> > "Iraq": UN should have acted as soon as Saddam
> > violated the terms of the end
> > of the Gulf War.
> >> Yeah but they didn't did they?
> No they didnt. We should have then threatened to
> pull our troops out, and
> stop enforcing the no-fly-zone. Which may have
> caused an uproar in the Int'l
> community which might have put pressure on the UN to
> act, or at the very
> least expose it as yet another ineffective League of
> Nations.
That's bullshit! No country would have done anything
and the US and the UN would no longer have any
credibility. Libya would still have a nuclear program
and who knows whom they'd share them with.
> > The gulf war was not between the US
> > and Iraq, but the
> > "civilized" world and Saddam. So the world should
> > have acted.
>
> >> The world did act. Just a few countries stayed
> out.
>
> I am talking about the invasion of Iraq by Shrub,
> and most countries did not
> act.
Well 30 did.
> > It is not the
> > United States of America's job to invade other
> > countries unless:
> > a. We are attacked.
> > b. We plan on adding real estate to this
> > country.
>
> >> According to you.
>
> So according to you, the US should invade other
> countries because of the
> posture they take that could be percieved as a
> threat?
We've been over this many times already. The world
thought there was a danger. There were UN resolutions.
> > If Saddam had WMD, then let him use them or
> not.
> > Who the hell are we to
> > tell other countries they cannot have the same
> > weapons that we ourselves
> > possess and have used in the past.
>
> >> You're scaring me now.
>
> How is this scary? This is what we do. We build the
> first nukes and use them
> (albeit, I believe in a correct fashion). We hold
> some of the largest
> stockpiles of Chemical and Biological weapons on the
> planet but we stand up
> in front of the rest of the world and say, "No, it
> isnt safe if you have
> them?".
Yeah. Duh.
It's like letting everyone run around with whatever
weapons they want because the cops have them.
> >> Should we do nothing and wait to see if those
> mean old men attack us again? They might not.
> Certainly not wait, and we did the right thing in
> Afghanistan, but this
> whole color scheme and "threat level warnings" are
> bullshit.
So you think the whole homeland security thing is a
color chart? You're missing a lot.
> >> Bush is a leader and times like this we need a
> leader.
>
> Bush is a leader in title only. He has not proven to
> me that he has the
> qualifications to hold the same hallowed office too
> many other competent men
> have.
>
But he has proven it to the masses.
-sm
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
