one of those things is extremely unlikely in my lifetime.
That renders all arguments for US withdrawal of power as academic.
The question I think it boils down to is: Who do you believe?
The major choices, as far as I can tell, are: The press, US gov, French gov, German gov, Iraqi gov, UN leadership. That's not a hell of lot of choice. All have a history of deceit, ugliness, and will follow their own interests. So if you can't believe anyone, what do you do?
I take the side that will benefit me and those who think like me. In this case, the US government. Sure they have done some questionable things. But I have traveled the world and have yet to see some place with a better system. Nobody is perfect. But they are the best out there. There is no other country on earth that provides a better oppurtunity for life and happiness for its people than the good ol' US of A. As proof, how many people try to immigrate to Russia, or Germany, or France, compared to the US? Case closed.
The other thing about a discussion like this is that when two diametrically opposed viewpoints cannot be resolved through discussion, other means must be sought to resolve the conflict of opinion. This is the reason for the invention of weapons in the first place. Some things cannot be resolved without the use of force. In those cases, those with better weapons and more force win. The US has the most weapons, the most gold, and the will to use them both. If that pisses the rest of the world off, so be it. But like I said in an earlier post, the US will not withdraw from its position of power until it either collapses from internal forces, or is defeated militarily.
Either one of those things is extremely unlikely in my lifetime.
That renders all arguments for US withdrawal of power as academic.
- Anton
by Anton » Mon Mar 10, 2003 4:19 am
Col. Bukkakee,
"....good God, a baby Anton"
That was funny...I liked that.
* * *
Allister Fiend,
I'm glad you brought up the whole issue/argument about the US's foreign policy over the last half century (at least) as being fundamentally noble, but, alas, riven with unavoidable 'aberrations'...."We've made mistakes"
It's precisely this 'bumbling bear' scenario that is (and has always been) used to justify and apologize for what an even cursory (let alone meticulous) scrutiny of the historical record
reveals is anything BUT 'aberrational' or 'accidental'.
Indeed, if my arguments here are attempting to demonstrate *anything*, it is that US foreign policy *is very much a pre-meditated and calculated affair*.
(...Needless to say those calculations are subject to unexpected contingencies - i.e. they do not always go as planned...just look at the Bay of Pigs, for instance, or Vietnam)
Just to give you an idea of exactly how pre-meditated and far-reaching some of these policies are one need only look at some of the famous cold war documents (including the most famous, NSC 68 of April 1950) which set out the entire 'military keynesianism' economy (i.e. public subsidy / private profit) and imperial tactics for the next 50 years (*including* the notions of noted strategist George Keenan about engaging the Soviet Union in an arms race which the US calculated (correctly) the Soviets couldn't win).
...A particularly relevant example (in terms of recent 'history') is the US support for the Afghani Mujahideen (Operation Cyclone) ....our lovable 'freedom fighters', out of which arose the later demonized Taliban....in the 1980's Afghan conflict. Here the policy (as explicitly documented by Breszinski) was from the beginning a conscious attempt to lure the Soviet's into their own 'Vietnam'...The fact that it destroyed Afghanistan's first and only progressive gov't, and left an entire country in ruins - as well as creating an Islamic extremist cadre - was just 'one of those things' (the latter being the 'unexpected' part).
Vietnam is another classic example of what apologists label as an 'aberration' of an otherwise noble and just foreign policy..... A 10,000 day aberration that killed an estimated 3 - 4 million Indo-Chinese (all, as I often say, to save them from themselves, of course.)
If one then tacks on Washington's depredations in Latin America (including the present US imposition of 'Plan Colombia' in support of the terrorist regime there), Indonesia, Angola, Mozambique, etc. etc......well, there's an awful lot of 'accidents'....
As for your noting of the fact that I make virtually no distinction between Democrats and Republicans w.r.t. the US's foreign policy record....you are entirely correct. The reason being that there has been, up to now, virtually no difference. Historically the two parties have differed only in their *domestic* policies.
As for those who have accused me of just being an inveterate 'hater' of America, let me say this...
I don't 'hate' America....I hate what the 'legions' are doing (and have been doing for decades) on the borders of Empire....I 'hate', in other words, as idealist as this sounds, 'injustice'. If the gov't of say Cameroon or New Zealand were doing these things, then I'd 'hate' them too....As I've said before, it was one thing for Alexander and the boys to go about trashing the world.. it's quite another for the US, in a nuclear age, in a critical historical period with potential ecological catastophe looming just over the horizon...to continue doing the same.
* * *
Doug the Unforgiven complains that I'm unfairly highlighting the States as the "only bad guy"...
No....By no means. The Russians in Chechnya is a particularly egregious example of the Russian bear's state terrorist activities.
Still, simply by virtue of their historically unparalled position of power the US is, and has mostly been since the 2nd WW, the principal actor in these little dramas.... par excellence.
Moreover, I believe that criticism starts at home....After all, 'home' is, practically speaking, the one place that 'we' a)have the most moral responsibility for and b) the place we have the best hope of changing.
* * *
Ralph....this post is dragging out so I'm going to be brief..
You're right about the US not *needing* the oil. But as I've said before, the strategic considerations for this attack on Iraq are not about getting *access* to the oil.
It's about:
a) *controlling* the oil supply - so the US can strategically position itself w.r.t. to other potential world competitors i.e. Europe and China....And this includes undermining OPEC, Iran and Russia by driving down the price of oil.
b) strategically positioning itself militarily in the mid-East. (The US now has military bases in 160 or so countries around the world. Each 'acquisition' extends their range and power. i.e. Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo is now the largest base in Eastern Europe)
c) maintaining the US 'defense' economy, otherwise known as 'military keynesianism'. Moreover, these 'wars' are essentially giant arms bazaars for the world's arms dealers and buyers....not to mention proving grounds for the latest technologies.
d) ....more ominously, this 'war' is about the US 'coming of age' in its New World Order. In other words, the Bush Administration is out to demonstably define itself *as* an imperial power i.e. that need not answer to the trivialities of world opinion or international law. It's out to set an explicit, totally internal standard of conduct.
..Whether, in the long run, it can get away with it, of course, is another matter.
...Apologies for the length of this post...and, Kristov, I meant to reply to your arguments....but it's late and I'll have to get back to you Monday or Tues.
Anton
"....good God, a baby Anton"
That was funny...I liked that.
* * *
Allister Fiend,
I'm glad you brought up the whole issue/argument about the US's foreign policy over the last half century (at least) as being fundamentally noble, but, alas, riven with unavoidable 'aberrations'...."We've made mistakes"
It's precisely this 'bumbling bear' scenario that is (and has always been) used to justify and apologize for what an even cursory (let alone meticulous) scrutiny of the historical record
reveals is anything BUT 'aberrational' or 'accidental'.
Indeed, if my arguments here are attempting to demonstrate *anything*, it is that US foreign policy *is very much a pre-meditated and calculated affair*.
(...Needless to say those calculations are subject to unexpected contingencies - i.e. they do not always go as planned...just look at the Bay of Pigs, for instance, or Vietnam)
Just to give you an idea of exactly how pre-meditated and far-reaching some of these policies are one need only look at some of the famous cold war documents (including the most famous, NSC 68 of April 1950) which set out the entire 'military keynesianism' economy (i.e. public subsidy / private profit) and imperial tactics for the next 50 years (*including* the notions of noted strategist George Keenan about engaging the Soviet Union in an arms race which the US calculated (correctly) the Soviets couldn't win).
...A particularly relevant example (in terms of recent 'history') is the US support for the Afghani Mujahideen (Operation Cyclone) ....our lovable 'freedom fighters', out of which arose the later demonized Taliban....in the 1980's Afghan conflict. Here the policy (as explicitly documented by Breszinski) was from the beginning a conscious attempt to lure the Soviet's into their own 'Vietnam'...The fact that it destroyed Afghanistan's first and only progressive gov't, and left an entire country in ruins - as well as creating an Islamic extremist cadre - was just 'one of those things' (the latter being the 'unexpected' part).
Vietnam is another classic example of what apologists label as an 'aberration' of an otherwise noble and just foreign policy..... A 10,000 day aberration that killed an estimated 3 - 4 million Indo-Chinese (all, as I often say, to save them from themselves, of course.)
If one then tacks on Washington's depredations in Latin America (including the present US imposition of 'Plan Colombia' in support of the terrorist regime there), Indonesia, Angola, Mozambique, etc. etc......well, there's an awful lot of 'accidents'....
As for your noting of the fact that I make virtually no distinction between Democrats and Republicans w.r.t. the US's foreign policy record....you are entirely correct. The reason being that there has been, up to now, virtually no difference. Historically the two parties have differed only in their *domestic* policies.
As for those who have accused me of just being an inveterate 'hater' of America, let me say this...
I don't 'hate' America....I hate what the 'legions' are doing (and have been doing for decades) on the borders of Empire....I 'hate', in other words, as idealist as this sounds, 'injustice'. If the gov't of say Cameroon or New Zealand were doing these things, then I'd 'hate' them too....As I've said before, it was one thing for Alexander and the boys to go about trashing the world.. it's quite another for the US, in a nuclear age, in a critical historical period with potential ecological catastophe looming just over the horizon...to continue doing the same.
* * *
Doug the Unforgiven complains that I'm unfairly highlighting the States as the "only bad guy"...
No....By no means. The Russians in Chechnya is a particularly egregious example of the Russian bear's state terrorist activities.
Still, simply by virtue of their historically unparalled position of power the US is, and has mostly been since the 2nd WW, the principal actor in these little dramas.... par excellence.
Moreover, I believe that criticism starts at home....After all, 'home' is, practically speaking, the one place that 'we' a)have the most moral responsibility for and b) the place we have the best hope of changing.
* * *
Ralph....this post is dragging out so I'm going to be brief..
You're right about the US not *needing* the oil. But as I've said before, the strategic considerations for this attack on Iraq are not about getting *access* to the oil.
It's about:
a) *controlling* the oil supply - so the US can strategically position itself w.r.t. to other potential world competitors i.e. Europe and China....And this includes undermining OPEC, Iran and Russia by driving down the price of oil.
b) strategically positioning itself militarily in the mid-East. (The US now has military bases in 160 or so countries around the world. Each 'acquisition' extends their range and power. i.e. Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo is now the largest base in Eastern Europe)
c) maintaining the US 'defense' economy, otherwise known as 'military keynesianism'. Moreover, these 'wars' are essentially giant arms bazaars for the world's arms dealers and buyers....not to mention proving grounds for the latest technologies.
d) ....more ominously, this 'war' is about the US 'coming of age' in its New World Order. In other words, the Bush Administration is out to demonstably define itself *as* an imperial power i.e. that need not answer to the trivialities of world opinion or international law. It's out to set an explicit, totally internal standard of conduct.
..Whether, in the long run, it can get away with it, of course, is another matter.
...Apologies for the length of this post...and, Kristov, I meant to reply to your arguments....but it's late and I'll have to get back to you Monday or Tues.
Anton
by Kristov » Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:16 am
Don't bother...trying to tell me that people who are dead didn't actually die is not only pointless, it's asinine in the extreme.
You have your views..as skewed as they are, and you obviously won't listen to anyone else's. Your views are so skewed that reality is not the same for you as it is for me, that's even more obvious.
You have your views..as skewed as they are, and you obviously won't listen to anyone else's. Your views are so skewed that reality is not the same for you as it is for me, that's even more obvious.
The enemy is attacking, let us prey.
- El Cid
by El Cid » Mon Mar 10, 2003 12:54 pm
Originally posted by Anton Indeed, if my arguments here are attempting to demonstrate *anything*, it is that US foreign policy *is very much a pre-meditated and calculated affair*.
You said a lot more than that. What I read was that the US wants to...
Originally posted by Anton demonstably define itself *as* an imperial power...
'Demonstably'? Is that related to 'demonstrable'? I can use that in a sentence
: It is demonstrable that Anton's argument is based on false premises and is invalid. Originally posted by Anton which set out the entire 'military keynesianism' economy (i.e. public subsidy / private profit) and imperial tactics for the next 50 years (*including* the notions of noted strategist George Keenan about engaging the Soviet Union in an arms race...
What "Imperial Tactics" are you refering to? Did i miss something about American government? Does this country have an emperor? Quit accepting everything Noam Chomsky says, and think about the consequences of your ideas. Your passing your opinion off as a fact. The paragraphs you wrote were tainted with enough of Liberal resentment and questionable conclusions to ruin your argument.
Originally posted by Anton Vietnam is another classic example of what apologists label as an 'aberration' of an otherwise noble and just foreign policy..... A 10,000 day aberration that killed an estimated 3 - 4 million Indo-Chinese (all, as I often say, to save them from themselves, of course.)
Another paragraph laced with falsity. Is 3 to 4 million the number of total dead? Does it include the number that ARVN killed? Are these USAF kills? Do they include the Australians, or French kills? You use these figures very liberally. And your quick to lay the entire blame on the US.
How many people died under Stalins dictatorship? How many people died under Mao's Great Leap Forward? A lot more people died under the nonsense economic policies of those two Communists than did in Vietnam.
Your whole essay is an indictment of US foreign policy, and it is seriously selfish. I hope to god people don't take your writtings seriously. The ideas you perpetuate distort the truth and do not take into account actual cirumstances. Re-evaluate your politics and take into account that politics is not just a little game of ideas we play around with. Take a look around at the huge wealth of services and commodities you consume and take for granted. Compare that to North Korea, and Communist Russia and Cuba. Think about what it takes to operate a country of 280 million people who are guaranteed fundamental rights, who live in healthy social, economic and political environments, and participate in their government.
Im thru trying to help spoiled Liberals with their stupid ideas.
- Allister Fiend
-
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 9:39 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida USA
by Allister Fiend » Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:51 pm
Some more info about the U.N. and the french.
FRANCE ... LONG-TIME PROTECTOR OF SADDAM
Colin Powell says that there is growing support for yet another new Security Council resolution calling for the mother of all deadlines for Saddam Hussein. This deadline would be days, not weeks. The next last chance would be hours, not days.
Think back to when Iraq agreed to disarm in 1991. How may days did Iraq have then? This was about 4,300 days ago …. When Saddam Hussein promised to disarm within 15 days. So .. he’s approximately 4,285 days late. That’s about 2970% overdue.
So, would France veto a new resolution with a final deadline? This brings us to something else you may not remember. I heard this from Brit Hume yesterday. When the current UN inspections program was created by the United Nations France did not vote for it. France abstained. Now France claims its absolute devotion to an inspections regime it didn't even favor!
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Can anyone out there cite me one instance where the United Nations actually stepped forward and put action behind rhetoric to make the world a safer place? Now I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm just saying I can't remember it ever happening. So ... all you wonderful fans of the Untied Nations step forward and let me know. Just when has the UN ever lived up to it's billing as a force for good and peace in the world?
For instance .. what is the United Nations doing about North Korea? Anything? Has the Security Council met on North Korea? And what has the United Nations committee on refugees done about those North Korean refugees that are swarming across the border into China? China calls these pathetic emaciated Koreans "economic refugees" and sends them back. This is a violation of the UN's precious international law. What has the UN done? Anything?
AND WHO NEEDS THE PERMISSION OR SUPPORT OF THE UN ANYWAY?
This information comes from the Council on Foreign Relations. That ought to give your conspiracy advocates something to angst over.
Since the United Nations was formed there have been about 26 international conflicts. Shooting wars involving member nations. Of these 26 conflicts, only 3 received UN support. The three that did receive U.N. support were The Korean War, the Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan. You have noted, haven't you, that the United States requested the UN approval in all three instances. The Russians, the French and the Chinese .. all of who have engaged in international conflicts since the inception of the United Nations, have never sought UN backing for their military moves.
10 DIRTY DEALS THAT FRANCE HAS DONE TO AID SADDAM.
TWO-faced Jacques Chirac has cosied up to evil Saddam Hussein for 30 years. Here are ten links between France and Iraq that have helped the tyrant remain in power.
1. The French President first met Saddam in 1972 when the pair struck a lucrative oil deal. Chirac described Saddam then as a “personal friend” and little appears to have changed. Chirac is the only Western head of state to know Saddam personally.
2. France has sold the tyrant arms worth £15billion, more than even the Soviets at the height of the Cold War.
3. They have also built two nuclear reactors near Baghdad.
4. Saddam was close to getting an A-bomb before Israeli jets blitzed his facilities in 1981 in a raid condemned by Chirac as “unacceptable”. Without Israel’s hardline act, Saddam could have held the world to ransom with nuclear arms.
5. Chirac is so keen to build on relations with Saddam he has his own special envoy in Baghdad who is so trusted he is even allowed to sit in on Iraqi Cabinet meetings.
6. Despite world opinion, the men have continued to cut deals. Chirac encouraged French firms to help re-arm Iraq after its war with Iran in the 1980s. French companies sold Baghdad warplanes armed with Exocet missiles.
7. Chirac was so keen to help his old pal he even extended him credit when Iraq failed to meet the repayments. France also sold Iraq equipment to improve the accuracy and range of Scud missiles.
8. Despite tough UN trade sanctions, French firms hold massive oil contracts with Iraq. And there are many more in the pipeline — even in the aftermath of a second Gulf War, Chirac has told energy bosses.
9. Time and time again France has turned a blind eye to Iraq’s abuses when they have been exposed by the UN Security Council. It comes as no surprise to diplomats that French firms keep on landing lucrative deals.
10. World leaders were horrified after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 but France again helped Saddam. Under pressure from Chirac, then President Francois Mitterrand sent emissaries to 24 countries assuring them France would only participate in the war as a “defensive” measure.
Just some more things to think about.
Allister Fiend
sorry this was so long. also, most of this info taken from Neil Boortz's website. http://www.boortz.com
FRANCE ... LONG-TIME PROTECTOR OF SADDAM
Colin Powell says that there is growing support for yet another new Security Council resolution calling for the mother of all deadlines for Saddam Hussein. This deadline would be days, not weeks. The next last chance would be hours, not days.
Think back to when Iraq agreed to disarm in 1991. How may days did Iraq have then? This was about 4,300 days ago …. When Saddam Hussein promised to disarm within 15 days. So .. he’s approximately 4,285 days late. That’s about 2970% overdue.
So, would France veto a new resolution with a final deadline? This brings us to something else you may not remember. I heard this from Brit Hume yesterday. When the current UN inspections program was created by the United Nations France did not vote for it. France abstained. Now France claims its absolute devotion to an inspections regime it didn't even favor!
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Can anyone out there cite me one instance where the United Nations actually stepped forward and put action behind rhetoric to make the world a safer place? Now I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I'm just saying I can't remember it ever happening. So ... all you wonderful fans of the Untied Nations step forward and let me know. Just when has the UN ever lived up to it's billing as a force for good and peace in the world?
For instance .. what is the United Nations doing about North Korea? Anything? Has the Security Council met on North Korea? And what has the United Nations committee on refugees done about those North Korean refugees that are swarming across the border into China? China calls these pathetic emaciated Koreans "economic refugees" and sends them back. This is a violation of the UN's precious international law. What has the UN done? Anything?
AND WHO NEEDS THE PERMISSION OR SUPPORT OF THE UN ANYWAY?
This information comes from the Council on Foreign Relations. That ought to give your conspiracy advocates something to angst over.
Since the United Nations was formed there have been about 26 international conflicts. Shooting wars involving member nations. Of these 26 conflicts, only 3 received UN support. The three that did receive U.N. support were The Korean War, the Gulf War and the war in Afghanistan. You have noted, haven't you, that the United States requested the UN approval in all three instances. The Russians, the French and the Chinese .. all of who have engaged in international conflicts since the inception of the United Nations, have never sought UN backing for their military moves.
10 DIRTY DEALS THAT FRANCE HAS DONE TO AID SADDAM.
TWO-faced Jacques Chirac has cosied up to evil Saddam Hussein for 30 years. Here are ten links between France and Iraq that have helped the tyrant remain in power.
1. The French President first met Saddam in 1972 when the pair struck a lucrative oil deal. Chirac described Saddam then as a “personal friend” and little appears to have changed. Chirac is the only Western head of state to know Saddam personally.
2. France has sold the tyrant arms worth £15billion, more than even the Soviets at the height of the Cold War.
3. They have also built two nuclear reactors near Baghdad.
4. Saddam was close to getting an A-bomb before Israeli jets blitzed his facilities in 1981 in a raid condemned by Chirac as “unacceptable”. Without Israel’s hardline act, Saddam could have held the world to ransom with nuclear arms.
5. Chirac is so keen to build on relations with Saddam he has his own special envoy in Baghdad who is so trusted he is even allowed to sit in on Iraqi Cabinet meetings.
6. Despite world opinion, the men have continued to cut deals. Chirac encouraged French firms to help re-arm Iraq after its war with Iran in the 1980s. French companies sold Baghdad warplanes armed with Exocet missiles.
7. Chirac was so keen to help his old pal he even extended him credit when Iraq failed to meet the repayments. France also sold Iraq equipment to improve the accuracy and range of Scud missiles.
8. Despite tough UN trade sanctions, French firms hold massive oil contracts with Iraq. And there are many more in the pipeline — even in the aftermath of a second Gulf War, Chirac has told energy bosses.
9. Time and time again France has turned a blind eye to Iraq’s abuses when they have been exposed by the UN Security Council. It comes as no surprise to diplomats that French firms keep on landing lucrative deals.
10. World leaders were horrified after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 but France again helped Saddam. Under pressure from Chirac, then President Francois Mitterrand sent emissaries to 24 countries assuring them France would only participate in the war as a “defensive” measure.
Just some more things to think about.
Allister Fiend
sorry this was so long. also, most of this info taken from Neil Boortz's website. http://www.boortz.com
- El Cid
by El Cid » Mon Mar 10, 2003 7:41 pm
All really interesting Allister. I have no problem with the UN being a body for international multilateral talks. For that purpose the UN is suited best. But this idea that the UN is the international police regulatory body, that decides when and where a war will take place is utter nonsense. We got two countries on that UN security council that fought against the US in WWII and caused hundreds of thousands to lose their lives. And Syria, a nation with that has been connected with terrorism. If we waited for the UN to solve the worlds problems we'd all be dead.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 19 guests