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

[The Mad Monk]

Where are you from, again?

[Kramerman]

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.

partially, my friend, but not entirely. See, the US currently only gets about 14% (IIRC) of our oil from the ME, and the US has been rapidly moving to other sources since 9/11 (for the very reasons you speak of), such as Venezuela and the rapidly expanding Russian oil market, which has and will diminish this percentage of our ME oil imports even more.

Also, under the UN program of "food for oil", the US can obtain most all of the cheap oil it needs from Iraq... Saddam is more than willing to supply, for the extra cash he scraps up from this. There is no need to invade Iraq for oil, IN THE SHORT TERM, a we have all the supply we would ever need, UNDER THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

these are all arguements i have posted many time before, along with others, that clearly refute the idea of this being a war just for oil.

However, the fear of Saddams WoMD does create a fear that he could sieze his neighbors, and hold a world coalition at bay by threatening Israel or somethn with his WoMD - effectively holding them hostage. In essence, he would then capture a major world supply of oil (Iraq's own, along with whatever countries he captures, like kuwait and/or Saudi Arabia or somethn), and with his new position, he would not be obligated nor need to comply with the food for oil program. Tho the US doesnt get much oil from there anyway, Japan and Europe do (70%, IIRC). How Saddam would handle the supply is creepy, If he just sat on it, oil prices would spike world wide, and the effects on the economy would be drastic, which, there is no reason to believe Saddam wouldnt do this.

So, in a way, the war is partially for oil IN A STRATEGIC sense, i never have disputed this, i have only disputed those who say it is "all about oil and the greedy Imperialist americans wanting to capitalize at the expense of the poor innocent Iraqi people..."

Kman

[Kramerman]

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.

I believe Russia is actually the biggest producer of oil Tho, the US is by far the biggest consumer of oil.

How do you waste oil, out of curiosity?

[Asher]

I would seriously LOVE to see the UK and US kicked out of the UN.

[DinoDoc]

Why?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Asher
I would seriously LOVE to see the UK and US kicked out of the UN.

If that I happened, i would then love to see half the UN walk out and follow USUK. We're counting on you Canadians

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Where are you from, again?

He's obviously not American.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why?

Because then the UN would become more irrelevant than it already is, and the US/UK would go form the Joint Nations or something instead and continue where they left off...

A whole bunch of piddly, nothing nations would be left in the UN. It'd be fantastic to see.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Asher

Because then the UN would become more irrelevant than it already is, and the US/UK would go form the Joint Nations or something instead and continue where they left off...

A whole bunch of piddly, nothing nations would be left in the UN. It'd be fantastic to see.

i agree

[Jaguar]

I'm not sure whether such a motion is possible, but if it were it would be vetoed by both nations, voted against by the vast majority, and abstained on by the rest.

And BTW, I know he's been around for a while, but with a post this ridiculous....

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

He's obviously not American.

I know, but he's claiming otherwise.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


I know, but he's claiming otherwise.

His writting is indeed suspect... and how appropriate that the DL claims to be from El Paso texas... perfect stereotype texas town a foreigner might think of...

[Jaguar]

He's 52 according to his profile. That's a bit early to become senile...

[Kramerman]

hes posted a ton too (199 when i checked)... so if hes a DL, hes a very determined one. Perhaps hes just a Euro poster pretending to be american... or maybe hes an immigrant?

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Is this guy for real?

Sorry, I've been keeping an eye on this thread and I just had to comment on this.

My solution if the UK and US get kicked out is to have them make the 'Western Alliance'.

The UK makes the best beer on Earth. America has all of it's kick a** cars.

[Master Zen]

here's an even better idea for all you US unilateralists:

taken directly from this week's The Onion (which is hilarious btw, the best they've done in a long time) www.theonion.com

U.S. Forms Own U.N.


WASHINGTON, DC—Frustrated with the United Nations' "consistent, blatant regard for the will of its 188 member nations," the U.S. announced Monday the formation of its own international governing body, the U.S.U.N.

"The U.N. has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to act decisively in carrying out actions the U.S. government deems necessary," U.S.U.N. Secretary General Colin Powell said. "Every time we tried to get something accomplished, it inevitably got bogged down in procedural policies, bureaucratic formalities, and Security Council votes."

"I predict the U.S.U.N. will be extremely influential in world politics in the coming decades," Powell continued. "In fact, you can count on it."

The new organization will be based in Houston, where a $400 million U.S.U.N. Building is currently under construction. The U.S.U.N. Charter, ratified unanimously by delegates in a four-minute vote Monday, sets forth the mission of the organization as "the proliferation of peace and international economic, social, and humanitarian progress through deference to the U.S."

"The U.S.U.N. resembles the original in almost every way, right down to all the flags outside our headquarters," said Condoleezza Rice, a U.S. delegate to the U.S.U.N. "This organization will carry out peacekeeping missions all over the world, but, unlike the U.N., these missions will not be compromised by the threat of opposition by lesser nations."

In its first act, the U.S.U.N. Security Council unanimously backed a resolution to liberate Iraq's people and natural resources from the rule of Saddam Hussein.

"We gave the old U.N. a go for I don't know how many years, but it just wasn't working," said **** Cheney, a U.S. delegate to the U.S.U.N. "Really, I have no idea what we were doing sacrificing all that power and autonomy in exchange for a couple of lousy troops from New Zealand."

Added Cheney: "I can't tell you how much easier it is to achieve consensus when you don't have to worry about dissent."

Cheney, along with Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge, and George W. Bush, make up the five permanent members of the 15-person U.S.U.N. Security Council.

"The five Security Council members have veto power to block U.S.U.N. resolutions for military action," Rumsfeld said. "Not that anyone would, but it's nice to have, nonetheless."

According to Powell, in spite of the fact that delegates hail from every corner of the U.S., General Assembly meetings have been refreshingly free of rancor.

"We've got Bill Frist from Tennessee, Tom DeLay from Texas, and Dennis Hastert from way up in Illinois," U.S.U.N. delegate Rick Santorum said. "Despite the diverse backgrounds of the delegates, cooperation has not been a problem—unlike at some outmoded, gridlocked international peacekeeping bodies I could name."

The official U.S.U.N. language is English. The official religion is Christianity.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
I'm not sure whether such a motion is possible, but if it were it would be vetoed by both nations, voted against by the vast majority, and abstained on by the rest.

And BTW, I know he's been around for a while, but with a post this ridiculous....

This motion doesnot goto to the security council for approval
as only the general assembly can approval or remove members. It like this Bill Clinton cannot veto than act of impeachment pass by the house. This war is loseing popular
support in america as people are saying remain then of Veitman war.
It the UN need help in removeing the USA and Britian representate from the UN I will do it for then by personal bodly throw just criminal element out on the street.

[notyoueither]

You've done your cause a great service.

Go get 'em tiger!

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Master Zen
here's an even better idea for all you US unilateralists:

taken directly from this week's The Onion (which is hilarious btw, the best they've done in a long time) www.theonion.com

One not too many Nations will join it. The USA have no legal
authority to form than International body. All these rules and procress service than purpose to slow down hastely idear so clear thinking can take place. USA is haveing than hard time lineing up Nations to recognite they new puppy government in Iraq like they puppy government in Israel which doesnot belive in human right for non-jew and that the truth.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


I know, but he's claiming otherwise.

I will see you in court of law on this as I than an america and not all real america agree with you on the war with Iraq and I than also than republian.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Are your posts encrypted?

[GeneralTacticus]

They certainly seem to be.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Are your posts encrypted?

Who are you talking to.

[Elok]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff


One not too many Nations will join it. The USA have no legal
authority to form than International body. All these rules and procress service than purpose to slow down hastely idear so clear thinking can take place. USA is haveing than hard time lineing up Nations to recognite they new puppy government in Iraq like they puppy government in Israel which doesnot belive in human right for non-jew and that the truth.

Hate to break it to you, but the onion is a satirical newspaper, bud. Meaning it never happened. There isn't actually a USUN.
On another note, if you're gonna go opposing hasty ideas you might want to get a spellchecker there, Mister Texas. As is you sound kinda drunk. No (substantial)offense meant, but you do.
And all your base are belong to us.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff


I will see you in court of law on this as I than an america and not all real america agree with you on the war with Iraq and I than also than republian.

what?

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by LaRusso
except that tibet and chechnya are part of china and russia respectively...and that france did not lead a coalition of agressors against ivory coast.

For most of the last 500 years Tibet has been an independent country and it is only post WW2 that the communists invaded and occupied Tibet. Also since we're talking about the U.N. failing to act against naked aggression how about the Soviet invasion of Hungary & Afghanistan or China's invasion of Korea or half a dozen other post WW2 conflicts.

Face facts Russo. Having great powers ignore the UN is the norm not the exception.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Oerdin


For most of the last 500 years Tibet has been an independent country and it is only post WW2 that the communists invaded and occupied Tibet. Also since we're talking about the U.N. failing to act against naked aggression how about the Soviet invasion of Hungary & Afghanistan or China's invasion of Korea or half a dozen other post WW2 conflicts.

Face facts Russo. Having great powers ignore the UN is the norm not the exception.

Oh geez. this argument again...

If you'd like to be morally correct, then we should evict every single non-Native American and return them to Europe (or Africa, Asia, etc). But you wouldn't agree with that, would you? Doing so would be morally wrong, just like the initial eviction of American Indians.

Similarly, while I may or may not agree with Chinese immigration into Xinjiang and Tibet, evicting the people who have lived their for 30+ years (esp their kids, for example) is morally unjustifiable.

In fact the U.S.A. has less "legal" rights to itself than China has on Tibet.

And finally: the Korean war is a result of both sides bailing out their client states.

[Ted Striker]

The Knicks have been going downhill ever since Patrick Ewing left.

[Japher]

Yeah, and all the teams in East have sufffered.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Oerdin


For most of the last 500 years Tibet has been an independent country and it is only post WW2 that the communists invaded and occupied Tibet. Also since we're talking about the U.N. failing to act against naked aggression how about the Soviet invasion of Hungary & Afghanistan or China's invasion of Korea or half a dozen other post WW2 conflicts.

Face facts Russo. Having great powers ignore the UN is the norm not the exception.

China only enter the Korea war because they felt threaten by than america divison on they border and all the anti-red china talk in america. The Soviet Union was than netural nation in the Korea War they did sent military aid to North Korea netural nation are allow to sent military aid to one side in a war. It not the dumb one side illegal america saying
that netural nation cannot do that.