what will you do?

[UDawg]

Please answer the two questions directly and state your reasons.



1. If the security councel approves the war against Iraq will you still protest the war?

2. When we win and liberate Iraq will you admit you were wrong?




I will say this. If the war in Iraq starts costing thousands and thousands of American lives and it completely destabalizes the region I will want our government to pull out and try another way to meet the same goal.

Now no one can say I am blinded by my so called warhawk goggles.

[netviper13]

If every last political strategy has been exhausted, then and only then will I support military action. If that condition is not met I will protest a war.

If the war occurs and liberates the Iraqi people, I will be happy for them but will still disagree with the method in which the liberation occured. But that's only if it doesn't meet the condition I outlined just above.

But my protests won't be a Vietnam type protest, where I blame the soldiers, oh no I have nothing but respect for them. I just don't think killing is the answer to everything, that's all.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by netviper13
If every last political strategy has been exhausted, then and only then will I support military action. If that condition is not met I will protest a war.

If the war occurs and liberates the Iraqi people, I will be happy for them but will still disagree with the method in which the liberation occured. But that's only if it doesn't meet the condition I outlined just above.

But my protests won't be a Vietnam type protest, where I blame the soldiers, oh no I have nothing but respect for them. I just don't think killing is the answer to everything, that's all.

Sorry netviper I changed the format after you posted your reply. I really wanted the two questions to be answerd directly.

[netviper13]

Jeeze, just when I was about to go to bed too. :D

Answer to #1: Depends on what the council has done. If no more diplomatic methods exist then no I will not protest the war. If some diplomatic methods that haven't been taken yet exist, then I will protest the war.

Answer to #2: I will admit I was wrong as far as Iraq's people being liberated. I won't admit I was wrong in arguing that peace is paramount.

[ASCI Blue]

1. Yes and I can argue anyone not in combat is protesting it too. If you're not doing something to aid the cause you're hindering it.

2. No, because I'm not wrong the issue is the war not whether liberating Iraq is a good thing or not.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Well, its a good thing then that I am getting these aid packages for our Marines and Brits over in Iraq together eh? don't try and belittle anyone who supports this war and is not fighting. The military is volunteer, you decided to get out, so get over it. You aren't military any longer:o

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by UDawg71
Please answer the two questions directly and state your reasons.

1. If the security councel approves the war against Iraq will you still protest the war?

2. When we win and liberate Iraq will you admit you were wrong?

It depends on how well it went really, if the UN approve it then I won't mind as much:cool:

[silence]

1. if UN backs it, then it's legit.
2. wrong about what?this question has no point.

[volt]

UDawg...

It's not only your war. Have you ever considered it's not only Americans who are involved?

[jnd3]

1) The U.N. is irrelevant. They're proved themselves time and again to be decidedly unhelpful in most matters How many people are dying in Iraq's torture chambers because the folks at the U.N. are busy passing "resolutions" that carry no weight?

2) Yay freedom! :D

I liked how the French U.N. delegate said he wouldn't support the U.S. / U.K. "resolution" authorizing force if the conditions of previous "resolutions" were not being met by Iraq because it would lead to war. If that's not a tacit admission that Iraq is not living up to requirements (more like suggestions) of the previous U.N. "resolutions", I don't know what is!

Cheers,
JND

[UDawg]

Originally posted by volt
UDawg...

It's not only your war. Have you ever considered it's not only Americans who are involved?


...and which question were you answering? :p

[volt]

It's up to the UN, not a single person. Currently, the majority rules not to go to war. And if that changes (Hope not), it's Bush' ridiculous speaches on "terror".

I don't agree with anything Bush proposes. Be it democracy he still forces others to comply with his demands. The Bush' Fascist Regim if you will.

[silence]

Originally posted by jnd3
1) The U.N. is irrelevant. They're proved themselves time and again to be decidedly unhelpful in most matters How many people are dying in Iraq's torture chambers because the folks at the U.N. are busy passing "resolutions" that carry no weight?



heh......i am not here to defend UN, cause if u know anything about ex-yugoslav wars in the 90's then u prolly also know how much is UN to blame, but simply there is no other way of dealing with international issues.

if u start saying that UN and UN security council are irrelevant, then you'll see more and more other countries doing so AND that's not good. UN might be slow or u might have ur grudges with them , but eventually they work and there is no other international organisation that can do their job........undermining UN is really dumb, specially if you do it just to show you can.

international laws apply either to all or to none.......and if u start saying that they don't aplly then you are starting to make tons of trouble, NOONE is above the law. and US did sign the charter and so they should work under the limitations of that same charter.

[stncttr908]

Originally posted by volt
The Bush' Fascist Regim if you will.
Comparing Bush to Hitler's Third Reich is not only blasphemous, but it is also insensitive to all those that suffered under it. :rolleyes:

1. Well, I never really protested it in the first place, but this would serve to affirm my belief that military action is inevitable.

2. No, I'm never wrong. :D :cool:

[UDawg]

Not only that but it marginalizes your postion and proves my long held point that a majority of peole opposed to war are actually against President Bush. Again it was ok when Clinton sent 500 missles into Iraq. It was ok when he whent into Kosovo. It was ok when he bombed a asprin factory.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by volt
UDawg...

It's not only your war. Have you ever considered it's not only Americans who are involved?

You really need to read more of my posts.

[silence]

Originally posted by UDawg71
Not only that but it marginalizes your postion and proves my long held point that a majority of peole opposed to war are actually against President Bush.

well........not really, it's just his dumb@ss politics."with us or against us" kind of stuff.heard that so many times during 90's around here. that road is dangerous road to take and consequences can be devastating.

[vampireuk]

Originally posted by stncttr908
Comparing Bush to Hitler's Third Reich is not only blasphemous

I'm sorry where did religion come into this? And what does religion even have to do with this? :rolleyes:

[UDawg]

Hey you chuckle heads keep on topic. :p

[vampireuk]

Yes sir mr mod sir.....hey wait!!:p :D

[UDawg]

bahaha I thought you'd like that. :D

[jnd3]

Originally posted by silence
heh......i am not here to defend UN, cause if u know anything about ex-yugoslav wars in the 90's then u prolly also know how much is UN to blame, but simply there is no other way of dealing with international issues.
The problem with the U.N. is that not all parties fall under the rubric of "rational". How can there be any sort of consensus, compromise, or agreement when all the parties don't "hold these truths to be self-evident"? The idea of some sort of international body is a good one. The current implementation sucks. I know I've mentioned my view of the U.N. elsewhere...kick off the loonies. Let 'em sit in the corner and watch. If a country doesn't at least get a "partly free" by the various independent organizations that rate such things, they have no business dictating policy to those countries that are free. What is the point of international treaties and organizations that do not serve the common good? There isn't a point.
Originally posted by silence
if u start saying that UN and UN security council are irrelevant, then you'll see more and more other countries doing so AND that's not good. UN might be slow or u might have ur grudges with them , but eventually they work and there is no other international organisation that can do their job........undermining UN is really dumb, specially if you do it just to show you can.

international laws apply either to all or to none.......and if u start saying that they don't aplly then you are starting to make tons of trouble, NOONE is above the law. and US did sign the charter and so they should work under the limitations of that same charter.
But in reality, everyone knows that the U.N. is irrelevant already. Why do you think that Saddam has such a grand ol' time flaunting the resolutions? Because he knows that the U.N. and the security council are powerless to enforce their own "resolutions".

Whew. OK, apart from the IRS, the UN tops my list of organizations that need to be disbanded in a hurry! :D (And I've picked up on Reuters' use of scare-quotes when describing U.N. "resolutions"....gives me that air of journalistic integrity, don'tcha think? ;))

Cheers,
JND

[1stFlight]

The security councel has nothing to do with my feelings towards the war. They just happen to agree with me, and many others in the rest of the world.

It's a given we will win. Liberation is merely an effect of the war. It's not the reason Bush is going to war. I believe I've stated the "other" reasons for Bush's rush to war.


Basically, all you've said is that if the war starts costing too much. Let's pull out. We should start with the other ways first, then resort to war, not the other way around.

Originally posted by UDawg71
Please answer the two questions directly and state your reasons.



1. If the security councel approves the war against Iraq will you still protest the war?

2. When we win and liberate Iraq will you admit you were wrong?




I will say this. If the war in Iraq starts costing thousands and thousands of American lives and it completely destabalizes the region I will want our government to pull out and try another way to meet the same goal.

Now no one can say I am blinded by my so called warhawk goggles.

[jnd3]

Originally posted by UDawg71
I will say this. If the war in Iraq starts costing thousands and thousands of American lives and it completely destabalizes the region I will want our government to pull out and try another way to meet the same goal.
The middle east is stable?!? :eek: :rolleyes: :confused: Since when?

Cheers,
JND

[StealthHawk]

Originally posted by stncttr908
Comparing Bush to Hitler's Third Reich is not only blasphemous, but it is also insensitive to all those that suffered under it. :rolleyes:

he didn't compare Bush to Hitler's regime. he called Bush and his administration fascist. Nazi Germany wasn't the only fascist state ya know.