I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

If the US had received the full sanction of the UN, then it would have been an entirely different war. I don't have any idea what that war would have been like, although I am inclined to believe that it would have been a more justifiable war, and thus a war that I would have been able to support. Without sufficient details, however, I cannot say with any certainty that I would have either supported or opposed the war had the US received the UN's support.

I want the USA to slaughter the men women and children of every country that doesn't do as we like and as we say. I have had an ephiphany. F*#k everyone but us.

I want the USA to slaughter the men women and children of every country that doesn't do as we like and as we say. I have had an ephiphany. F*#k everyone but us.

Do you believe that the UN is able to make a war legal or illegal, justifiable or unjustifiable?? I don't. [..]

Our participation in the war was done in accord with the prescriptions in our constitution. Therefore it was legal. Period.

My handlers have just informed me that it must suck to be a bitter old expletive. I can almost pity you guys. Almost.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I want the USA to slaughter the men women and children of every country that doesn't do as we like and as we say. I have had an ephiphany. F*#k everyone but us.

Wow...if you chose to do so...you would make one hell of a conservative. At least as good a conservative as George or McG!

I guess the only thing you'd have to do is train yourself to go unconscious and accept in a kneejerk fashion everything your conservative handlers spew forth...even if it means steadying their hand as they slip the noose over your head!

Can you do that, huh? Can ya?

what i don't understand is how on the one hand they use the UN as an excuse (those UN resolutions) and other hand dismiss the UN as an excuse (don't need the UN to go to war).

revel wrote:

what i don't understand is how on the one hand they use the UN as an excuse (those UN resolutions) and other hand dismiss the UN as an excuse (don't need the UN to go to war).

You don't understand that the UN is a corrupt and impotent organization?

what i don't understand is how on the one hand they use the UN as an excuse (those UN resolutions) and other hand dismiss the UN as an excuse (don't need the UN to go to war).

More Iraqi interim government officials are calling for postponing Jan. 30 elections to ensure a higher Sunni voter turnout, a sign that a campaign of violence might be taking its toll on Iraqi resolve. The country's electoral commission, however, insists that voting take place as scheduled.

Sunni Arab clerics have called for a boycott and Iraq's largest Sunni political party announced it was pulling out of the race because of poor security that has seen insurgents kill scores of Iraqi security forces, as well as several election officials, in recent weeks.

On the other-hand, we can not allow corrupt members of the security council decide ...

Ticomaya wrote:

revel wrote:

what i don't understand is how on the one hand they use the UN as an excuse (those UN resolutions) and other hand dismiss the UN as an excuse (don't need the UN to go to war).

You don't understand that the UN is a corrupt and impotent organization?

What you don't understand is that the UN is the last, best hope of humanity getting past this preposterous situation it has gotten itself into.

And your comment does nothing to answer Revel's implied question.

Who was going to lose their gravy train if Saddam was "relieved" of his country? Who threatened to veto any resolution directly allowing US actions against Iraq?