My response to HanzNZ's constant USA bashing

[ariolanine]

There is a difference between what Clinton did and between what Bush is doing now.

The reason why the world is opposing the invasion is because it is a crime in international law and because the US administration failed to present any evidence.



Imperialism is not very popular either. But you are at least honest enough to state one of the real reasons for this invasion.

Dude, that'a fucking copout. "international law" nigga please. Clinton dropped bombs on sovreign nations. We fucking destroyed an entire nation in Europe. Nobody said anything. What Clinton did was pure evil in Bosnia. Bush is killing Sodom and everyone on earth will benefit. If he snatches the oil, then Americans will really benefit. What is wrong with that? A few thousand Iraqis die now instead of dying later under Sodom. BFD.

 

[Norman Bates]

You think international law is unimportant?
I´m sure the world will see a lot of trouble in future by countries invading others due to "self-defence".

Clinton bombed a foreign country to distract from his blow job, without doubt that´s morally wrong.
Invading another country to seize its resources and to install a puppet regime is much worse.

If he snatches the oil, then Americans will really benefit. What is wrong with that?

Do you really want to know why robbery is wrong?

Another argument against that invasion without UN mandate is that now all the country leaders down there think that there isn´t even the little protection of the international law that can protect them from being invaded. Instead they are working on getting the bomb.
How long did it take Pakistan to develop it?Or N.Korea? Iran already has a nuclear power plant and surely not because they need it for electricity.
Pretty soon you will not have a middle east powder-keg full of people hating the USA ,instead you will have a powder-keg with atomic weapons.

 

[Fonz]

HANZ - I would love to beat you to a slow death with a Kosher bat!....Na*i M**fer!

Instead of wtching CNN or other propagandish US media outlets, try to get the BBC or Reuters.

Somebody a bit more impartial.

The US is 5/17 when they try to overthrow a dictatorship and install a democracy.

Thats less than a 30% succes rate.

No offense, but that sucks.

And the jury is still out on the 18th...Afghanistan....Which IMO is another FAILURE.

Iraq is ehnicity differences are as bad as Afghanistans.
Shi'a and Sunni muslims, Kurds, etc.. etc..
They all hate each other.......down to the core. Religion is PARAMOUNT in Iraq. Same as Afghanistan.

What makes you think they will fare any better in Iraq than Afghanistan?

The truth is it will end up like Afghanistan. A US/UN led dictatorship. Except with preferential oil prices for the countries that contributed the most to the allied coalition.

Fonz

 

[the nature boy]

The truth is it will end up like Afghanistan. A US/UN led dictatorship. Except with preferential oil prices for the countries that contributed the most to the allied coalition.

Fonz

that's what i've been saying. besides, even if a democracy exists. who says it's going to be pro-US? and if it is anti-US, what do we do then? Invade?

 

[Fonz]

that's what i've been saying. besides, even if a democracy exists. who says it's going to be pro-US? and if it is anti-US, what do we do then? Invade?

It'll have to be Pro-US.

Propaganda will see to that for sure. CNN is being fed info piece meal by Rumsfeld.

WTF is that?

Seriously, thats just pathetic.

I understand not airing sensitive inof, but propagating disinformation is downright ludicrous for a news organization.

Makes the Ministry of information of Iraq seem tame in comparison.

If its anti-US?

Spin control it and make up another bogus threat.

Fonz

 

[ariolanine]

You think international law is unimportant?
I´m sure the world will see a lot of trouble in future by countries invading others due to "self-defence".

Clinton bombed a foreign country to distract from his blow job, without doubt that´s morally wrong.
Invading another country to seize its resources and to install a puppet regime is much worse.

I know you cannot be serious. Killing people to cover up a blow job is ok but killing to benefit america is not?

Do you really want to know why robbery is wrong?

Another argument against that invasion without UN mandate is that now all the country leaders down there think that there isn´t even the little protection of the international law that can protect them from being invaded. Instead they are working on getting the bomb.
How long did it take Pakistan to develop it?Or N.Korea? Iran already has a nuclear power plant and surely not because they need it for electricity.
Pretty soon you will not have a middle east powder-keg full of people hating the USA ,instead you will have a powder-keg with atomic weapons.

Bring it.

 

[Norman Bates]

I know you cannot be serious. Killing people to cover up a blow job is ok but killing to benefit america is not?

Nope , i said both are bad, but one is worse than the other.

 

[Fonz]

You think international law is unimportant?
I´m sure the world will see a lot of trouble in future by countries invading others due to "self-defence".

Clinton bombed a foreign country to distract from his blow job, without doubt that´s morally wrong.
Invading another country to seize its resources and to install a puppet regime is much worse.


Do you really want to know why robbery is wrong?

Another argument against that invasion without UN mandate is that now all the country leaders down there think that there isn´t even the little protection of the international law that can protect them from being invaded. Instead they are working on getting the bomb.
How long did it take Pakistan to develop it?Or N.Korea? Iran already has a nuclear power plant and surely not because they need it for electricity.
Pretty soon you will not have a middle east powder-keg full of people hating the USA ,instead you will have a powder-keg with atomic weapons.

No.

They don't have the necessary infrastructure to build Nuclear Weapons separation plants. Uranium and Plutonium.

I'd be more worried about them acquiring them on the black market.

And don't compare Pakistan/India/N. Korea to Iran/Iraq.

Pakistani/Indian/N.Korean scientists are far more profficient than their Irani/Iraqui counterparts.

Like you said before, this is more an issue of international law. The US SHOULD NOT be able to just brush aside the UN Security Council whenever their interests differ.

This is utter stupidity on the US's part. Specially for their long-term foreign policy. But as always, its all about re-election.

I'm much more worried about Chemical/Biological weapons which cost a fraction of Nuclear ones. And are easily manufactured.

Fonz

 

[JohnyJuice]

Yeah, you guys are right. We should let the U.N. decide our foreign policy for us. We should sign over the way this country conducts itself to a group of nations that make up a club of people who dont like each other. Good plan.