America bombs Iraqi CCC.

[Darth Wong]

Which means, in a sense, that you condone bullying.

Because you can hurt them means that you can do whatever the fuck you want to with them.

You're no better than a schoolyard bully.

As I said; if they didn't want to be bitchslapped, they didn't have to invade two or three countries, massacre hundreds, and repeatedly violate human rights and disarmament policies.

And worse yet, have oil. Otherwise, they'd just be a typical African country.

[Ted]

As I said; if they didn't want to be bitchslapped, they didn't have to invade two or three countries, massacre hundreds, and repeatedly violate human rights and disarmament policies.

You want him to disarm?

Why dont you set an example.

Disarm yourselves.

Destroy your small pox stores.

Your Anthrax stores.

All your nukes.

All your chemical weapons.

Then expect Saddam to disarm.

[HemlockGrey]

He's a high school junior; that's the world he lives in.

Conveniently located in real life.

[Ted]

And worse yet, have oil. Otherwise, they'd just be a typical African country.

If the yankee oil companies get in there, it will be as bad, or as worse as Nigeria was/is.

[Darth Wong]

He's a high school junior; that's the world he lives in.

Conveniently located in real life.

If you think high school bears any resemblance to real life, you need to grow up fast.

[HemlockGrey]

And worse yet, have oil. Otherwise, they'd just be a typical African country.

Speaking of which, the US should get around to fixing up some of those shitholes, too.

You want him to disarm?

Why dont you set an example.

Disarm yourselves.

Destroy your small pox stores.

Your Anthrax stores.

All your nukes.

All your chemical weapons.

Then expect Saddam to disarm.

Kindly point out the last time the US fought a protracted war in an attempt to seize more territory.

I'm thinking, not since before the Civil War...

[Stravo]

And worse yet, have oil. Otherwise, they'd just be a typical African country.

If the yankee oil companies get in there, it will be as bad, or as worse as Nigeria was/is.

Boy, you're just one baseless claim after another aren't you?

[HemlockGrey]

If the yankee oil companies get in there, it will be as bad, or as worse as Nigeria was/is.

Of course, because rampant capitalism has been the downfall of every nation to practice it.

If you think high school bears any resemblance to real life, you need to grow up fast.

Do you deny that, in general, he who carries the biggest stick gets to make the rules?

[Darth Wong]

Back to the original thread subject, I can't say I'm particularly broken up about the Yanks bombing some Iraqi CCC, but I do think that it's quite obvious they are not, and never have paid more than lip service to the legalities we're talking about here. Whether you think that's morally objectionable or inconsequential is up to you.

[Stormbringer]

And worse yet, have oil. Otherwise, they'd just be a typical African country.

Funny, I've heard you complain about colonialism often enough.

[weemadando]

As I said; if they didn't want to be bitchslapped, they didn't have to invade two or three countries, massacre hundreds, and repeatedly violate human rights and disarmament policies.

And the rest of the world should follow the nation that has disregarded and torn up more UN treaties and disarmament agreements than the rest of the world in the past twenty years in a glorious battle against this source of all evil?

[Darth Wong]

If you think high school bears any resemblance to real life, you need to grow up fast.

Do you deny that, in general, he who carries the biggest stick gets to make the rules?

That is a sad fact, not a moral justification. It's like saying you can commit murder if you're a corrupt policeman in Africa. Doesn't make it right.

[Darth Wong]

And worse yet, have oil. Otherwise, they'd just be a typical African country.

Funny, I've heard you complain about colonialism often enough.

Precisely, which is why I'm concerned that this Iraq business might actually be colonialism behind a facade of moral intervention and self defense.

[HemlockGrey]

That is a sad fact, not a moral justification. It's like saying you can commit murder if you're a corrupt policeman in Africa. Doesn't make it right.

I didn't say it was; I was just pointing out that the reason the US did not bomb the Sovvies was because we wanted our own asses intact. They deserved it as much as Iraq.

[Stormbringer]

Back to the original thread subject, I can't say I'm particularly broken up about the Yanks bombing some Iraqi CCC, but I do think that it's quite obvious they are not, and never have paid more than lip service to the legalities we're talking about here. Whether you think that's morally objectionable or inconsequential is up to you.

Except Iraq has legally violated the cease fire and we could ahve rolled over them months, even years ago if we wanted to. Instead we've jumped through UN hoops.

I think we have other business more pressing but I find it hard to object to any taking out Iraq.

[Stormbringer]

And worse yet, have oil. Otherwise, they'd just be a typical African country.

Funny, I've heard you complain about colonialism often enough.

Precisely, which is why I'm concerned that this Iraq business might actually be colonialism behind a facade of moral intervention and self defense.

Yet you complain that we don't intervene in Africa. Well, guess what you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Ted]

The yanks have never wanted peace with Iraq, as demonstrated when Bush said that diplomacy WILL FAIL.

Little bushy is a warmongering asshole.

[Stravo]

Funny, I've heard you complain about colonialism often enough.

Precisely, which is why I'm concerned that this Iraq business might actually be colonialism behind a facade of moral intervention and self defense.

Yet you complain that we don't intervene in Africa. Well, guess what you can't have your cake and eat it too.

NO. The main reason is that we will not put blood and treasure into a campaign that has no interests for the US. Tell the families of those that died in Somlia just what was gained for the lives lost. If Americans lose their sons and daghters they want some very concrete reasons why those lives are being lost. A purely humanatarian or feel good reason is NOT enough anymore. There have to be national interests involved and a threat to the US in light of 9/11 IS a National Interest.

[HemlockGrey]

The yanks have never wanted peace with Iraq, as demonstrated when Bush said that diplomacy WILL FAIL.

Of course! Because Saddam has been SO cooperative...!

[Darth Wong]

Precisely, which is why I'm concerned that this Iraq business might actually be colonialism behind a facade of moral intervention and self defense.

Yet you complain that we don't intervene in Africa. Well, guess what you can't have your cake and eat it too.

How the fuck is that a contradiction? If they were sincere about this "moral intervention" bullshit, why don't they invade in Africa? Why do they cozy up to dictators and fanatics if they think they can offer help? Moral intervention has nothing to do with their motivations.

[Stormbringer]

The yanks have never wanted peace with Iraq, as demonstrated when Bush said that diplomacy WILL FAIL.

Little bushy is a warmongering asshole.

I won't disagree that Bush wants war but let's face it. Saddam simply wants to get away with his shit while Europe shoves it's head in the sand. If Hussien had any intention of actually cooperating I might worry about Bush's reasons more.

[phongn]

Disarm yourselves.

We never asked him to remove his conventional forces. While we're busy scrapping our stuff, why don't you persuade your politicians to destroy the Canadian Forces while you're at it?

Destroy your small pox stores.

Your Anthrax stores.

Non-weaponized and intended entirely for defensive research purposes since Nixon's ban on offensive biological warfare in the 1970s, as compared to the offensive Iraqi programme.

All your nukes.

Calling Hussein+Nuke and United States+Nuke morally equivilant is a poor argument, even for you.

Iraq, once it recieves nuclear weapons, will be able to wield disproportionate force in the Middle East - an area with critical resources for the world's economy.

The United States has not held such resources hostage with her nuclear arsenal.

All your chemical weapons.

Gone by next year under Congressional mandate.

[phongn]

The yanks have never wanted peace with Iraq, as demonstrated when Bush said that diplomacy WILL FAIL.

Maybe this was an observation on Hussein's instringance rather than anything he genuinely wants.

[Stormbringer]

Precisely, which is why I'm concerned that this Iraq business might actually be colonialism behind a facade of moral intervention and self defense.

Yet you complain that we don't intervene in Africa. Well, guess what you can't have your cake and eat it too.

How the fuck is that a contradiction? If they were sincere about this "moral intervention" bullshit, why don't they invade in Africa? Why do they cozy up to dictators and fanatics if they think they can offer help? Moral intervention has nothing to do with their motivations.

It might not be the prime though but why are you complaining about it when this will do good for the Iraqi people? You'd still complain if we did nothing or cozied up to Saddam.

[Ted]

Disarm yourselves.

We never asked him to remove his conventional forces. While we're busy scrapping our stuff, why don't you persuade your politicians to destroy the Canadian Forces while you're at it?

Actually, the government practically is doing that.

And the Anthrax and small pox could easily be made weaponized.