Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Let's put it this way.. if it wasn't for the fact that Sadaam was torturing his people.. we wouldn't be pitching such a bitch. These anti-war yuppie douche bags make me sick.. I hope they are all drafted, and get blown up on the way over to Iraq.

This is the problem, right here. "They haven't and they won't" this is a beilef. You can not know the future.

Maybe not, but the present can be a damned good indicator.

How so?

Has the UN passed any resolutions telling the US to disarm?

It can't. The US has a veto in the Security Council which makes said resolutions.

Iraq may have rights as a sovereign nation, but if we feel that they are a threat to us, then we have the right as a sovereign nation to declare war on them.

Does a sovereign nation have the right to declare war for no reason?

Since the UN (officially, at least) shares the opinion that Iraq is a threat

They say they are a threat to stabilty in the area, not America.

I would like you to elaborate on this. What exactly, in your opinion, is a democracy?

A democracy would obviously have to have proportional representation. It would also have to combine initiatives and referenda. Other obvious things.

There is proportional representation in the House of Representatives

No there isn't. The number of representatives is proportional to the size of the area, but not to the electoral vote.

And what makes the US undemocratic?

The system of elections. The lack of political participation. The lack of an educated electorate. The bribery and corruption, etc etc.

I'd assume that you're suggesting that the government doesn't represent those who don't vote, which may be true. And I can't really vouch for corruption. Let's face it: the true, ideal democracy is something that can't happen in real life. But we try.

If America did try for democracy then it would set about reforming the electoral system.

At 3/5/03 01:23 PM, Slizor wrote:

Has bombed 21 countries
China 1945-46, 1950-53

S) We were never in a solid conflict with China. We fought them during WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.

You didn't fight them in WW2 or Vietnam. In WW2 the Chinese were on the allied side, including Mao.

S) They are/were communist. They supported Vietnam. WW2, I apoligize, I was cuttin' and pastin'...

Korea 1950-53

S) This is considered a 'Police-Action', and not a war or conflict.

No it is considered a war/conflict. It was an attempt to unify the peninsula.

S) Maybe you'd better start putting down references. In every history book, Korea, Vietnam, and Cambodia are 'WARS' - note the quotes - but are considered to be Police Actions by the US Government. I should know, I live here.

Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70

S) Vietnam/Cambodia was not classified a war, merely more 'Police-Actions' to halt the spread of Communisim.

They are wars! Don't try and fob it off euphimistically. A policeman (which you seem intent on calling America) does not make the law. This was American imperialism trying to stop a movement of the people.

S) I'm not fobbing it off, the US Government considers them conflicts, not wars. Read up on it. Korea was never united. And We pulled out of Vietnam before we could even really give a decent reason for wanting to unite it, other than to protect the SV civilians, protect French interests, and halt communisim's spread. It wasn't "imperialisim", it's called politics. We weren't there for us. We were there so we'd be on good realtions with France, we'd get a piece of the rubber profits from a Free Vietnam, and we hated Commies (we still do, as far as I know). America ain't the policeman, we're the hitman or bounty hunter that gets paid for his job a lot better than a cop. Plus, cops have to follow a set of moral standards when arresting; We re-write the moral standards every time we want to go to war. 'NUFF SAID.

Lebanon 1983-84
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989

S) None of the above rate higher than a 'conflict' status.

Tell that to the dead people.

S) I think I just did. And I don't feel bad about it either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not cold-blooded, this is just the facts (ma'am).

Bosnia 1985
Sudan 1998
Former Yugoslavia 1999

S) These were, again, called 'Police-Actions', because the US troops in the region recived commands from UN Peacekeeper Commanders.

Sudan wasn't. And I pretty certain that Former Yugoslavia was a NATO action, not a UN action.

S) US troops were under the command of the UN. NATO was under the command of the UN. The conficts didn't begin until the UN gave conflict it's 'Blessing'

BTW, If Yugo was a NATO action - not supported by the UN - then what the hell is the problem with the US doing the same with Iraq? Eh?

At 3/5/03 01:32 PM, Slizor wrote:

This is the problem, right here. "They haven't and they won't" this is a beilef. You can not know the future.

Maybe not, but the present can be a damned good indicator.

How so?

Iraq presently shows no sign of willingness to fully disarm. If they change their mind, fine, but I seriously doubt it will happen.

Does a sovereign nation have the right to declare war for no reason?

Read my previous posts. I stated the reasons for war. You may not agree with them, but don't say we don't have any reasons.

There is proportional representation in the House of Representatives

No there isn't. The number of representatives is proportional to the size of the area, but not to the electoral vote.

Wrong. From Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (which replaces part of Article 1, Section 2):

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state..."

blah

They are euphimisms, even if the US government uses them offically. Anyhow, the list talks about countries which have been bombed by America. The point of the list is to show that the US is an aggressor nation, which was the point the person who said "How many wars has America had" was actually getting at. The vast majority (apart from the attack on China during the korean war) were actually acts of aggression on America's part.

BTW, If Yugo was a NATO action - not supported by the UN - then what the hell is the problem with the US doing the same with Iraq?

The problem is that they have tried to go through the UN, it is a UN situation now. Just beause the UN is not doing as they want it does not mean they can go and do what they want.

How so?

Iraq presently shows no sign of willingness to fully disarm.

Again, I disagree. There has been great progress.

Does a sovereign nation have the right to declare war for no reason?

Read my previous posts. I stated the reasons for war. You may not agree with them, but don't say we don't have any reasons.

Fine, you don't have any valid reasons.

There is proportional representation in the House of Representatives

No there isn't. The number of representatives is proportional to the size of the area, but not to the electoral vote.

Wrong. From Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution (which replaces part of Article 1, Section 2):

"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state..."

Sorry, slip up there from me, the number of people not the size of the area.