Find out the truth about George W.

[Henneth annun]

Vitrionia said:

agreed, any country that is prepaired to go to war without the permission of the UN, (and this should include civil wars) will not be backed by the UN, and perhaps subject to subsiquent attack from allied troops

Out of the hundreds of wars that have happened since the UN started, two have been approved by them. The Gulf war and Korea.

[Rock McLargeHuge]

hehe i modified my post cos i thought it was too harsh, but on the subject of wars should not be allowed without Un's backing...

if countries are outside of the un, and are being attacked, they can appeal to the UN for help, if they are being attacked with UN backing, then they are ... well screwed and they should stop being naughty!

[Rock McLargeHuge]

yeah i changed what i said, cos i realised how stupid it sounded..

[Cyper]

Yes. This is simply unacceptable....

The UN should intervene, and stop the war. Instead of picking up the pieces, and try to put them back togehter.

[Cyper]

lol. "stop being naughty" ;D ;D ;D ;D

[Rock McLargeHuge]

Red said:

The UN should intervene, and stop the war.

exactly, i figure if the UN did this enough, and every nation involved in the UN did it's part fairly, then pretty soon, war would become a bit less fun for some of the despot dictators in backwards little countries... i mean what fool would go up against the whole of the free world just to get a bit more land?

[Henneth annun]

Red said:

Yes. This is simply unacceptable....

The UN should intervene, and stop the war. Instead of picking up the pieces, and try to put them back togehter.

The UN was there, trying to help. But on August 19, 2003 Some Baath Separatists car bombed the main UN building, killing several of thier highest ranking officials.

That's why the UN isn't there now.

[Rock McLargeHuge]

okay, but henneth you have to agree, that a stronger, more active UN and Allied Forces would be better against any war on terror or whatever, than the US just taking a few allies in and bombing the hell out of whoever they choose

[Cyper]

Yes and if find it unacceptable that someone would bomb the UN. There should be more securoty sround the UN

[Henneth annun]

Vitrionia said:

okay, but henneth you have to agree, that a stronger, more active UN and Allied Forces would be better against any war on terror or whatever, than the US just taking a few allies in and bombing the hell out of whoever they choose

Listen, If the US, who by the way protects all of civilization, has defeated Facism, Communism, and now is fighting terrorist groups, cannot wait for the squabbling of the UN, or the Small forces of NATO! They need to act, and be decisive, unlike the rest of the world.

[Cyper]

Henneth said:

Listen, If the US, who by the way protects all of civilization, has defeated Facism, Communism, and now is fighting terrorist groups, cannot wait for the squabbling of the UN, or the Small forces of NATO! They need to act, and be decisive, unlike the rest of the world.

Yes something must be done. But why does the US think it owns the world. Before 9/11 the US could not careless about places around the world which was being bombed by terrorist. They did not act then. But when it hits themselves... Oh my god. the entire nations freaks out (as if they did not know a terrorist attack was comming. (if they had not figured that out, they must have been blind))

[Henneth annun]

Red said:

Yes something must be done. But why does the US think it owns the world. Before 9/11 the US could not careless about places around the world which was being bombed by terrorist. They did not act then. But when it hits themselves... Oh my god. the entire nations freaks out (as if they did not know a terrorist attack was comming. (if they had not figured that out, they must have been blind))

Before 9/11, we had clinton, who didn't have the guts even to attack the terrorist group who attacked the olympics in 1996. He had so many chances to kill Osama Bin Laden, but he didn't. The Bush comes along 9/11 happens and he takes action. You see Bush can take chances unlike clinton who didn't do anything millitary wise to intervine against global terrorism.

[Cyper]

Henneth said:

Before 9/11, we had clinton, who didn't have the guts even to attack the terrorist group who attacked the olympics in 1996. He had so many chances to kill Osama Bin Laden, but he didn't. The Bush comes along 9/11 happens and he takes action. You see Bush can take chances unlike clinton who didn't do anything millitary wise to intervine against global terrorism.

I see your point. But about Bush. I believe he is a war junkie. I did not understand why they attacked Iraq. Iraq could not have been high on the list (maybe they attacked Iraq to scare other "bad" nations?). Iraq was run down, did not have any weapons industry and etc. Saddam was not the biggest threat to the world. What about North Korea? They have nuclear weapons... But no one dares to attack it because of its huge military.

You still had a some kind of thought that terrorism would not hit us. What did the "general" American do about the threat before 9/11? Nothing....

[Henneth annun]

Red said:

I see your point. But about Bush. I believe he is a war junkie. I did not understand why they attacked Iraq. Iraq could not have been high on the list (maybe they attacked Iraq to scare other "bad" nations?). Iraq was run down, did not have any weapons industry and etc. Saddam was not the biggest threat to the world. What about North Korea? They have nuclear weapons... But no one dares to attack it because of its huge military.

You still had a some kind of thought that terrorism would not hit us. What did the "general" American do about the threat before 9/11? Nothing....

Bush wanted to finish what his dad started. It's a family thing, but he also did it for the good of the people of Iraq.

North Korea doesn't have a large millitary, China does, and If we Attack them, we'll have the 2.3 million strong Peoples Republic Army on our butts. And we don't want to sart WWIII. We don't bite off more than we can chew.

[Cyper]

Henneth said:

Bush wanted to finish what his dad started. It's a family thing, but he also did it for the good of the people of Iraq.

North Korea doesn't have a large millitary, China does, and If we Attack them, we'll have the 2.3 million strong Peoples Republic Army on our butts. And we don't want to sart WWIII. We don't bite off more than we can chew.

A family thing... Please... Can Bush really be so stupid. There are much more oppresed people in the world. Sudan, Vietnam etc. (and if it is a fimily thing. Why did he justify it with womd? (weapons of masse destruction))

And yes the chinese army is the largest. But the North Korean army is also very very large.

[Henneth annun]

Red said:

A family thing... Please... Can Bush really be so stupid. There are much more oppresed people in the world. Sudan, Vietnam etc. (and if it is a fimily thing. Why did he justify it with womd? (weapons of masse destruction))

And yes the chinese army is the largest. But the North Korean army is also very very large.

Honestly, we already tried Vietnam. But there are 23 million people who have been tourturesd and have had thier freedoms taken away. And yes, eventally we will get to those countries, but we need to finish up with Iraq first. and bush can make mistakes just like all of us, and although part was selfish, he is helping those people.

[Cyper]

Sheynat said:

The PLA (the Chinese army) is huge, but they've got 1960s era technology. It'd be bloody, but they are definitely not more than we can chew. After all, before we got finished with them, Iraq had the sixth largest army, and they were far more modern than China. Also, Vietnam is easily one of the tamest dictatorships out there, from what I hear. The real baddies are Libya, Cuba, Iran, China and North Korea.

Yes. To turn the discussion back to the chinese. They also have the largest airforce in the world, which uses mig-21 and mig-29 etc. These are fantastic planes, but I dont know if there numbers and 80´s tech would beat F-14, F-16, harriers and so on.

[Cyper]

Henneth said:

Honestly, we already tried Vietnam. But there are 23 million people who have been tourturesd and have had thier freedoms taken away. And yes, eventally we will get to those countries, but we need to finish up with Iraq first. and bush can make mistakes just like all of us, and although part was selfish, he is helping those people.

Yes he is helping those people. (Dont think of me as crule for saying this next part) There are other places which were in a more urgent state than Iraq. They needed help much more than Iraq. (Not saying that Iraq did not need help)

[Henneth annun]

Red said:

Yes. To turn the discussion back to the chinese. They also have the largest airforce in the world, which uses mig-21 and mig-29 etc. These are fantastic planes, but I dont know if there numbers and 80´s tech would beat F-14, F-16, harriers and so on.

True, True. But they have 1/10th of the Nukes we have.

And Iraq's army was mostly tankes which we took out with our A-10's.

[Cyper]

Henneth said:

True, True. But they have 1/10th of the Nukes we have.

And Iraq's army was mostly tankes which we took out with our A-10's.

You are right indeed. But non of you dare use your nukes. It would be the end of the world. And by the way. 2,3 mio. soldiers with Ak47, could with ease wipe out 500,000 with m16.

[Henneth annun]

Red said:

You are right indeed. But non of you dare use your nukes. It would be the end of the world. And by the way. 2,3 mio. soldiers with Ak47, could with ease wipe out 500,000 with m16.

Were not going to have one huge battle if that happens. We'll fight aboad. And we won't be using M-16s. The milliatary is ussually 12 years ahead of where we think they are technology wise.

[Cyper]

Yes. Allright. It has been a great discussion so far. I hope i haven´t offended you in any way.

I belive the discussion is dieing out. On less you have another topic to discuss?

[Rock McLargeHuge]

the us didn't defeat fasicism BTW... hehe it was the Allied forces... i will admit that the US joining WWII at the time they did may have tipped the battle, but don't forget it was many nations involved in that war, to claim sole reposibility is an insult to those who died for the cause, and the nations that were nearly destroyed for the cause, and as for commuism, explain Cuba and China and Russia....? communism still exists , okay the USSR may have imploded, but there is still communism in the world..

the US on it's own as done 4 things...
1) uncessarily dropped the first atomic bomb (and then another one) , on a Civillian area... instead of a army base, or just an area of japan... and in the process started the whole nuclear scare.
2) got it's arse kicked in vietnam...
3) blown up afganistan (but couldn't capture the main threat)
4) killed a hell of alot of it's own troops and other nations troops to go into a country where WMD's where supposed to exist (so far there are no WMD's to be found) and remove the leader saddam hussain (who took how many months to be caught?)

the argument is that someone has to be the decided person in wars like this, the US cannot be that... no-one doubts the US is the most powerful country in the world, but it would make a lot of people sleep easier if they would show some respect to something.. and i believe a reformed UN is probably the only organisation that could do that...


and if the US signed the Kyoto agreement i'd be happy

but neway red and whites is right, this discussion is just running in circles

hugs and beer to all involved
and sorry if i offended anyone

[Cyper]

Thank you....

My point excatly... (BTW: My country was invaded by Germany during WWII, and I would therefore like to thank the USA, Great Britain, The former Soviet Union and every one else who fought in WWII)

I agree with you on the Kyoto agreement. Then we can discuss wether it helps. Many scientists say it isnt the CO2, thats creating the Green House Effect. But that is another discussion.

Thannk You.

[Henneth annun]

1) uncessarily dropped the first atomic bomb (and then another one) , on a Civillian area... instead of a army base, or just an area of japan... and in the process started the whole nuclear scare.

THey needed to do that otherwise the war would have gone on into the 50's and millions more would have died.

2) got it's arse kicked in vietnam...

It was a stalemate and we needed to stay in there. We made a bad decision.

3) blown up afganistan (but couldn't capture the main threat)

Osama is in a Pakistain cave wth liver disease. It's much better than in a palace ruling 15 million people.

4) killed a hell of alot of it's own troops and other nations troops to go into a country where WMD's where supposed to exist (so far there are no WMD's to be found) and remove the leader saddam hussain (who took how many months to be caught?)

Try searching the area of France with 500 experts on WMDs to find an area no bigger than a truck, and all the people who you are questioning have been trained to lie.

[Rock McLargeHuge]

to Henneth :

Vitrionia said:

1) uncessarily dropped the first atomic bomb (and then another one) , on a Civillian area... instead of a army base, or just an area of japan

Vitrionia said:

but neway red and whites is right, this discussion is just running in circles
hugs and beer to all involved
and sorry if i offended anyone

*hands over beer..*

[Cyper]

Then what about the Kyoto agreement) You kind of bypassed it!

[Henneth annun]

Vitrionia said:

*hands over beer..*

*Takes Beer and chugs*

[Bad Infinitum]

Henneth said:

And Iraq's army was mostly tankes which we took out with our A-10's.

Because A-10's are stinkin' awesome!

[Bad Infinitum]

Red said:

You are right indeed. But non of you dare use your nukes. It would be the end of the world. And by the way. 2,3 mio. soldiers with Ak47, could with ease wipe out 500,000 with m16.

Yeah, if we were standing stationary and on-line in the open up against a camouflaged and very mobile enemy.