Massive World Protests Tomorrow

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Good fantasy David. How exactly would the Sec Council ever pass that US disarm resolution considering the US has a veto? Not to mention the UN rarely, if ever, demands any state disarms.

But, that's OK. Keep on keeping on in your twisted views of whatever the world should do so as not to inconvenience you yourself personally.

Hmm...I didn't read him saying "The UN is probably going to tell the US to disarm.". To me, it looked more like a "what if" situation.

Oh wait, it didn't only look like it......it WAS Very poor troll, NYE.

[David Floyd]

Good fantasy David. How exactly would the Sec Council ever pass that US disarm resolution considering the US has a veto?

Duhhhh

[notyoueither]

You'd know a troll.

But then, crying 'troll' is rather easy, isn't it? Try to address...

'Not to mention the UN rarely, if ever, demands any state disarms'

Go ahead. You can do it if you try hard enough.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You'd know a troll.

Yes I would, actually. I do it all the time, therefore I can ID trolls quite easily. (Hey, that supports my arguement.....)

Go ahead. You can do it if you try hard enough.

See, but that wasn't the main troll, it was only somethin to amplify it. Your troll was saying that the UN would never do that, knowing full well that he knows it and was not saying that it would.

[Ted Striker]

Seeing as how the Eurocoms have lost all sense of a moral backbone, I am going to be holding a retroactive "No War Against Hitler" march.

[David Floyd]

'Not to mention the UN rarely, if ever, demands any state disarms'

I don't quite see the relevance of that. Why should the UN be able to demand that ANY sovereign state disarm?

[David Floyd]

I am going to be holding a retroactive "No War Against Hitler" march.

Great! I'll come!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
See, but that wasn't the main troll, it was only somethin to amplify it. Your troll was saying that the UN would never do that, knowing full well that he knows it and was not saying that it would.

See. You agree that what he said was very stupid. This is called progress.

[David Floyd]

See. You agree that what he said was very stupid. This is called progress.

Even I admit the UN would never try to force the US to disarm. But IF the UN did, should the US have to disarm, and would the US be at fault if the UN invaded them after they refused?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by notyoueither


See. You agree that what he said was very stupid. This is called progress.

No NYE, I dont. Dont put words in my mouth, its unbecoming of you.

I said that what he said is a WHAT IF situation. He knows it'll never happen, I know it'll never happen, you know that both of us know it'll never happen. You trolled.

In fact, his statement does add to his arguement, if only ever so slightly. It's not "stupid" by any means.

[notyoueither]

What do you mean? It's idiotic.

First off, the UN has demanded disarmament of a state in exactly one situation. That's right. This is unique to Saddam.

Second off, should the UN ever manage to sneak such an idiotic motion through, they would be completely justified in trying to back it up.

Back it up? Huh huh. That's a funny one.

[David Floyd]

First off, the UN has demanded disarmament of a state in exactly one situation. That's right. This is unique to Saddam.

It's nonsensical, though. The US has created and started much more war than Saddam has. The US has caused far more civilians deaths than Saddam has. The US has exported far more weapons than Saddam has. The US has created far more WMDs than Saddam has. The US has used far more WMDs than Saddam has.

So why shouldn't the UN demand that the US disarm?

Oh, possibly because the US and allies told them to demand that Iraq disarm, and because the US had the force to make it stick?

[Ted Striker]

Maybe because disarming was a part of the Gulf War 1 cease fire agreement that has been violated for over 12 years?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What do you mean? It's idiotic.

First off, the UN has demanded disarmament of a state in exactly one situation. That's right. This is unique to Saddam.

Not really...Think about the statement NYE.

Second off, should the UN ever manage to sneak such an idiotic motion through, they would be completely justified in trying to back it up.

Ok. Tell him that.

Back it up? Huh huh. That's a funny one.

Speaking of backing the UN up, I can't wait till the US enforces the 33 resolution violations by Israel.....Instead of focusing on the 17 by Saddam.

[David Floyd]

Maybe because disarming was a part of the Gulf War 1 cease fire agreement that has been violated for over 12 years?

So? The US had no right to fight the war in the first place, nor did the UN.