I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Jun 30th, 2003 11:34 AM

El Blanco

Quote:

Originally Posted by mburbank

And when a prisoner goes before the parole board and fails to show he has reformed, the guards take him bck to his cell, and as opposed to leaving him there to continue his sentence, they drop bombs on him, kill a lot of his cellmates, lose track of him entirely and claim justice has been served. Right?

Whats your point? We dropped the ball 12 years ago and we are trying to correct said mistake.

and have we stopped looking for him?

Quote:

Yeah, but you don't go and blow up the parolee's house, family, neighbourhood or city when he misses court date, do you?

Depends on what state you live in.

Quote:

You can't use an analogy for an individual and apply it to an entire country, as it's quite apparent that Saddam isn't the only "guilty" one if attacks on U.S. soldiers have continued to this day.

You're right. Because this particular individual was in charge of an entire country and still has military forces active in the area.

And, yes, he had a whole regime, and there are a few people who either don't like change or saw a chance to grab at power with Hussien's overthrow.

Jun 30th, 2003 11:29 AM

El Blanco

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dole

'We busted him. We royally spanked him' -which is why you had to go back 12 years later, him having remained in power in the intervening years, yes?

Because people were crying for us to leave. You really think he would have stood a chance? Us leaving was little more than a PR move before an election year.

Jun 30th, 2003 11:21 AM

AChimp

Quote:

Its like a convict who wants to be released. He was busted for the crime and is doing his sentence. He has to go before the parole board and convince them he is ready to rejoin society. He then has to meet with a parole officer regularly to prove he has a job and other things that prove he is a contributing member of society.

Yeah, but you don't go and blow up the parolee's house, family, neighbourhood or city when he misses court date, do you?

You can't use an analogy for an individual and apply it to an entire country, as it's quite apparent that Saddam isn't the only "guilty" one if attacks on U.S. soldiers have continued to this day.

Jun 30th, 2003 11:12 AM

mburbank

Jun 30th, 2003 11:11 AM

KevinTheOmnivore

Re: Sorry

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAsux

Kev,
I'm a little disappointed that you are under the impression that I am so naive that I needed to have the fact that the U.N. is a large, multi-faceted body explained to me.

Sorry, but you seem to have the same naive arguments to make against the UN that everyone else does. International diplomacy and peacekeeping isn't supposed to be an easy job, and the UN will never be perfect (nor should it be, IMO). But criticizing it as ineffective simply because it doesn't serve "our" purposes, that's just lame.

Quote:

I didn't dismiss the U.N. because some nations disapproved of "our" war. I said nothing of the kind. I'm simply stating that if obvious self interest is grounds for banishment from the U.N., then there is a lot of house cleaning to do.

Right, I forgot, we were riding Spain's coat tails into the Middle East.

Anyway, I never said self-interest was grounds for banishment. What I did in fact say was that every nation is out for thir own interests. But when a country begins to whine and cry about the procedures and policies of the UN, simply because they don't get their way, is ridiculous. Now the world can afford it when a lesser country takes this childish stance, but when the most powerful nation in the world does it, it becomes dangerous.

Quote:

If the ENTIRE organization and ALL of it's members truly believed in working together to create peace, I don't think we'd be arguing about places like Sierra Leone and Liberia. Those places struggle because they DON'T provide any benefit to other member nations. It's not just the U.S. That's what I was getting at.

Right, and again, I never said that every other nation was ready to hold hands and make peace. My point was that reverting to the "he did it first" argument solves nothing, and as the world's super power, it just might be our duty to do more than blow things up really well.

Jun 30th, 2003 11:08 AM

Dole

'We busted him. We royally spanked him' -which is why you had to go back 12 years later, him having remained in power in the intervening years, yes?

Jun 30th, 2003 11:02 AM

El Blanco

Quote:

Guilty until proven innocent, huh?

Saddam was proven guilty in 1991. We busted him. We royally spanked him.

Its like a convict who wants to be released. He was busted for the crime and is doing his sentence. He has to go before the parole board and convince them he is ready to rejoin society. He then has to meet with a parole officer regularly to prove he has a job and other things that prove he is a contributing member of society.

Saddam was convicted and it was up to him to prove things changed. Much like the parolee.

Jun 30th, 2003 10:48 AM

AChimp

Quote:

It wasnt up to to the U.S. to prove he had them. It was up to Saddam to prove he did NOT have them.

Guilty until proven innocent, huh? What happened to spreading American ideals? Or is that only when it's in your best interests?

And who is "everyone" that agreed Iraq had WMD five years ago? Oh yeah, the CIA and its blurry satellite photos, and the Island Republic of Pacific Bumfucks who were hoping to get on the good side of the U.S. by blindly supporting them.

Even if they did say that there was a possibility Iraq possessed WMD five years ago, they were well within their rights to demand new proof since five years is a long time and lots can change; especially since the weapons inspectors who were there in the months leading up to the war didn't find any indications of their existence.

Jun 30th, 2003 10:24 AM

mburbank

Hyuk! That there's funny cause on account of the dangerousness of the cars!

"YOU ARE JEWISH AND YOU ARE HVE EATING A BAGEL!"
-Vinth Appoplexthy

Jun 30th, 2003 10:07 AM

VinceZeb

Here is a better idea. Why don't you play on the highway during rush hour traffic?

Jun 30th, 2003 10:05 AM

mburbank

" It was up to Saddam to prove he did NOT have them. "
Vinthy Clambaker

A negative can't be proved. Not by Saddam, not by you, not by anyone, not ever. That is a simple, basic building block of rudimentary logic. Somone tried to teach you that in school.

"Facts" are plural. "It" is singular. You are an idiot. You cannot even state your premise cllearly enough for anyone to argue with it. Anyone who wanted to try would have to state your case for you and ask if that was what you meant.

Here's an idea. Why don't you post an expired link? That could clear things up.

Jun 30th, 2003 08:01 AM

VinceZeb

Oh man, Achimp, you were above the curve there! Even though everyone pretty much agreed Iraq had WMD and then when the war was going to happened, they did an about-face and contradicted what they said as shortly as 5 years ago.

It wasnt up to to the U.S. to prove he had them. It was up to Saddam to prove he did NOT have them. That is what happened when he signed the peace treaty. You all seem to ignore the facts when it deflects your simple-minded agenda.

Jun 30th, 2003 12:37 AM

AChimp

Quote:

When it comes to the dirty work, America, Britian and a few other countries are the ones who get their feet wet and their soliders in harms way. Every other country just gets to absorb the fruits of the labor, like Canada, France, etc., i.e. pussy countries.

AHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I'm going to have to agree with Kevin there. The U.S. went in a bombed the shit out of Afghanistan (with the help of all the pussy countries, I might add) but has totally fallen on its face when the REAL dirty work comes along: the peacekeeping and convincing the people that there's a better way to live and rebuilding the country.

It's happening in Iraq now. The first "great war of liberation" was a huge joke. Everyone with half a brain could see that if Saddam really did have any WMD, he would have used them on the invading troops instead of running away. Now everyone is stuck with a thousands of Iraqis who smile and cheer when Western soldiers drive by, then plot and conspire when they think no one is looking.

Is the U.S. really going to do anything to correct this problem? No. More money will just be thrown at it, and more politicians will bitch and moan that more force is necessary or less force is necessary and even more people will be arguing that the occupation force should be withdrawn completely because "the lives of our soldiers are more important than anything else!"

Then it will be up to the pussy countries to go in and clean up the mess. As usual.

Jun 30th, 2003 12:32 AM

GAsux

Sorry

Kev,
I'm a little disappointed that you are under the impression that I am so naive that I needed to have the fact that the U.N. is a large, multi-faceted body explained to me.

I didn't dismiss the U.N. because some nations disapproved of "our" war. I said nothing of the kind. I'm simply stating that if obvious self interest is grounds for banishment from the U.N., then there is a lot of house cleaning to do.

If the ENTIRE organization and ALL of it's members truly believed in working together to create peace, I don't think we'd be arguing about places like Sierra Leone and Liberia. Those places struggle because they DON'T provide any benefit to other member nations. It's not just the U.S. That's what I was getting at.

Jun 29th, 2003 11:53 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Quote:

It seems that most in America don't get the philosophy behind it, and instead wonder "hey, what's in it for us!!?"

Oh, yeah, you're right. I forgot that it's America's job in the world to be the global kid on the block who cries "na ah! He did it first!!"

We are the most powerful nation in the world. It's not only our job to BE that, it's our job to act as it. We should set the standards. Every nation entered with the hope that unity would bring balance and control. With balance, we all presumably prosper and succeed.

The UN's job isn't to serve the world powers, it's to protect the lesser powers against those who might infringe upon them, and to instill some degree of global order and fairness.

Quote:

And I really don't know what the diplomats of one country have been doing. Think it adds up to what the hundred someodd member nations' groups have?

You put people in the greatest city in the world, treat them like kings, and they will act like it. If you don't like their behavior, push to change their immunity. Diplomats act like assholes all around the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

You mean like in Afganistan?? We're really good at the "dirty work," such as blowing things up and killing people. It's all those unpleasantries afterward we don't seem to enjoy....

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAsux

]I'm going to have to agree with Senor Blanco here. I think every nation has it's own self interest at heart when it comes to the U.N. Do you suppose the Chinese and Russians are genuinely concerned more about world peace and stability than there own self interest?

But you're both missing the point. Of course every nation has their own interest at heart, and the point is that everyone working together and creating order IS in everyones best interest.

What we do is worse than seeking personal gain. We expect it in places we have no right demanding it, ie. the war in Iraq. We don't pay our dues, we violate the UN procedures that we would gladly adhere to if it served our purposes, and then we disregard their validity if we don't get our way.

Quote:

If every nation who's people wanted to know what the U.N. has done for them lately was kicked out, I'm thinking we'd be able to move them out of that fancy building and start having meetings at a local Dennys.

This is incredibly unfair, and incorrect. The UN is a large organization, with many different groups doing various things. Branches such as UNICEF do a lot of good work, and to dismiss the entire UN simply because the members disapproved of the war we wanted is incredibly unfair.

Jun 29th, 2003 10:59 PM

GAsux

Yeah

I'm going to have to agree with Senor Blanco here. I think every nation has it's own self interest at heart when it comes to the U.N. Do you suppose the Chinese and Russians are genuinely concerned more about world peace and stability than there own self interest?

If every nation who's people wanted to know what the U.N. has done for them lately was kicked out, I'm thinking we'd be able to move them out of that fancy building and start having meetings at a local Dennys.

Jun 29th, 2003 10:31 PM

Rongi

My cousin works at the UN. I'm not even kidding

Jun 29th, 2003 09:37 PM

VinceZeb

We need to tell the UN to take a fucking flying leap. Useless organization.

When it comes to the dirty work, America, Britian and a few other countries are the ones who get their feet wet and their soliders in harms way. Every other country just gets to absorb the fruits of the labor, like Canada, France, etc., i.e. pussy countries.

Jun 29th, 2003 07:27 PM

kahljorn

America likes hot dogs, but not mustard. I mean really, who has a hotdog without mustard? Fucking bastards.

Jun 29th, 2003 04:29 PM

AChimp

Quote:

That land was given for free. Not one red cent. They didn't pay for it. It was courtesy from us. We can make a shit load of money if we sold that to a private group.

Who is we? Somebody or something private, that's what. The general public wouldn't see a single dollar from that sale.

Besides, now that it's been given, it can't be taken away without serious international repercussions. Of course, the U.S. probably wouldn't care since its attitude is just "me me me me."

Jun 29th, 2003 03:50 PM

El Blanco

Quote:

It seems that most in America don't get the philosophy behind it, and instead wonder "hey, what's in it for us!!?"

Thats what everybody said when they joined. Don't single us out for that. All other countries are in because they believe they are gaining more by being part of the UN. All that peace and brotherhood bullshit is second, if at all.

And I really don't know what the diplomats of one country have been doing. Think it adds up to what the hundred someodd member nations' groups have?

AChimp: That land was given for free. Not one red cent. They didn't pay for it. It was courtesy from us. We can make a shit load of money if we sold that to a private group.

Jun 29th, 2003 03:40 PM

The One and Only...

The UN has no power anyway. It's nothing more than a paper tiger.

Jun 29th, 2003 02:36 PM

KevinTheOmnivore

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Tell you what, when all those diplomats get around to paying their parking tickets and the rent comes in for that prime mid-town manhattan real estate, we might throw a few bucks their way.

Hmmm, I wonder if American diplomats do the same things in other countries....?

I'm becoming a firm believer that the U.S. shouldn't be in the UN. It seems that most in America don't get the philosophy behind it, and instead wonder "hey, what's in it for us!!?"

We shouldn't leave, they should kick us out.

Jun 29th, 2003 12:15 PM

AChimp

It is my understanding that the land the UN headquarters is sitting on belongs to the international community, not the U.S.

Jun 29th, 2003 12:14 PM

El Blanco

Tell you what, when all those diplomats get around to paying their parking tickets and the rent comes in for that prime mid-town manhattan real estate, we might throw a few bucks their way.

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off