1  |   Order by index

Mar 7, 2003, 1:39am

[View Quote] People bluff when they can't do anything about it; the difference is the US can.
People seem to overlook the fact that the reason the UN and such organizations last
for the enforcement abilities is because of the US. Remember what happened to the
League of Nations?

> Of course it is compareble, if UN ask for proves that would "justify" a war,
> but USA only say, we have but we will not tell. To me it seems someone is
> bullshitting.

This still plays into the role of strategic defense of intelligence. You give up
that piece of evidence that proves it, you give up your undercover operations.
That's not something you want or the rest of the world should want considering the
circustances that arise without the protection of the US. Yes, the US protects, Yes,
the US takes "compensation"; but I would rather have the US be doing this than Russia
or France... considering their flakey past.

Hey, hear about Euro-Disney banning fireworks? Seems when the nearby French units
heard them they surrendered unconditionally (joke).

> UN is like a courtroom of the world, where decisions are made. How can
> someone refusing to present profs be taken seriously? We have to remember
> that it is USA that is going to attack, not Iraque.

If the US does not go pre-emptive, you're risking possible Hitler-esque actions by
Iraq. War is bad, no one is arguing that... what we are arguing is the saftey of all
citizens of this planet. Which includes the US, of course we're going to act in our
best interest. Are you telling me France and Germany aren't acting in theirs?

> As I have stated earlier, when the first iraqi missile flies towards USA, I
> will not object USA striking back, but as long USA is the only one wanting
> war, I would like to see some hard evidence that would even make it a bit
> more justified, not only a moron president on TV repeating himself, without
> a single good reason for the war, just bullshit.

Do Europeans not understand the term pre-emptive? Why do we need to wait for
destruction to come to us first before we attack? Well my good European friend,
perhaps you didn't see the attacks by terrorists on Septermber 11th, but we're trying
to stop the same thing from happening again on a larger, more catastrophic scale. If
_that_ isn't good enough for an attack on our soil, I don't know what is. I'm sorry
we can't please you.

--Bowen--

1  |   Order by index