If You oppose War With Iraq, This Might Be Something To Look Into

[SlowwHand]

You people.

Ok. Protest the next war.
I try to do a little good, and what is the yield? Zip.

FYI, GePap, I have no "ulterior motives".
No plans to slam the site.
No plans to kidnap participants.

I just thought some people might want to know about an orgznization that could maybe further their interests to more of a degree than a Civ site.

Civ. It's a game.

[boann]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Not me. I know everything, about everything.

Except what the actual translation of Chili Con Carne was.
Now, thanks to Boris, I know that, too.
Making me perfect.

oh gawd , bring out the boots its getting deep in here

[Spiffor]

BTW, how come unitedforpeace hasn't been banned yet ? They're traitors, and an obvious threat to the safety of the American people

Oh wait sorry, that's the line the Bushies will say next year, never mind

[Jac de Molay]

Remember it was NOT the US that started this war it was a cowardly attack on our country and our freedom! It is not a choice of the US to go to war, we were forced into war. Once again, we will be forced into war due to an ignorant middle east idiot who wants to kill everyone.

Thanks, this made my day.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by GePap
So will you try to get active service in Iraq Sloww, you know, to do your active part in the policy you advocate? Or maybe go work for a defense contractor?

I did my time in service, and would VOLUNTEER again, except the recruiters shy away from fossils.

As for Defense Contractors, sure. Love to, in fact.
I worked at Rockwell International for 12+ years, until the Soviet Union took down their tent and went home, totally screwing me.

Spiffor. Thanks. You make me look good by comparison.
You just stay right here.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by boann


oh gawd , bring out the boots its getting deep in here

As for you, you keep your trap shut, and go to work.

[GePap]

Are we a bit paranoid Sloww?

I never said you started this to slam the site: and I shall quote myself:

"Sloww is trying to get a thread going about this org: maybe it will inject something new into this tired Iraq debate, over which we have a month to go before we get to argue about the asctual operations during the war. Let the thread breath "


Someone eventually will get to it perhaps, but I never said you have.

[SlowwHand]

"Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after me."

[Wernazuma III]

PrinceBimz, you're da man! After the UK Iraqw-report blamage my second good laugh today!

[Capt Dizle]

The war is indeed set and it looks like the first and worst casulty will be the UN. Sure the UN might still be useful for humanitarian purposes, but if it fails to get on board for this mission it will cease to play a central role in security concerns.

[Skyjack666]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The war is indeed set and it looks like the first and worst casulty will be the UN. Sure the UN might still be useful for humanitarian purposes, but if it fails to get on board for this mission it will cease to play a central role in security concerns.

We can only hope this joke goes the way of the "League of Nations".

[Capt Dizle]

Bush, by the way, is not going to the UN for backing because he needs it or wants it. He is not doing it because he feels the prestige of the US will be damaged if we act outside a UN mandate. He is not doing it because he wants good relations with the various countries, and he is damn well not doing it for popular support in the US. He is doing it for the welfare of the UN itself, in the hope that in the future when other nations develop a combination of military capability and the will to use it then America will not have to shoulder the entire responsibility for maintaining world stability as we do now.

[Capt Dizle]

Maybe it would be best for the US if the UN implodes. Let regional powers maintain stability as they have in the past. This of course would not be best for the oppressed people in these regions but we would save money, heh.

Money we could spend instead to create a working ICBM defense shield and internal security measures to protect us against terrorism.

If it were not for corporate interest in oversees markets we would probably be doing that now.

[Spiffor]

It would be folly for the US to act unilaterally in any place outside the Americas. While the US can win a war alone (the support from allies during a war is rather a luxury), it needs other countries' military to do the peacekkeping job.
The UN provides plenty of foot troops which can do the post war job, without the US being the only one to pay. The post-war job is highly necessary to enforce some stability, which in turn enforces the World Order as the US wants it to be played.

I wonder if the Hawks finally decided to repay the debts the US has towards the UN. If not, I suspect the hawks aren't that willing to make the UN shine again in the future.

[GePap]

"Another one bites the dust!"

Oh well, this is becoming a general Iraq thread. Pity.