|
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Erm no, I really don't think I do need to watch "Weaponology" on the "Military Channel"! Actually, the fact that there is a program called 'weaponology' and a channel called the 'military channel' worries me slightly less than the fact that people actually subscribe to it!!!
Did you have to pay extra to watch the start of the Iraq war?!?
I can just see it now, them advertising it through Feb and March - "Make sure you don't miss Saddam's deadline too! For only $9.99 you can watch the Iraq War live only on pay-per-view (all major credit cards accepted)" |
Actually the Miilitary channel was created by the same company that started the discovery channel. It's like animal planet, health channel, the science channel, etc. The channel is not politically inclined. It's just a channel for people with an interest in military history and technology. What's wrong with that? Should we be censored from this or something? These channels are common on American cable and satellite tv and at least we don't pay extra for it. Don't think this channel is a Bush propaganda channel or some shi'ite.
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
I think you have some misconception about the whole process..
Step 1: US decides and agrees to withdraw completely from Iraq... no partial withdrawal.. this demands complete withdrawal from Iraq including oil fields.
Step 2: US apologies and admits its mistake in an open speech at UNO in attendance from the parties involved like Collin, Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush, US ambassador to UN.. who deliberately lied in all UN General Meetings.
Step 3: US ambassador to UN requests UNO and its members for help and ask them to deploy their (UN) peace keeping forces in Iraq.
Step 4: Here your anxious wait ends when UN decides which countries troops should be sent to Iraq, like in case of Somalia UN asked neighboring African countries to send its troop.. and they had to follow it. Countries don't decide they want to send their troops or not, when you sign the UN treaty as its member you pledge certain number of forces to UN.. UN decides in civilized discussion general meetings and its country members follow the ruling. |
I didn't ask what you want the US and UN to do. I'm still waiting for your source that says those countries would send troops to Iraq under any UN mandate or mission. The place is a full on combat zone. What if they get hit by insurgences, which is pretty much a certainty if they are sent in today's environment? Do you think the UN with its bureacracy will be able to mount counter-insurgency operations like the US does? Dude, you are seriously misinformed. What media is filling you with these mistruths. I mean hell, when you said this...
| quote: | | UN should strike US and prevent it from invading other oil rich countries. |
I almost fell out of my seat to think you actually first of all think the UN makes military strikes. Then suggesting the UN strike the US, are you that dumb?
Then you said this...
| quote: |
US is what gives power to UN? That whats wrong.. US need to stop dominating UN and giving it 'power'.. rest of 100 countries its members will give power and authority to UN. Get out of New York and move to France, Germany, Swiss if that bring UN out of clutches of US. UN and this whole fucking world needs to think beyond fucking US...life dosent start and ends their. |
You didn't even realize the UN's headquarters in New York is sovereign territory. You do also realize the US only has as much power as the other Security Council members right? I'm guessing you don't because you actually believe the UN can make a difference as peacekeepers in a huge country like Iraq, where the US can't even control the roads with 150,000 troops. You are separated from reality. If you want to continue arguing your bankrupt views, then the rest of us here will not hesitate shooting you down.
___________________
Last edited by Krypton on Sep-03-2007 at 17:38
|
