Fiddy !!!

I actually have alot of friends, purely for the fact that I probably would do anything for any of them. I don't believe that I should, but I probably would anyway. If I got myself into a situation I'd hate if my friends came and bailed me out. I'd rather take the beating than know that I didn't deserve to avoid that.

I guess I just have a problem with cheating karma. You just can't do it.

My point in this present situation though eros using your example is ...

What if ,in the bar, this guy weighed 100lbs and your buddy pulled a 357mag and leveled it at him.

It becomes different.Its no longer reasonable nor justifiable force.

IMHO

But you can enduce it :)

I love the whole Karma issue and how it's selective.

You getting your ass kicked is Karma, Hussein getting his is not.

I really don't know if Heussein will get his ass kicked. We let him go scott free the first time. He'll probably just go chill with Osama while we build a new iraq.

My point was not the fight, or the method of fighting, but on a small scale looking through something that we all have experienced or might experience whether at the school playground, during jr. high at the roller rink, or as college kids at a local bar, and how friends would more than likely behave.

In other words, it's all cool that people are against the war as I am, and it's all cool that people want to protest, but what effect will this have other than giving Hussein exactly what I think it did give him.

It helped him to validate in his mind his position on the issue, it made him think that without UN support, or world populace support that what we would be doing is criminal and immoral (that's another debate) thus we may win the physical battles as we did in Vietnam, but lose the war, as we did in Vietnam.

Just read this board. The US is fucked either way now. If they find WMD, no one will believe this..they will think it was planted...if we don't find them..then we were still not justified.

I'm glad all of us sunday quarterback's got this issue covered.

In a bar the little guy didn't get 12 years to obey rules he agreed with.

What good was the UN Weapon inspection team good for in this scenario? It's like having the Police Cheif give you a courtesy call a week before they are going to do a raid on your house for selling crack. :helpme Does anyone think that he's going to draw a map to direct the inspectors to where WMD's are hidden? He could have that crap burried under a pile of camel dung in the middle of the desert for all we know.

Precisely.The attack may well be a breach of international law.

eros,

I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with you simulataneously :)

You must be understanding something wrong.

I'll break it down...

Little guy comes into a bar with a gun. No problems yet, but he decides to pull the gun on an even smaller guy. We now have a problem.

The bouncer gets involved. Says the oppresser has two options: he's going to get his ass kicked, or he can stay if he follows a strict set of rules. One of those rules being, no more gun.

Time goes on, and the first guy still brings his gun into the bar. The bouncer gives him warning, after warning, after warning. Does no good. He continues to bring the gun.

The owner of the bar says "enough is enough". Get rid of the trouble maker. If he doesn't leave peacefully, drag him out and let all the local bars know about this trouble maker.

LOL...I do that often with myself...we must be so conflicted:winkwink:

Well maybe I'm not making my point and political stance entirely clear. Sure Saddam sucks. He tortures his own people. The USA supports the use of foreign sweatshops where workers are raped and beaten on a daily basis, with the support of the US. We don't go after them because we make bigger profits since we barely have to pay the workers.

So we'll let some people do it, but not others. Grease our palms a little and torture's just dandy. I think we need to reexamine our own ethics before we go attacking other countries. :2 cents:

True, but most governments would change their minds. France even said the rules would change if Saddam used WMDs. Maybe he's just saying that to ensure that Saddam doesn't use them, because he knows that if he does, the U.S. will be completely vindicated.


btw.....I "borrowed" your "Support the Troops" banner. Hope you don't mind. I'll pay you a royalty if you want.

I borrowed it from Carrie. :)

But yes, I agree with your statements. The governments would change their mind. Why? Because they're more often than not smarter than the people and have a better grasp of how things really will effect them. Someone will argue this, but there's really no argument to it. The countries supporting the coalition now have mixed feelings between its government and it's citizens. But the government knows that the country will come out with something nice in the end: trade, foreign aid, etc.

If he broke out some nukes I'm sure there would be noone who agreed that at that point it was time for shit to hit the fan. When a fight breaks out the initial reaction is to try and stop it, but once it elevates to a certain point someone's gotta get their ass kicked.

If no WMD are found the US would probably plant some.

The bigger picture here is that other countries may attack someone in the future and when the US says stop, they will say "we told you to stop attacking Iraq, but you didn't listen to us, so we are not listening to you"

China could attack Taiwan and tell the yanks to fuck off if they say anything.

Russia can attack their neighbors and say the same thing.
Ext Ext..

I didn't finish the entire thread so if someone already mentioned this I apologize.

Everyone knows Bush and co. has been spouting about Sadaams WMD's to gain support for this war. However, once the first bombs dropped now you hear people say that he had WMD's in the production, or research and development stage.

Am I the only one that sees this?

This is a good point. This war sets a dangerous precedent. The message is clear that the UN is useless and if you really want to you can ignore it and be just dandy.

Cluck, I hate to admit it, but I really like your banner too. It's pretty fucking funny. I'll stick to the 'Support our Soldiers" banner, but I have to admit for a commie, yours is pretty clever.

""""China could attack Taiwan and tell the yanks to fuck off if they say anything. """"


I was just saying the same shit to some people here.

If that's not sarcasm then thank you. I someday hope to become rich off the domain "Freedom-fries.org". Think of the type-in traffic in 20 years when everyone says it! :thumbsup

That message has been clear for well over 12 years.

The United Nations is a "feel good" organization. Wasn't the League of Nations founded by Eleanor Roosevelt?

Thats got to be sarcasm???? ;)

Its an .org and a with a dash in it. ;)

No, it wasn't sarcasm. I think the whole "freedom fries" issue is a fucking joke. the banner is good! :thumbsup

Precisely. The only thing the U.N. should be used for is rebuilding or bring medicine to children in the third world. But, as far as protecting the world, they're a joke. How are a bunch of guys with blue helmets and no guns going to save anyone.

I'm not one of those people who thinks we should pull out of the UN, nor do I believe in unilateralism, but the UN should be seen for what it is (or can be): a feelgood organization.

would you agree that if they don't find WMD they'll invent them?

They already have their backup story. See my previous post up a few lines.