Bush Jr.'s next move?

[Gurm]

Jord, you're STILL missing a big point.

I'll say it slowly, so you can filter it all in...

THE

WINNER

SETS

THE

TERMS

Did you get that?

It's the way war works. If we win, we call the shots. If you don't like them, don't surrender.

We won, we made the rules (no more WOMD, no-fly zones, embargoes, etc.), and we can enforce them at will.

End of story.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[Jorden]

YOU DIDN'T WIN !!!

Did Bagdhad officially surrender? NO
Did Saddam tell you please to stop shooting? NO
Did Iraq surrender? NO

They fled out of Kuwait, they fled back into Iraq. You didn't persue them to Baghdad. So they didn't surrender, so the war is still on for them, so they have all the rights to shoot at your airplanes

Easy huh, Jason?

If GW Sr. had told Schwarzy to not stop at Kuwaity borders, and just to take over Baghdad, who knows what we would've had now.

You did NOT get a surrender from Iraq, so you DON'T call the shots.

Even if you were calling the shots, you would have to as the UN first, "may I shoot at Baghdad", then the UN would have to say something about it. But the US didn't, not in so many words. Hell, your own Congress didn't even know about it, they were informed afterwards! How far does that go then?

Jord.

[This message has been edited by Jorden (edited 20 February 2001).]

[Gurm]

Ok fine. Let's run with your scenario.

We didn't win, in fact the war never ended. In that case, all rules are off. So long as we don't target civilians specifically (or whatever the Geneva conventions have to say about this) we can bomb the living f**k out of Baghdad for as long as we like.

Simple.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[CHHAS]

So Gurm, what you're saying is that the US is free to dictate terms on every other country in the world due to it's military force ?

Sounds a bit like what Saddam was doing to Kuwait in my ears ...

[Jorden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We didn't win, in fact the war never ended. In that case, all rules are off.
</font>

Ah no... the rules don't play that way, for the USA said they won the war...

So what did the USA win then? And the game still played by the rules? Or did the rules take over the game, or did the game do so?

[Gurm]

Nope. You're saying that, I'm not.

Look. Country X declares war on Country Y.

They shoot at each other and bomb each other. Right?

Now, if Country X wins, and tells Country Y that its terms include everyone in Country Y agreeing not to eat pickles, and Country Y holds "let's eat pickles" day, Country X can proceed to bomb the living crap out of Country Y.

Now, if Country X "contains" Country Y, and the war never ends, then Country X can continue to bomb Country Y just because they feel like it.

Which part aren't you getting?

In this example, COuntry Y is Iraq, and Country X is NOT the USA, it's a coalition of countries, including the USA, UK, France, etc.

The fact that the US represents the bulk of the available, ready-to-use firepower in this coalition is irrelevant.

And Clinton HAS bombed Iraq. Recently. You just don't hear about it because it's not all over the news. GWB wanted it all over the news, for political reasons.

So yes, in a sense you are right. He did the same thing as Clinton, he just made a bigger noise about it.

- Gurm

------------------
Listen up, you primitive screwheads! See this? This is my BOOMSTICK! Etc. etc.

[HollyBerri]

But Gurm, doesn't your scenario basically add up to, "Country X gets to bomb Country Y practically no matter what?"

And isn't that CCHAS's question?

And is that type of thinking supposed to make friends for Country X, even among "allies"?

------------------------
Holly

[dZeus]

following this logic, I could make some _very_ dangerous and insulting remarks. I won't do so, but realize what it means if that logic is true...

[Gurm]

Yup, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. War is icky, now isn't it?

If Country Y isn't thrilled about this, they shouldn't have started a war with Country X. I have no sympathy.

- Gurm

[dZeus]

sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that 'And when there's a war, the winner dictates terms' is a very dangerous logic

Sorry for the confusion! :-)

[Rags]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Any country in the world has a right to defend itself against the countries around, right? </font>

Any country can do whatever they want, but some have to pay the consequences if this breaks an agreement

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Any country may defend itself against air-attacks, land attacks and sea-attacks by neighboring countries. </font>

Isn't that the same question as above, or am I missing something?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">But for the countries the US deams unsafe for the democratic world, therefor those countries are not allowed to defend themselves against air-attacks, land-attacks and sea-attacks. </font>

This has nothing to do specifically with the US. Do you know why the Gulf War happened in the first place? It's because Iraq invaded a neighboring country and were slaughtering civilians. The UN gave Iraq a deadline to move their sorry asses out, they ignored the UN, stating they wanted a "Holy War". So we bombed the shit out them. We bombed them until Iraq signed a cease fire agreement which stipulated they get their sorry asses out of Kuwait, allow UN inspections, agree to a No Fly Zone, and would grant the UN access to their country. Well, Jorden, this gives the UK and the US every right to bomb the **** out them when they are shooting SAMs at jets enforcing the No Fly Zone. DO you get it now?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The US says that they have to allow UN people to do their work, to get rid of weapons of mass-destruction (womd), those nations have. If I'm going wrong somewhere, please tell me.</font>

You are going wrong everywhere in that statement. Do some research and report back.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Okay, so we have a couple of nations in the world that don't allow UN people in, who can only erradicate those womd's if they stay in that country for a very long time. Something like 20 years or more. All this time, the countries surrounding this one country are freely allowed, sometimes with help of the US itself, to buy & construct their own weapons. They are allowed to teach their personnel how to use those weapons, are allowed to make defences against their surrounding countries, are allowed to do a lot of things, including make a profit for themselves.</font>

No, it's very simple. They allow UN inspectors to come in voluntarily, and stop invading and killing their neighbors, and the bombing and the trade restrictions stop. Problem solved. Saddam, good boy, Saddam live long and his people prosper, but Saddam hasn't been a good boy, now we take his dinner away and bomb **** out of him. Get it?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">This leader was a good friend of the US before (as Saddam was, for he bought a lot of American weapons directly from America during the Iran-Iraq war, and at that time no-one thought much of it... after Nixon, </font>

Neither were EVER friends of the US, but we did trade with them. And yes the US does sell weapons, we are a capitalist society after all. No big stuff, though.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">dear Matt), </font>

Ummm....okay...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">China and Russia were against this kind of force, but who can blaim them</font>

What the hell is a blaim?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If Kuwait would've been just a barren country, no-one would've thought of liberating it from the bad bad Iraqi's in 1990/1991. </font>

Probably not. But Kuwait is the key to part of the ENTIRE world's economy, and no one was letting this go un noticed.


The rest was pretty much blah blah blah, so it doesn't get a response

Rags

[paulcs]

Mayo or vinegar on chips or french fries. I put mayo on my friet, I put mayo on my hamburger. You got the friet from the Dutch or the Belgians, we might've all gotten the hamburger from the Romans. I also use salt on potato's and friet. Vinegar is used on things that are too dry to eat on their own, like kale. And I eat it stamped though stamped-potato's, with baked pieces of bacon (not those thin slices, but real big chunks), and the gravy from the bacon. With a pickle and some sour onions on vinegar. Does that make me a barbarian in your eyes, Paulcs?

No, it makes you a cracker and a pervert.

Maybe everything is bigger in the US, but you exlpain to me why people eat vitamine pills every day, instead of real food?

I'm not sure it has anything to do with size. Maybe they're eating too much bacon.

More on Ms. Alba's breasts later.

Paul
paulcs@flashcom.net

[GinoCyber]

"The rest of the world has taken the position that Israel is the "bad guys", "

Well if one side has rocks and the other side has guns (that's what I see in the news), and the world saw what the Israeli soldiers did to the arab father and son in cold blood (again from the news), of course the world with think that.

And when sites like this is popping up all over the internet, the Israeli's are being looked at differently.

WARNING!!!!!!!!!!! EXTREMELY DISTURBING PICTURES.

http://lubnen.homestead.com/lubnen.html

On the other hand, the Palestinians are going by the coran and nowhere in the coran is there any mention of the piece of land they are whining about.

Ciao

[KvHagedorn]

Isn't kale a garnish? Like parsley?
I don't think you are supposed to eat that.. it's like a weed or something.

------------------
Kind Regards,

KvH

[DentyCracker]

Kale is a good source of Kalium