THIS OUGHT TO SHUT YOU UP!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. If we allow countries to violate security council resolutions with no threat of force to back us up, whats the point of even having resolutions? (The standard answer is that we are hypocritical in forcing only Iraq to comply with security council resolutions, however, since we signed a cease-fire agreement with iraq, we are still technically at war, and in that sense the Gulf War has never ended. Therefore, because we are still at war with Iraq, appropriate steps need to be taken in order to finally end the war by forcing Iraq to disarm).

2. When is violence justified? If North Korea begins to develop in array of nuclear weapons, in violation of international law, and threatens the world with them, don't we have an obligation to disarm them. What kind of message would we be conveying if we let the be.

3. If Iraq were to use weapons of mass destruction against coalition soldiers, would you then support the war?

4. If the war was truly about oil, why wouldn't the U.S. just lift the sanctions and do business with Saddam. We could get all the oil we needed without any protest from the Iraqi regime.

Stephen, good answers...I also answered mr. I-have-the-questions-to-shut-you-up here: http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/43624_comment.php#43640

I find it amusing in a way - you brainwashed NeoCon Brown Shirts just don’t get it. You assume by definition that anyone opposed to this evil war is a leftist wrongo asshole.

One of the biggest Anti-War Sites on the web (WhatReallyHapppened.com) is run by an Arch-Conservative who makes Rush Limbaugh look like the weeny NeoCon near leftist that he is. Ditto Antiwar.com which is staffed by Libertarians who are the political polar opposite of the hard left.

Remove thy head from thy ass. Opposition to this War runs from one end of the Political Spectrum to the other. From the Neo-Stalinists over at A.N.S.W.E.R. to the Libertarian Ludwig Von Mises Institute. The REAL RIGHT opposes neocolonial Wars of Conquest.

“1. If we allow countries to violate security council resolutions with no threat of force to back us up, whats the point of even having resolutions? (The standard answer is that we are hypocritical in forcing only Iraq to comply with security council resolutions, however, since we signed a cease-fire agreement with iraq, we are still technically at war, and in that sense the Gulf War has never ended. Therefore, because we are still at war with Iraq, appropriate steps need to be taken in order to finally end the war by forcing Iraq to disarm). “



"All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will.

Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?

Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.

Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot afford dissension among ourselves. We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard.

We are sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does. And we are twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition.

We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them." PETER FREUNDLICH



“2. When is violence justified? If North Korea begins to develop in array of nuclear weapons, in violation of international law, and threatens the world with them, don't we have an obligation to disarm them. What kind of message would we be conveying if we let the be.”

One may have to act to protect others but that does not mean that armed force is the only or even the best way to deal with a problem. North Korea is collapsing from the contradictions of it’s economic system. Kept isolated in time it will collapse of it’s own weight.

“3. If Iraq were to use weapons of mass destruction against coalition soldiers, would you then support the war? “

Hypothetical. It has not happened and is not likely to happen. If it does happen it will only be because Saddam has been forced into a corner and knows he is going down regardless so it does not matter. Otherwise he has no reason to do so and every reason not to as he has been doing his damnedest to take away any legitimacy the U.S. has tried to claim in justification for it’s attack.

“4. If the war was truly about oil, why wouldn't the U.S. just lift the sanctions and do business with Saddam. We could get all the oil we needed without any protest from the Iraqi regime.”

It is not “just about oil” but why did the Just Us Coalition as one of it’s first actions move to secure the Oil Fields?

It is also about power - economic and militarily. Iraq was switching to the Euro as it’s Oil Currency and away from the Dollar. If other Oil Nations followed suit it would have a severe impact on the U.S. and Britain's Economies. Further, the U.S. economy is in near collapse - with 17 Trillion Dollars in unfunded liabilities. If the dollar Collapsed the U.S. goes Bankrupt.

As well there is what Pat Buchanan calls the Israel “Amen Corner” which is in support of anything Israel Wants. And Israel wants Iraq taken out as Saddam was building a Military that actually could have been a counter to Israel's massive stocks of Nuclear, Chemical, and Biologic Weapons.



So in the end Freeper Scum you are an idiot and a buffoon.

"It is not “just about oil” but why did the Just Us Coalition as one of it’s first actions move to secure the Oil Fields? "

Are you seriously asking that? C'mon you clown, I'll give you one chance to retract such a clumsy attempt at twisting an obvious truth.

Christ Dio, are you taking dolt pills lately?

FYI: the contracts are beginning to be signed if you have not paid attention: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/iraq/sns-ap-war-firefighting-deal,0,5352579.story?coll=ny-iraq-headlines

Seems like maybe the forces shoulda done Cheney and Halliburton a favor and let the Iraqis torch a few more oil wells. I guess they didn't get that memo.

You remain an idiot with zero critical thinking ability. Why are you leftist trolls such lemmings?

The soldier that set the fires of Gulf War P.1 publicly announced doing so: http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-four/transcript.htm

They were burned to make it look like the regime was "evil" (as if that was necessary...we already know it's evil).

Wouldn't be surprised if these oil field fires were also burned by the US...to ensure contracts with American companies.

One word of advice. If you're going to try and convince someone of your absurd fantasies, at least have the sense to NOT link to some shitty homemade website as some sort of verification. Give us a break. If you want, I'll throw up a site stating IN PRINT that the "palestinians" started the fires. If I link to that does that prove me right? Anyway, enough of this banter with another uninformed kid.

And Fox and CNN and DoD is much better...Good Night, have your dreams of building empires on the back of the poor and the weak. I'll have the peace of knowing that every single corrupt empire has been over thrown...even if it is not in my remaining life time, I look forward to justice. Also, for me being a "kid" (for which you haven't the faintest clue about) I'm not the one continously attacking your mental capacities or name-calling. Grow up

You make cogent comments on the ironies of the Bush/Rumsfeld philosophy. But I found one of your comments ironic as well:

"Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it. "

The *"democracy of the Security Council"? It does not exist!

The Security Council of the UN is but the most undemocratic uber-organization in the UN, which is, itself, and quite by design, highly undemocratic!

If the UN was truly democratic, then of course there would be no need for such an elitist body as the Security Council. Wouldn't "pure" democracy in the UN be representative democracy, i.e., those countries with the largest populations would get the most representatives? And so, if truly democratic forms were observed, then China, India, the US, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan and Russia, Bangladesh, Nigeria and Japan would comprise the most powerful nations in the world. WTF are Germany and France doing on the Security Council?

All those countries I listed above make up only 59.3% of the world's population. The US makes up only 4.4% of the world's population! How did *we* get veto rights over the UN??

Ah well, you kids keep it down, now, OK? I have to get some sleep! I have to work tomorrow!

Varlet

im a happy kid tonight. you know why? because i dont listen to angry and ignorant war people on the radio or tv. Well, im lying, I do watch them, but I watch the way in which they style their hair on fox. Its fascinating the way the news casters talk to the camera. I imagine that theyre in my living room smashing my miniscule conception of current affairs, convincing me with theyre presence and presentation of the facts (since they are reliable and have in the inside scoop). Suddenly im in saddams bunker and he has his finger on the button, and i yell, no saddam, the childrens.

im happy because the pro-war folks have such a bad selection of musicians and entertainers. They could even get a boost from the dixie chicks if they learn em right.

Pro-war=pro mcdonalds, right? I have a right to eat mcdonalds. good, eat it.

Anti-war=lazy and stoned,right? lazy and stoned people spit (or worse)in your food at restaurants, you wouldnt know.

Pro-war=football, right? go team, pull for the home team, our hot tight men are winners.

Anti-war=radical whiners ruled by their emotions, right? sorry for the inconvenience. I cant help it, i just have to yell out. The american lifestyle is good for a few people.

Pro-war=the right thing to do, right? If you want your lifestyle to continue then its the right thing.

Anti-war=terrorists, right? no, terrorists=war.

im just glad so many pro-war people come to this website and blog ignorant leftys.

*ig·no·rant    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (gnr-nt)

adj.

1. Lacking education or knowledge.

2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.

3. Unaware or uninformed.

*taken from dictionary.com

Ignorant? No..."lefities" read..."lefties" educate themselves...just like "righties"...no side is ignorant. Just different. Right or wrong.

People are being killed, murdered, attacked and tromatized because of war worldwide and that is a fact.

Peace.

"Decades later, killing troubles the soul," a reporter from CNN. (Painfull memories)

What the hell is that?

1) Israel is the number one violator of UN security council resolutions., following your logic, why have we not attacked Israel?

- you ahve not answered the question. Iraq is an example of a country breaching the rules - it doesnt matter if we havent delt with everyone who broke the rules at the same time. it is also much easier to take action against iraq because we were under a ceasefire not a peace treaty.

The other reason for dealing with israel differently is analogous to Nth Korea.. basically nth Korea is tougher than iraq because it is surrounded by strong countries who we dont want to annoy and also it is probably much closer to having nukes etc (if it donest have them already)



2. Violence is only justified in self defense

- OK so if someone stated that they were developing a biological weapon to kill everyone on earth and they went to all the biotech companies and payed then to develop it - we would not be allowed to do anything until they ACTUALLY used it. hmmm NICCCEEEEE

Why don't we nuke Israel?

if you nuked israel your fallout would kill millions of palistinians blow over arab countries and destroy very important religious sites of three major religions too.. nice way to make buddies eh?



3. Under no circumstances will I support an illegal war of aggression.

- Hey that is handy to know.. next time a country invades another country that is friends with the USA the US can try out its chem and bio weapons... SWEEEETTTTT sure the enemy soldiers will die in incredibly gruesome ways but hey you said it was OK.

You know the US would use them. So don't be surprised if Iraq does too.

4. We don't assert that the war is only about oil.

Phew...

The war is about a specific class of individuals controlling and profiting from oil.

As well, this war is also about Israel.

not so phew....

...it is best not to take part in the debate if you have nothing to say. You just look like an idiot. No, scratch that - imbecile.

Diogenes, you look like the idiot, Scottie is engaged in discussion. You just engage in one liners that are built around insults, you look like the imbecile.

...you nitwit. Scottie is not engaged in debate he is engaged in obfuscation and does not deserve my time in reply to his inept attempts.

Oh my, vintage Dio. When cornered out comes the tired claims of "obfuscation". You've been beaten AGAIN. Dio. If for no other reason, I can tell that because you've made your predictable claim of not having enough of your precious time (as if time has any meaning to a middle-aged dungeons and dragons fan living in his mother's basement) to continue arguing. Now post some irrelevanbt quote and be gone with you. You've lost again.

I think that we should just nuke Iraq. Just level the place. Fuck those civilians.

...the pack of you dogs has not had an original thought between you in years.

Frescas pray tell exactly where was my earlier post refuted in any convincing fashion.

I am under no obligation to respond to pack of yipping ankle biters once I have disposed of the initial argument. If you have an intelligent point to make then make. Personal insults are not an argument. Obfuscation and mockery are not an argument.

Fuck off, assclown.

...and how expressive of the substance of your position.

"I am under no obligation to respond to pack of yipping ankle biters once I have disposed of the initial argument. If you have an intelligent point to make then make. Personal insults are not an argument. Obfuscation and mockery are not an argument."



If you were to actually counter an argument let alone dispose of one I might agree. However, you never do either. My point that you resort to obvious and predictable diversion tactics when its apparent that you are stumped and frustrated IS an intelligent point. Whether you agree or not is hardly the barometer. And finally, what you consider to be a personal insult is merely a statement of fairly obvious fact. Stick to your role and stay down when you're beaten.

And you can STILL fuck off, assclown.

Ya'll some spoiled brats, like president-select and bin laden, and need to grow up.

I heard about the GIs who torched the oil fields before, back on a news program in 93 and then the story was

buried. But I'm glad to know my suspicions were correct. I didn't believe the one about Saddam bombing Basra and Um Quassar's water supply either, especially when we bombed those southern cities before Friday's shock and awe attack on Baghdad.

And what obvious facts are those? I have seen you post a lot of argumentative and insulting opinions but very few "facts".

Are you talking about the FACT that despite all protestations to the contrary that the Bush Junta and the War Apologists have been caught lying repeatedly?

Blow me, you head queen.

Diogenes...and a few others...I read over pretty much everything...my conclusion is that the arguments and logic posed by anti-war/slaughter participants are much more intelligent and logical...pro-war/easy-way-out(or so they think) resort to personal insult much more quickly and resort to circular logic, truth by association, wishful thinking, coincidental truth, the wonderful two wrongs make a right, and sloppy conclusions. The most annoying is when you argue a point based on logic completely founded on lies. I've said it before...how impressive...you must have learned it from our glorious administration.

If you had read the post by Diogenes, including the one above your last post, you would the truth about the postings od Diogenes or you are Diogenes.

Have you ever considered learning how to spell? Maybe then, educated people might actually be able to understand your gibberish.

In my experience people of the left resort to insults much faster than people of the right. this is also true of the members of this particular thread.

As for my post above - I actually made some vain attempt to make a post that you could understand (one that ignores the fact that israel is not satan etc etc) and it still shot over your head.

Oh well

yep, it sure does

Zove, my good friend. Let me start by telling you just

how much your post meant to me. I was awestruck. Follow

me here.

This is NOT an absurd statement and is supported by MASSIVE

references,and research to point out this sentence concerning Diogenes.

" The most annoying is when you argue a point based on logic completely founded on lies."

We ALL BELIEVE you.

Would I lie to you?

My mommy has since learned me how to spell. She has also told me to stop being a flaming hypocrite. I apologize to Zove for insulting him by calling him a liar. Could someone please help me take my foot out of my mouth?

"The US makes up only 4.4% of the world's population! How did *we* get veto rights over the UN?? "

ANSWER: Because *we* won WW2.

---------------

"Israel breaks UN resolutions too"

ANSWER: Iraq breaks Section VII resolutions. Israel breaks Section VI resolutions. That's a big difference. It's doubtful, however, that ConspiracyMedia folks actually care to know about these subtleties.

I just love rationalizing the actions of the zionists of Israel. I just can't wait until Sharon wipes every single last one of those evil Palestinians off the face of the Earth!

The USA didnt jsut win WWII (with alot of help from the Russians) It also improved the lot of the countries that it liberated and defeated and gave them back their freedom (somthing the other relevant powers would not have done).

The USa has already proven it is better than the otehr options - if you dont believe me then go live in Nth Korea and leave us to our "poor suffering" under our capitalism and our democray.

Besides the catagory of the UN resolution Iraq is also a special case because we did fight a war against them and it was still in an effective cease fire. oh yeah and no one would be insane enough to actually attack israel.. except maybe a few hamas people and that is because they WANT to die.

To the little kiddie....

Ahh so anyone who doesnt agree with you on everything is conservative?

That is at least 75% isnt it.

At this rate in a few more weeks you will be sitting in the corner playing with yourself as the only liberal left