WAR?????? PART 2

[Big J]

How so?

95% is is an estimate but 6 yrs as an EMT, emergency room tech, and Army medic pretty much put's me at the top.

Since when does the U.N. regulate, propose, or direct U.S. policy? Are we not a sovereign nation? Then why do we have to wait on the permission of someone that has CLEARLY NOT had OUR best interest in mind for eons???? That's like asking Ray Charles to help you pick out a color to paint YOUR wall

Since we joined and agreed, allbeit in good faith, to abide to the charter of the UN, accept the responsibilities as a member nation and permanant member of the Security Council.

As for permission, we don't have to wait or be granted permission for anything, but we are, as agreed apon as a condition of membership, subject to the power of sanction, blockade, or military action, ect. as decreed by the UN (not that they'd ever actually do anything)

It is not OUR best intrests they work to protect, it is the collectives best intrest. Just because we don't get our way doesn't give us a reason to cry about it. "We here in the US are limited to having paved roads, free education, tecnogicaly advanced health care, etc. Who cares about global aids and starving people, US, US, US, wahhhh"

Who says Ray's method of chosing paint is wrong. If you agreed <----remember that word.... to let him help you choose you would face a delima: use the paint he chose, or switch it out when he wasn't looking

:jerkit: :jerkit: The U.N. is not only worthless, it has NO TEETH. WHO do they protect? How many "U.N. resolutions/mandates/aggreements" have other nations/dictators wiped their hind ends with? I'll give you one great big pertinent example........THE 1991 SURRENDER AND DISARMAMENT AGREEMENT IRAQ SIGNED AS A CONDITION TO THEIR SURRENDER WHEN THEY INVADED A SOVEREIGN NATION FOR OIL AND CRIED MERCY........Saddam gave not only the U.N. the great big middle finger, but he directly said out of his own mouth that he would take us out.

Hmmmm, is that the same U.N. you would have dictate what WE need to do to defend ourselves?????? :jerkit:

The U.N. is about as good as a kick in the nuts, and as worthless as the IRS.

What you fail to realize is UN peacekeepers die as the result of UN action protecting people. The disarmament agreement involved nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and delivery methods (missles w/ a range greater than 150 miles) NOT most coventional weapons, let's clear that up. The UN is a topic ignored in the US, a body that is misunderstood, discreidited, and belittled. If you had a need for, and they delivered food and water to you you'd probably feel diffrently. OUR need for the UN, is almost nonexistant in any capacity that effects our daily lives, and as such is easily written off by the majority of the American public.

And Iran liked us since when?????? Just like Bush haters, nations that hate us will hate us regardless of what we do. If you let your actions be dictated by political correctness, you may as well give the fox the key to the hen house.

We liked either Iraq or Iran since when? Know anything about the Iran-Contra Affair? Who was fighting who? Who was getting weapons? That's not politically correct, very little we do is politically correct.

I've challenged others before and never been taken up on it, so I'll extend the same to you: Show how Saddam being in power was "good" for anyone but Saddam? He killed his own people for pleasure and to test weapons. He was a facist dictator for decades. He opressed his own people for the entire time he was in power. He CAME to power via a coupt, not any ELECTION AT ALL. He harbored and supported terrorists sworn to KILL EACH AND EVERYONE of us, including YOU.

That's a question I can't answer, that's a question noone can answer. How much wood would a wood chuck? It's simply a distraction used by you in an attempt to offer a substitution, for the truth, that somehow Sadam wasn't just a good enough reason to go to war but is the reason. He swore to kill me, didn't happen, wasn't worried. The issue is the pretences for this war were false, thay have been proven to be so far. I'm never going to be comfortable with the substitution of that reason for the orginal, or liberating the Iraqi people. So if the reason changes again, are you goint to push it along with this one too?

Statistics, smatistics.....domestic terrorism is not something that can be quantified in numbers. Body bags can be counted, but loss of freedoms can't. How much freedom have we lost, most of which gladly, to secure ourselves after 9/11? How much is YOUR freedom worth?

I simply don't have the time to refute all your points but I will this one, and any other you specifically ask me to.

You seem to think terrorism is a threat that surrounds you. You have a far greater threat of losing some bit of freedom to the war on terror than you do terror itself. If you would gladly give up what was the foundation of this country because some people hate us for what we have and have accomplished, the terrorists had the desired effect.

From wikipedia: Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, social threats, or coordinated attacks, in order to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, bring about compliance with specified political, religious, or ideological demands. The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong. Terrorism is designed to subvert existing political atmospheres, often with the aid of the mass media's influence. Other intended effects of terrorist activities on targeted societies include the curtailment of civilian standards of living and civil liberties associated with greater security demands, economic hardship linked to the costs of war, hopelessness to defend against assaults, depression, and disintegration of morale. These objectives are parallel to the objectives of unconventional warfare.

[Jaimecbr900]

95% is is an estimate but 6 yrs as an EMT, emergency room tech, and Army medic pretty much put's me at the top.

Duly noted.

As for permission, we don't have to wait or be granted permission for anything, but we are, as agreed apon as a condition of membership, subject to the power of sanction, blockade, or military action, ect. as decreed by the UN (not that they'd ever actually do anything)

You proved my point. The U.N. is about as useful and fair as the IRS is to each and everyone of us. So why in the world would we want to follow or worse....be TOLD/DICTATED what to do by an organization like that? Name ONE thing that the U.N. GIVES the U.S. that the U.S. couldn't get on it's own.

The U.N. "sanctions" are only as good as the countries that are willing to follow. Much like laws are only really followed by law abiding citizens and criminals wipe their hind quarters with them. Same with U.N. sanctions and actions (or lack thereof actually). Financial burdens or slaps on the wrists do absolutely nothing to tyrants and extremists hell bent on their own agenda. So sometimes force needs to be met with force, if for nothing else to prevent even worse tyrants and extremists from thinking they too can do it only better.

YOU as an EMT and public servant should know this fact first hand. How many policemen do you know that were there when a crime OCCURED? How many EMT's happen to be there when an accident happened? They do their job to pick up the pieces AFTER something happens 99.9% of the time, right? So therefore WHO should be vigilant and responsible as FIRST LINE of DEFENSE 100% of the time????? OURSELVES. The same idea should be in place for our country and it's well being. Why should we depend on the U.N. or anyone else to determine when and how we see fit to defend ourselves, be it pre-emptive or be it provoked or be it well deserved???? That's like saying that you don't want to put an alarm in your house or car because you KNOW the police will make sure nothing ever happens to you. How could they? It's impossible 99.9% of the time. Same with the U.N.

It is not OUR best intrests they work to protect, it is the collectives best intrest. Just because we don't get our way doesn't give us a reason to cry about it.

See above.

Since when is the U.N. looking out for OUR best interest? NEVER. We absolutely have every right to look out for ourselves.

The U.N. WAS consulted and even asked for permission BEFORE launching the first troop to Iraq. They BS'd around and sided with chicken shit French, Germans, and their own politically correct interests. The U.S. THEN decided, "hey, you're not going to look out for us, we'll do it ourselves....". End of discussion.

Who says Ray's method of chosing paint is wrong.

Anyone that has WORKING eyes.....

Even best friends can and do disagree. Does that mean they're no longer best friends? Maybe. Maybe not. Point is that you don't have to agree just to be a pacifist and take the easy way out. Sometimes you have to take a stand, and our security is just as good a reason IMO as any. We've fought for far less before and never heard anywhere near as much for it.

What you fail to realize is UN peacekeepers die as the result of UN action protecting people. The disarmament agreement involved nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and delivery methods (missles w/ a range greater than 150 miles) NOT most coventional weapons, let's clear that up. The UN is a topic ignored in the US, a body that is misunderstood, discreidited, and belittled. If you had a need for, and they delivered food and water to you you'd probably feel diffrently. OUR need for the UN, is almost nonexistant in any capacity that effects our daily lives, and as such is easily written off by the majority of the American public.

Exactly. Once again you've proven my point again. WHY do we NEED the U.N. if it is going to fight us tooth and nail everytime we go to it for something?

BTW, have you looked at the figures of how much the U.S. gives out in AID every single year? Compare that to the U.N. (which gets it's "aid" from MULTIPLE countries ). It's easy to give out "aid" when it A: does NOT come from YOUR pocket and B: it doesn't come from just ONE source.

The U.N. is the Post Office idea of the world....a good idea initially, but far outdated and soon to be unnecessary due to the ever changing world. When we had Axis powers and the Cold War, it was vital to have a neutral and diplomatic avenue to communicate to AVOID world catastrophe of Nuclear War. Now, the U.N. tries to regulate the world the same way eventhough the threats are totally different. Trying to put out a fire by spitting on it. Doesn't work.

That's a question I can't answer, that's a question noone can answer. How much wood would a wood chuck? It's simply a distraction used by you in an attempt to offer a substitution, for the truth, that somehow Sadam wasn't just a good enough reason to go to war but is the reason. He swore to kill me, didn't happen, wasn't worried. The issue is the pretences for this war were false, thay have been proven to be so far. I'm never going to be comfortable with the substitution of that reason for the orginal, or liberating the Iraqi people. So if the reason changes again, are you goint to push it along with this one too?

If you were a burglar that got a HEADS UP on police coming to your house to find your hidden loot and you buried it in your backyard......does that change the fact that A: you're still a criminal, B: you still stole something, and C: you still have access to it??????

The world stood by while the inept U.N. tried to "police" and enforce something Iraq VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO back in 1991 (more than a decade ago I remind you). Iraq unilaterally picked what part of that they would follow AFTER. Why is that allowed without so much upheaval, but when the U.S. does what the U.N. SHOULD HAVE DONE years ago.....it's suddenly a big to do???? Why isn't there marches, protests, and outcry about the ineptness of the U.N. to make their OWN agreements stick, yet when someone steps in and says, "hey, I'll go and do it...." there's a problem??? :jerkit:

You seem to think terrorism is a threat that surrounds you. You have a far greater threat of losing some bit of freedom to the war on terror than you do terror itself. If you would gladly give up what was the foundation of this country because some people hate us for what we have and have accomplished, the terrorists had the desired effect.

It's this exact mentality that the terrorist community banks on. "We're the little guy in the corner...", "We are in far away lands...", "You're perfectly safe forever...." Ask any of the family members of 9/11 victims if they still feel that way.

People here have a similar mentality about crime at home. IF criminals KNEW that there was a HIGH probability their "victims" would have the ability to fight back and possibly reverse the tables.......would they be as quick to try their crime? Absolutely not. Why? Because there are far more weaker and easier targets elsewhere. Why would you roll over and play dead then?

So if you let Iraq do as it pleases, what would stop any other from doing so? This is how world wars get started. Unchecked abuse of power that directly points at eliminating everything and everyone that doesn't agree with you.

[Jaimecbr900]

You seem to think terrorism is a threat that surrounds you. You have a far greater threat of losing some bit of freedom to the war on terror than you do terror itself. If you would gladly give up what was the foundation of this country because some people hate us for what we have and have accomplished, the terrorists had the desired effect.

http://forums.importatlanta.com/showthread.php?t=67012

This is but ONE of many examples of PUBLICIZED plots, let alone how many (due to security) are NOT even known to John Q public. Yet there are still people that believe that terrorism is only a passing thing and not something we need to worry about......

Like I said, that's exactly what the terrorists are banking on to make us let our guard down long enough for them to park another airplane into another building or build a home-made bomb to go off in the middle of a shopping mall or ballgame.