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.