Fine, then go with international law and go with the global majority... as I have previously alluded to, even I will back a war against Iraq if it is legally mandated...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
Fine, then go with international law and go with the global majority... as I have previously alluded to, even I will back a war against Iraq if it is legally mandated...
You're the RED HERRING MONSTER
What's your point?
The Point is YOU HAVE NO POINT.
Go ahead waste your time digging up more junk on the internet.
How about the Price of Bananas in Caracus?
The Political Landscape changes and we change with it.
We may have supported Saddam against IRAN, but then again we might have supported both, against each other.
So What, the landscape changed.
Your vision is to lay back and let go, Kay Sada, whatever will be, will be.
The President can't take that risk.
What's your point?
The Point is YOU HAVE NO POINT.
Go ahead waste your time digging up more junk on the internet.
How about the Price of Bananas in Caracus?
The Political Landscape changes and we change with it.
We may have supported Saddam against IRAN, but then again we might have supported both, against each other.
So What, the landscape changed.
Your vision is to lay back and let go, Kay Sada, whatever will be, will be.
The President can't take that risk.
Quote from agin1415:
You're the RED HERRING MONSTER
What's your point?
The Point is YOU HAVE NO POINT.
Go ahead waste your time digging up more junk on the internet.
How about the Price of Bananas in Caracus?
The Political Landscape changes and we change with it.
We may have supported Saddam against IRAN, but then again we might have supported both, against each other.
So What, the landscape changed.
Your vision is to lay back and let go, Kay Sada, whatever will be, will be.
The President can't take that risk.
As usual, a garbled mess from one of our resident war mongers! haha!
Unlike the war mongers, I am a pragmatist... I will back a war against Iraq if it is legally mandated... but I will not back an illegal war...
I don't think you can describe this action as a WAR.
MASS Surrender is more like it.
Candle you are a one worlder.
We don't need the UN, the UN needs us.
I don't give a crap what the UN decides or doesn't
And we don't WANT YOU ON BOARD either.
Candle - WE DON'T WANT you, move to FRANCE with the rest of the COWARDS.
MASS Surrender is more like it.
Candle you are a one worlder.
We don't need the UN, the UN needs us.
I don't give a crap what the UN decides or doesn't
And we don't WANT YOU ON BOARD either.
Candle - WE DON'T WANT you, move to FRANCE with the rest of the COWARDS.
Quote from candletrader:
Unlike the war mongers, I am a pragmatist... I will back a war against Iraq if it is legally mandated... but I will not back an illegal war...
pheww! the candleman's onboard!
quick, i better call the white house and give them the good news!
(btw, all this time i thought you were a moralist...)
Quote from candletrader:
Fine, then go with international law and go with the global majority... as I have previously alluded to, even I will back a war against Iraq if it is legally mandated...
wait.. lemme see if i understand your position here...
you'll back a US led attack on iraq if it's approved by the UN?
so america going in and stealing iraq's oil and furthering her imperiliast ambitions is perfectly fine with you as long as the global consensus says is okay to do so?
BS, RS; what do you call that thing in Kuwait, sanctioned by the UN? It was hardly a "prevention."Quote from rs7:
I guess my old age is diminishing my capacity to think clearly.
Which is good for me, but maybe not so good for those around me.
I must be regressing to my childhood mentality. Maybe I am entering early Alzheimer's. Because things seem so fucking simple to me. But then I see and hear that things are not as simple as I believe.
But I could have sworn that the whole purpose of the United Nations was to PREVENT war. So what has changed? Why are we now against the UN because WE are not supporting the organization that WE essentially assembled and for which WE provided a home?
????Rs7
Quote from daniel_m:
wait.. lemme see if i understand your position here...
you'll back a US led attack on iraq if it's approved by the UN?
so america going in and stealing iraq's oil and furthering her imperiliast ambitions is perfectly fine with you as long as the global consensus says is okay to do so?
Axiomatically, if war is legally mandated, then it is legal.... irrespective of any perceived ulterior motives or perceived issues of morality...
If we get a UN mandate and we attack Iraq with that mandate backing us up, then I am 100% behind the USA...
My entire thread (see the first post) is premised on a non-mandated attack on Iraq...
but regardless of whether it's 'mandated' stealing is STEALING isn't it?
so if america stealing iraq's oil is wrong, then having a mandate doesn't make it right, does it?
i don't recall you sayin earlier screaming that you want a mandate before we can start stealing iraq's oil. i thought it was the whole 'blood for oil' idea that you were against.
now it seems that you were just after a license to be allowed to do it...
so if america stealing iraq's oil is wrong, then having a mandate doesn't make it right, does it?
i don't recall you sayin earlier screaming that you want a mandate before we can start stealing iraq's oil. i thought it was the whole 'blood for oil' idea that you were against.
now it seems that you were just after a license to be allowed to do it...
Quote from daniel_m:
but regardless of whether it's 'mandated' stealing is STEALING isn't it?
so if america stealing iraq's oil is wrong, then having a mandate doesn't make it right, does it?
i don't recall you sayin earlier screaming that you want a mandate before we can start stealing iraq's oil. i thought it was the whole 'blood for oil' idea that you were against.
now it seems that you were just after a license to be allowed to do it...
Stealing is a perceived ulterior motive... if the international community mandates an attack on Iraq, one must rise above perceptions of ulterior motives and go with the global, legally mandated consensus (and any war ramifications flowing out of this consensus)...
I am totally against a unilateral, illegal attack on Iraq, because the USA will be acting outside the remits of international law, in all probability out of economic interest... however, a legally mandated action mitigates the possibility (but doesnt eliminate it) that those taking part in an attack will be doing so for noble reasons (since they have the backing of the international community, representing a plethora of interests, but having come together on the legal backing for war)...
This is why I will stand 100% with the USA on any attack on Iraq which is legally mandated... and is also why I cannot stand with the USA if she acts illegally...