535 Forum Posts by "Jiperly"
Wow! and i thought this was an educated debate, alejanrol!
At 4/3/03 05:00 PM, alejandro1 wrote: Vetos put a drag on the UN system. How many times has the US used its veto? Under 15 times. How many times has the USSR used its veto? About 400 times. This is wrong. If a govenment disagrees with the idea, the whole system is held up.
America has used its Veto over 70 times, including once where some Isreal soldiers killed British citizens. Reading how wrong the rest of your arguement is, i'm assuming these numbers are being pull out of your hat
On top of that, how many times has the US shunned the UN? Once or twice. How many times has Iraq shunned the UN? 16 times in 12 years sounds right. But that doesn't matter because the UN is anti-American.
Name the only (proven) Nuclear power in the Middle East. Name the country that occupies other nations territories. Name the country that refuses to let UN weapon inspectors in and the country that recently invaded their neighbour within the past year. Did you say Isreal? good! you get a gold star
I didn't want to get into this, since the whole issue with attacking Isreal is bad, since its a jewish country, but If you invade Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction, why do you not invade another? If you cliam that the country is dangerous because it will not declare all of its weapons, but your ally does the exact same thing and gets away with it, thats okay?
lets treat all countries alike, shall we?
Then again, what has the UN done to enforce international law? I can only think of UN intervention during the Korean War. The UN did not help at all during the Vietnam War, the Cold War (ex. Cuban Missle Crisis), and didn't enforce post-Gulf War agreements. Who solved these problems? The good old United States.
The UN WAS in the cuban missile crisis. It was the main area of debate. as for the Veitnam war, it was about a country wishing to be communist in a time where communist equals being evil. So America was willing to destory their revoltution so they could stop one more communist state....and 57,000 American troops died for that war.
At 4/3/03 10:45 AM, BinLadenmustdie wrote: The US had 10 votes lined up for a second resolution that said we were to war. (We didn't need it, but did it for Tony Blair's sake.) You only need 9 for a resolution to pass. That's when France came out saying they would veto any resolution, no matter what. When they say that, why waste everyone's time with something that will get vetoed unilaterally by thr French? They are the ones that spit on the UN's approval, not the US.
inncorrect! they had 5 definate votes, 5 undecided, and 5 against votes. So only 1/3 of the council agreed with him whole heartly.
At 4/2/03 11:55 PM, BinLadenmustdie wrote: The US is the one that was spit upon by the gutless countries without the balls to stand up and enforce a resolution they themselves signed, passing 15-0. They saw it as an opportunity to make the USA the bad cop and do the dirty work while they can sit back and preach about how horrible & evil the USA is.
That's fine. We in America have long memories too. Ask Saddam.
no where in Resolution 1440 does it speak of military action if Saddam fails to comply- only the Security General of the UN can make that decision.
Funny thing is who America blames for not getting their way- only 5 nations have ever held a Veto in the UN- Russia(formerly communist, and thus could be considered an attack on their old enemies if they blamed them), China( currently communist, same reasons as Russia) UK,( agrees with America, so they wouldn't Blame them), America, and France.
there are 3 anti-war countries that held a Veto, but France got attacked for it. Why? because the government knew they could win the PR war over it.
fight for your right to spam? no one likes spam. If you think otherwise, go to some other website and find one, cause we don't want no spam here.
damnit! they should really keep it in quotes!!!now i made an ass of myself!!
At 4/2/03 01:36 PM, GSB wrote: What has he done in afganistan? freed the people.
Stop right there- ask yourself how much in assitance has Afgan recieved since America attacked? do you know the answer? nothing. Not one dollar. Did you know that 1 in every 4 Afgan's killed were civilians?
If "freeing" a country involves forcibly removing its' present culture and destroying what little infrastructure and commerce it may have, then yes.
then letting the citizens suffer after the commerece is desotryed? gee, i wonder why they are being attacked by terrorists out there all-of-a-sudden.....maybe because if they don't fight back then they'll strave to death anyways?
"Making the world safer to live in" - For whom ?
Does anyone actually believe that this war will bring an end to conflict ? Or the next one ? Or the one after that ?
this statement i have to agree with. The war will not end in Iraq. The Bush Admin will push for all Nations in the middle east save one(hint- they are their ally, are the only Nuclear power in the middle east, and refuses UN inspectors also)
We do NOT need any further conflict between the US and those who do not agree with their views. Bush is helping to widen the gap between western and eastern culture.
strange...you started Pro-War, and ended Anti-war....
At 4/2/03 08:08 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:At 4/2/03 07:28 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: actually, the UN does have some military strength, that's why it's different than the League, along with the security council veto rule. And it's evident that the UN is effective in creating a basic worldwide opinion, it's just the US doesn't care, and that the UN will ride things out in the meantime.The U.S. is annoyed with it now because it is becoming an ineffectual debating society. It has some military power but rarely uses it. They are becoming the League of United Nations.
The League of Nations was a group of countries that did everything so long as there is an ecconmic gain- thats all it was about- gain. The UN defends peoples rights and prevents wars. The League never did any of that. The UN has plenty of cash to gain from Iraq if it invades- but since they don't they are the League of Nations? just because they do not agree with the America public? do you know that according to international law put down with the assitance of America, America , Britian , and all other collition countries could be hit with sanctions for going against International Law, which is ironnicly what has been causing poverty and death in Iraq for the last 12 years? Did you know that the UN estimates 500,000 children have died from the sanctions and the weekly bombings that Iraq has received since 1991?
But wait.....since they don't agree with the US, then they are the League of Nations.....
The UN isn't the US's puppet- its a revoltuary debate that we should always keep. Just because Bush has decided that Dipolmacy won't get him what he wants doesn't mean it is worthless.
At 4/2/03 08:29 PM, AsiaNsKyTrancE wrote: no UN suck. they dont do shit to help US win the war. shame on them...
The UN was made after WWII to enforce PEACE, not enact WAR. and NO where in resultion 1441 or the Resolution for the gulf war does it mention Military action against Iraq.
Ignoring the UN proves the flaws of Democercy ironicly before we force government change on another Nation without world wide support- remember, the UN didn't hold you back- 2/3 of the sercurity council wasn't convinced. And when we are debating issues that could cost human lives, I think you better damn well be sure Iraq has those weapons
seriously, the LSC is full of fucking pyromaniacs......there wasn't much when i joined, but i converted them all......
.....fire is our friend.....
Bush is the Leader of the pro-war "rallies".....He is pushing for war, He is defying the world, and he is arrogent and doesn't even listen to his own staff, let alone his own people.....
Ack, since when have you've join up with NG?
At 4/1/03 07:07 PM, AL-X wrote: Repent.
The consequences that will befall you will be much greater in the afterlife than anything you can imagine.
Sad.
not everyone has your religous beliefs, and everything he is doiung is within his beliefs. Its the same as if a Muslium would go up to you and demand you repent your sins and convert or you will burn in hell.
the USA will massacre Iraq.
and i'm not saying that in a good way.
i'm thinking that dude who lost his jobs(reporting for MSNBC, National Geographic Explorer, and CNN i believe) for chatting with the Iraqi press......what a crime he did.....
At 4/1/03 12:28 PM, panik wrote: Well Three reasons that I can think of
1) I've never heard of Don Cherry and I'm sure most americans have not eaither.
2)It was on Canadian T.V not American T.V.
3) Hockey is really not as big here in the states as in canada, although I really like hockey. Go fliers.
Hockey Night in Canada is Canada's longest running show(its been running for over fifty years now).
Don Cherry is one of the two hosts, and he's been the host for many years now(dunno how long...)
The channel it appears on, CBC, is owned by the Canadian government.
Don didn't say the war was horrible- he said Canada was horrible for not supporting USA, thus doing much the same as Michael in his own country- the only difference is Don is being paid for it
theres the basic facts.....
why? its not that we don't believe America can succeed to do it- its that it isn't right. And if all supporters support the war because they feel a surge of pride when the list of how many Iraqi's died, then its obvious why theres so much hositility towards the war....
TORONTO (CP) -- Don Cherry's pro-American rant on the war in Iraq wasn't a hit with many Hockey Night In Canada viewers nor apparently with the CBC itself.
"The CBC does not feel Hockey Night in Canada is the appropriate place for discussion on the war in Iraq," CBC spokeswoman Ruth-Ellen Soles said Monday.
As of Monday afternoon, the CBC said it had received about 1,500 calls and e-mails reacting to Saturday night's Coach's Corner with Cherry and co-host Ron MacLean. A CBC spokesman said the majority were against using Coach's Corner as a platform to discuss the war.
CBC ombudsman David Bazay, who came down hard on Cherry in April 1998 after a rant about skier Jean-Luc Brassard, was fielding more calls Monday.
"We've received a handful of complaints about Saturday's broadcast," Bazay said.
"I've sent them along to the executive director of CBC Sports, Nancy Lee, and asked her to address the concerns. I will wait to see what the viewers say once they've had a response from Ms. Lee. If they ask me to do a review then I will consider it."
Cherry didn't want to discuss his on-air comments directly Monday, but said that when he left the CBC studio at the Air Canada Centre following Saturday's broadcast he could barely make his way down the hall because people were coming up to him and congratulating him for his words.
http://canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=05ec0c71-8a99-48d9-97d7-8865ebfc4ef9
funny......wasn't Micheal Moore just put down for outcrying the Bush Admin the Academy Awards in America in for its stance on the war, and many people believed it was an innapproprate place to do so, but Don Cherry not only outcrys his own country during a hockey game, but the channel he is on is owned by the Canadian government......
whats the differenece? Why has no one outcried Don Cherry's speech?
At 3/31/03 11:41 PM, eltarr wrote: your right mojimbo, just the bad ones! which is all of them who stayed behinded when we the u.s.told them to leave iraq. so in short they all must die!!
its people like you that caused the WTC attack.....you should not expect people to diefor your gain.
Democercy is great- forcing Democercy on another society, not so great.
how about the Kcolc werc!
ya....i'm still waiting for my answer there eltarr.....convince me why we should go to war. Convince me why Iraqi's have to die.
quickly!!! his mind is open!!! his opinion is flibled flabled!!! convince him the rightousness of anti-war!!!!
heehee....
but seriously, that was a GREAT movie....
and how would you go about stoping/removing porn?
oh shit....sorry....i meant "a little bit of BOTH" , not bother.....so i did answer it.....
propaganda
n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause
truth
n.
1.Conformity to fact or actuality.
2.A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3.Sincerity; integrity.
4.Fidelity to an original or standard.
sounds alike to me......
heres what i said......i don't think theres any "wahh, wahh" in there.....
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=55517
If you got a problem with what i said, Chaos, then heres an idea- Bitch to me.
At 3/30/03 09:00 AM, arrows_eleven wrote:
There is no end to your stupidity. You said the only member kicked out of the LSC was me, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about how you guys whined when one of your crew members was deleted from another forum. Also about how you tried to blame me.
It was bomb_clock, he claimed you banned him out of spite. I asked in the Ice Crew forum(first of all not naming names, but I had to in the end), and it ends up that he got banned because he was inactive. So i dropped it. I didn't harass and piss off people in your crew. hell, i was quite mature about it.....
At 3/29/03 07:35 PM, -Assassin- wrote: And if I recall correctly, it wasn't even you who accepted me into the crew. My request was ignored by you, discovered by Jiperly and I was then accepted by looks.
you were one of those? I thought no one of those people that I did joined....kewl.....
uhhhh.....dude.....read the site-
#1. its a CIVILIAN body count
#2. " One in four killed in the US war on Afghanistan were civilians, and in Yugoslavia the proportion was even higher. We believe it is a moral and humanitarian duty for each such death to be recorded, publicised, given the weight it deserves and, where possible, investigated to establish whether there are grounds for criminal proceedings."
doesn't sound very pro-American
