The USA and Britian can be knick out of the UN. - Page 6

Master Zen · March 22, 2003, 16:38

My my my, are the moderators watching this childlike surge of rage???

Ming · March 22, 2003, 16:59

Quote:

Originally posted by HolyWarrior

YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

And you will get restricted if you keep this kind of crap up... argue the issues... don't insult the posters.

I can see some a lot of people in this thread need to chill... or I'll just start restricting a bunch of you.

Serb · March 22, 2003, 22:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Heresson

Yes, I am...
But I do not have to comment Russian anti-Polish blabling.

Tell me Heresson, Is Poland already joined the anti-Iraq coalition?

When you are planing to start kissing of uncle Sam's as*?

gigapimp3001 · March 22, 2003, 22:55

The way I see it everybody hates everybody else on this stinking planet.

Brits are tea drinking queers, Frogs are unshaven stuck up gits, germans are nazis, russians are commie imperialist, Americans are arrogant capitilist imperialist, arabs are fanatics, christians are fantics, jews are fanatics, hindus are fanatics, chinese are mysterious easten devils, japanese are inhuman easten devils, africans are pathetic starving peasents, latinos are drug peddling banana republics refugees, the rich are exploting the poor, the poor are lazy idiots, intellectuals are queers, capitalists are steak eating tyrants............and the list goes on and on and on.

Somebody try and close this arguement because I just see us making the same old tired mistakes again and agian.............

and that makes me a sad panda

Master Zen · March 23, 2003, 02:15

Most people here simply Equal-Opportunity Offenders.

notyoueither · March 23, 2003, 02:42

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
France has far more clout than the UK.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Count the pink bits, pattycakes.

notyoueither · March 23, 2003, 02:55

And anyone who thinks seriously that the UN would expel Great Britain, let alone the US, should check their medication. Current levels are leading to delusions.

Trevman · March 23, 2003, 05:03

The question is whether the US would care if they were kicked out. I certainly wouldn't.

Dis · March 23, 2003, 05:32

the only reason I want to stay in is to veto anything that France wants to do in the future. Other than that it is pointless.

But make no mistake. I'm not happy about this. I'm sad. The U.N. had such great promise when it started out. It really seemed to be able to protect the peace. But now it is all about partisan politics.

notyoueither · March 23, 2003, 05:35

When the hell did the UN ever succeed in defending the peace?

Dis · March 23, 2003, 05:55

Korea?

Although peace isn't the right word there. they prevented S. korea from falling to the communists.

notyoueither · March 23, 2003, 06:04

No. The US defended Korea.

The UN were hangers on. In fact, had it not been for a Soviet... miscalculation, the UN wouldn't have been involved at all.

Kramerman · March 23, 2003, 06:11

Fine. Kick us out of the UN for all we care. We'll go make our own club. The Aussies, canada, Japan, and various other nations are welcome to join the Neo Uber United Nations if they so choose

CharlesBHoff · March 23, 2003, 07:15

Quote:

Originally posted by HolyWarrior

YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

The weapon inspector where slow and surely diarming Iraq it might have take ayear or two. By going to war now we donot have the support of the UN and I hear that the roads behind our advanging forces are being mines with mine's. If we have to engauge in street fighting for Baghdad we can ecpect alot of our guying getting kill and Iraq might use chemical weapon in the city fighting. There are some Iraq people in the part of Iraq which are calling our soilder foreign devil right to their face trying to get our guy to do the wrong thing. There is than old saying that say" getting into war is easier but getting out is the hard part. " Look in Vietman it was very hard to America to leave without loseing
face or looking foolish for being into the Vietman mess in the
first place. We would need at least 300,000 to 600,000 man to occuprate Iraq for the next 20 year of so. Our total military right now is about 1 million man in the Army, navy, marine, and airforce.
I forgot our hight tech avangter in range and accurate fireing is null in city fighting as most fighting take place at
very close range.

Serb · March 23, 2003, 07:38

Quote:

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff

The weapon inspector where slow and surely diarming Iraq it might have take ayear or two

Bush don't needed disarmed Iraq, because Iraq with ruined economy and defeated in 1991 military was already no threat to the world. Bush needed control over Iraq, while we are talking here, several exerts of US oil companies ALREADY expecting oil dwells in "liberated" territory of Iraq.

CharlesBHoff · March 23, 2003, 08:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Bush don't needed disarmed Iraq, because Iraq with ruined economy and defeated in 1991 military was already no threat to the world. Bush needed control over Iraq, while we are talking here, several exerts of US oil companies ALREADY expecting oil dwells in "liberated" territory of Iraq.

I know that Iraq was disarm already we have certain right wing idiot in our government who want to next invade Iran ,Syria, India, Pakistian, North Korea, China, Russia, and France. It easier to make and hide biowarfare factory than nuclear weapon factory. Any person with chemical knowlge can make chemical weapon with than simple lab but with than hight risk of killing himself.
I know Ming doesnot like people calling other people idiot but I realy question the wisdom of they preempty attack idear as it can lead to use makeing big mistake. Bush will not be reelectic by the America people.

Joseph · March 23, 2003, 13:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Bush don't needed disarmed Iraq, because Iraq with ruined economy and defeated in 1991 military was already no threat to the world. Bush needed control over Iraq, while we are talking here, several exerts of US oil companies ALREADY expecting oil dwells in "liberated" territory of Iraq.

Serb, I don't think Bush give a dam about Iraq oil, but he need a base for Iran. If he has a base in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is in the middle. Keep in mine Iran does not have the bomb yet, and now would be the best time to stop them before they get the bomb. Would you like Iran to have the bomb when they openly support terrorist and are just south of you, what a 1,000 miles (1600 kmt) or so. We know for sure that Al-Queda operate in Iran freely.

BTW I did want Saddam gone. I was hoping for a hearth attack. I'm not antiwar or pro-war. That may be hard for you to understand coming from me. But since we are there, I want minimal causalities on both our side and the Iraqi civilian side. For the Iraqi soldiers if they give up so be it (good), however for those who fight bye bye, see you in the next life.

Joseph

Joseph · March 23, 2003, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff

I know that Iraq was disarm already we have certain right wing idiot in our government who want to next invade Iran ,Syria, India, Pakistian, North Korea, China, Russia, and France. It easier to make and hide biowarfare factory than nuclear weapon factory. Any person with chemical knowlge can make chemical weapon with than simple lab but with than hight risk of killing himself.
I know Ming doesnot like people calling other people idiot but I realy question the wisdom of they preempty attack idear as it can lead to use makeing big mistake. Bush will not be reelectic by the America people.

Not quite. Just Iran and North Korea for now.

Kramerman · March 23, 2003, 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Bush don't needed disarmed Iraq, because Iraq with ruined economy and defeated in 1991 military was already no threat to the world. Bush needed control over Iraq, while we are talking here, several exerts of US oil companies ALREADY expecting oil dwells in "liberated" territory of Iraq.

Serb, if you still think this war is about oil, i roll my eyes at you

Az · March 23, 2003, 18:23

Quote:

Bush don't needed disarmed Iraq, because Iraq with ruined economy and defeated in 1991 military was already no threat to the world. Bush needed control over Iraq, while we are talking here, several exerts of US oil companies ALREADY expecting oil dwells in "liberated" territory of Iraq.

You're right! It's Russia's oil contracts!

CharlesBHoff · March 24, 2003, 06:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Joseph
Not quite. Just Iran and North Korea for now.

North Korea already have 30 to 40 250 kilotonne to 500 kilotonne nuclear weapon already with than 12000 to 14000 miles missile to deliver then to their target.

OliverFA · March 24, 2003, 06:15

The UN will never kick US and UK. If they did that they wouldn't be able to continue stealing (sorry, I mean getting) all that money from them.

LaRusso · March 24, 2003, 07:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

Serb, if you still think this war is about oil, i roll my eyes at you

what is it about, then? please tell me but try to avoid propaganda reasons like disarming iraq and freeing iraqi people

Heresson · March 24, 2003, 10:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Serb

Tell me Heresson, Is Poland already joined the anti-Iraq coalition?

When you are planing to start kissing of uncle Sam's as*?

Our gouverment already does it. I'm not going to.
You are not kissing their ass on the other hand, You are just eating its sh..

Quote:

Surprisingly, La Russo is not Russian, and Serb is not Serbian.

Sorry.

Spiffor · March 24, 2003, 11:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman
Serb, if you still think this war is about oil, i roll my eyes at you

This war is sure not all about oil, but is partly about oil. The US need a reliable source of oil to deal with Saudi Arabia, terrorism-financer extraordinaire (I have been more detailed in several other posts, and I get bored writing the same thing over and over again, so no details for you

). So far, the US were handcuffed by Saudi, which explains how low the tensions are, with a regime obviously linked with terrorism and Al Qaeda.
I suppose you would agree with this statement, K.

CharlesBHoff · March 24, 2003, 16:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

This war is sure not all about oil, but is partly about oil. The US need a reliable source of oil to deal with Saudi Arabia, terrorism-financer extraordinaire (I have been more detailed in several other posts, and I get bored writing the same thing over and over again, so no details for you

). So far, the US were handcuffed by Saudi, which explains how low the tensions are, with a regime obviously linked with terrorism and Al Qaeda.
I suppose you would agree with this statement, K.

The Saudi government isnot behind terrorism as the Iraq government isnot behind terrorism there are no terrorist in this world only freedom fighter. Iran support freedom fighter
which are fighting for they stole land which Irsael stole from then. Irsael is automatic guiely of libel and slander by calling
freedom fighter terrorist get the correct view.

Imran Siddiqui · March 24, 2003, 17:02

Quote:

The US need a reliable source of oil to deal with Saudi Arabia, terrorism-financer extraordinaire

Spiff, even with ALL the oil in Iraq, I bet the US would continue its current relationship with the Saudis.

Spiffor · March 24, 2003, 17:37

Imran :
Except if I understate the paranoia and resentment that came from Sept. 11, I assume the Bushies will take whatever step necessary to reduce international terrorism.
Of course I cannot be sure, but I think many people in the American folk and in the White House are very pissed with the Sauds. If they are unshackled with their dependancy to the Sauds, the US will probably want to take action. Not necessarily war, but pressure on other aspects.
Before, the Sauds could simply have lowered their oil output, maybe with the help of OPEC countries. With Iraq in the hands of the US, they will lose very much of their bargaining power.

Master Zen · March 24, 2003, 17:52

Umm... didn't we argue about all this in that "other" thread???

CharlesBHoff · March 26, 2003, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Imran :
Except if I understate the paranoia and resentment that came from Sept. 11, I assume the Bushies will take whatever step necessary to reduce international terrorism.
Of course I cannot be sure, but I think many people in the American folk and in the White House are very pissed with the Sauds. If they are unshackled with their dependancy to the Sauds, the US will probably want to take action. Not necessarily war, but pressure on other aspects.
Before, the Sauds could simply have lowered their oil output, maybe with the help of OPEC countries. With Iraq in the hands of the US, they will lose very much of their bargaining power.

America is the biggest productor of oil in the world also we are the biggest user of oil and the biggest waster of oil in the world. Than we are getting worst each year. The fuel cell
power car in america is than pipe dream the cost for than adverage america to buy than mass product fuel cell power
car is around 800,000 to 1,000,000 dollar. To than adverage america to own one will take than 40 year to 80 year car loan and the big car companies in America will
lose money when they built than car that last 80 year and
what about the labour union's. The test model car which
run off of fuel cell cost 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 dollar to built apeise.