Lynk Former Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Don't you mean, "Don't we need a unified body to be able to act as not a world police but a world mediator?" *hears someone in the background* Did someone say The United Nations just then? Wow, well there's another thing. Talk about backing out of something, the US shrugged off the United Nations so easily because the way things were going didn't agree with America at the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 no, you need to learn to read.... i said WORLD POLICE, not mediator, not moderator, not comfort giver, not helper, not "UN under a new name" but POLICE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I know exactly what you said you silly nog I was being sarcastic. I was trying to bring forward the fact that a world police is a bad idea, especially when it's one country trying to police others, it's more like global bullying than policing. At least that's the view of a lot of non-American people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 hmm, seems to me that you actually think the UN does its job tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Well listen, earlier you said that you shouldn't back out of things you're committed to. If the US really mean what they say then they could've given the UN more legitemacy and helped give it strength and power within the world to be able to do what it was created to do. Instead the US basically said "screw the UN, they're weak, we're gonna do this all ourselves whether they like it or not" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by Lynk Former Well listen, earlier you said that you shouldn't back out of things you're committed to. If the US really mean what they say then they could've given the UN more legitemacy and helped give it strength and power within the world to be able to do what it was created to do. Instead the US basically said "screw the UN, they're weak, we're gonna do this all ourselves whether they like it or not" yes, and the US has never IMO been all that committed to the UN, and, i agree with your last quote, they are weak, and we should do it ourselves whether they like it or not, whether the rest of the world likes it or not interesting how world events parallel the SWU... very interesting... this seems a lot like the Jedi acting out against the world of the New Republic to do what the Jedi believed was right... and several decades before that, we rid the world of hitler, just like the SWU and palpy...amazing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 *looks at your post* See now that's the attitude that's producing all of this anti-american sentiment and it's getting to the point where it's not only the terrorists that hate America. While world leaders bow down the America so easily the people in other nations think otherwise. I also find that comparison between the Jedi and America to be very wrong and misguided and reminds me of masturbation in a way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch the US has never IMO been all that committed to the UN they were until Geedubya stepped into office. Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch i agree with your last quote, they are weak, weak my ass, they're protecting a lot of countries, keeping peace in a lot of lands. You're obviously some naive little child that thinks america is so great because you're sitting all safe and secure in your little suburban home. Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch and we should do it ourselves whether they like it or not, whether the rest of the world likes it or not so as long as others are weak, we should do what we want, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks? Hitler anyone? He thought the jews were evil and needed to be purged from the world, regardless of what others believed. Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch interesting how world events parallel the SWU... very interesting... this seems a lot like the Jedi acting out against the world of the New Republic to do what the Jedi believed was right... and several decades before that, we rid the world of hitler, just like the SWU and palpy...amazing oh. my. f**king. god. if anything America is the pre-empire palpatine. Waiting for it's chance to overrule everyone and slaughter those that oppose it's rule. and uhmm... the jedi were dead before the new republic came into power. Remember, anakin/vader slaughtered them. Maybe you mean the Old Republic, in which case you're also wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 26, 2004 Author Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith they were until Geedubya stepped into office. weak my ass, they're protecting a lot of countries, keeping peace in a lot of lands. You're obviously some naive little child that thinks america is so great because you're sitting all safe and secure in your little suburban home. so as long as others are weak, we should do what we want, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks? Hitler anyone? He thought the jews were evil and needed to be purged from the world, regardless of what others believed. oh. my. f**king. god. if anything America is the pre-empire palpatine. Waiting for it's chance to overrule everyone and slaughter those that oppose it's rule. and uhmm... the jedi were dead before the new republic came into power. Remember, anakin/vader slaughtered them. Maybe you mean the Old Republic, in which case you're also wrong. umm, no, i meant NR, there were Jedi, ever read anything NJO or right before it? Edit: Furthermore, the UN doesn't seem to be doing much of anything right now for anyone...They have been powerful in the past, and i will give them credt for that. However, they are too bureaucratic to be effetive currently. We need a new UN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch doesn't someone need to be a world police? Not sure what kind of misguided logic leads you to assume that the world needs to be policed, and in particular needs to be policed by ONE nation who rarely acts out of anything but self interest. "Lookit all the starving dying poor Africans who are enduring genocide and ethnic cleansing....that's sad...and hey, North Korea has nuclear weapons, isn't that novel...OMG! The Iraqi's are oppressed and might have WMD's and they have oil! TO THE RESCUE!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Can someone please explain to me the exact reason that oil would be a motivation for the war in Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Well the US isn't exactly gunning for solar power is it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 What I mean is, why would Bush want to get more oil through an unpopular war. I can see how increasing the supply of oil would boost the economy, and that could be good for his approval rating. However, it was clear before hand that Americans did not want the war, but he went anyway. Is there something I don't know about? Does he get paid royalties on oil imports? Is he worried that he might have to pay too much at the pump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Just look at the petrol prices next time you go to the servo... it's HIGH, VERY HIGH. I used to remember a time when it was 50cents (AUD) down here, now it's at the 1AUD mark.. (AUD being Australian Dollar) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I understand why America has a need for oil. What does Bush stand to gain personally by going to war for oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Well Dick Cheny used to be a part of Haliburton (Big ol' oil company) and was pretty high up....not sure how high ranked in the company. But the more oil that is available for US companies to get, the more money Bush and Co. will recieve as "Campaign donations" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 But campaign donations can only go so far. Think about how many votes he is gonna lose from the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin I understand why America has a need for oil. What does Bush stand to gain personally by going to war for oil. Usually when you're a leader of a country you don't do things for personal reason... cept in this case there is one reason I can think of that Bush would go back to Iraq, and that's to finish off what daddy Bush started Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by Lynk Former Usually when you're a leader of a country you don't do things for personal reason... Right. Which is why I have a hard time buying into the oil theory. Originally posted by Lynk Former cept in this case there is one reason I can think of that Bush would go back to Iraq, and that's to finish off what daddy Bush started Much more convincing to me. A little off topic, but since we are mostly talking about the war in this thread, here goes. My opinion is that Iraq is like a one way street. Whether or not you had any business going down it in the first place, you don't want to make a U-turn. I think we are in way to deep to back out now. Does anyone think that we should actually withdraw our troops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin Right. Which is why I have a hard time buying into the oil theory. But it's the oil theory isn't on a personal level, it effects EVERYONE. If the US has control of the oil than the US Economy will benefit from it greatly. A little off topic, but since we are mostly talking about the war in this thread, here goes. My opinion is that Iraq is like a one way street. Whether or not you had any business going down it in the first place, you don't want to make a U-turn. I think we are in way to deep to back out now. Does anyone think that we should actually withdraw our troops? Of course it's too late to back out now, the troops are there and they have to stick it out till... well till a very long time cause those troops won't be going anywhere this year or the next or the next. Which brings up another reason why people are so pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by Lynk Former But it's the oil theory isn't on a personal level, it effects EVERYONE. If the US has control of the oil than the US Economy will benefit from it greatly. Are you suggesting that Bush pissed off millions of Americans out of the kindness of his heart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin But campaign donations can only go so far. Think about how many votes he is gonna lose from the war. I thought the fact that I put "campaign donations" in quotations would insinuate that he's not really getting donations to his campaign so much as money just thrown at him to make sure the oil company's interests are met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynk Former Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin Are you suggesting that Bush pissed off millions of Americans out of the kindness of his heart? No, Bush pissed off millions of PEOPLE to make America that little bit more powerful and rich so he can put more money into the military while ignoring education and health and all the stuff that's supposed to be important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior I thought the fact that I put "campaign donations" in quotations would insinuate that he's not really getting donations to his campaign so much as money just thrown at him to make sure the oil company's interests are met. Thats a pretty big accusation. What evidence goes with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I think a little evidence would be the fact that Haliburton was one of the very first companies who the government signed a contract with after deciding to go to war in Iraq. There's also just the fact that it's basically common knowledge that big business and the government have been in bed together for our entire lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.