quote:

---

July 29, 2002

Dear Ambassador, Any remaining hope the peoples of the United Nations have to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war through the United Nations would be crushed by another United States attack on Iraq. Threats to attack, invade and overthrow the government of Iraq by President George Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, various cabinet officers and Pentagon officials have been routine for a year. The
psychological warfare is itself a crime against peace and violates the U.N.
Charter. Today's front-page headline story in the New York Times, "U.S. Exploring Baghdad Strike As Iraq Option," is typical of the in terrorem intention of the threats. The danger to civilian life in Baghdad from such a strike would be enormous.

The United Nations Must Act To Prevent An Attack By The United States Against Iraq
If the United Nations is unable to restrain the United States, a permanent member of the Security Council, from committing crimes against peace and humanity as well as war crimes against a nation that has already been violated by the U.S. beyond endurance, then what is the United Nations
worth? At the very least, opposition to any attack or attempt to overthrow the government of Iraq by force must be publicly expressed by the United Nations.

The United States Bombed Defenseless Iraq Mercilessly For Forty-Two Days
In 1991 The U.S. led and glorified the massive assault on Iraq in January and
February 1991. The Pentagon announced it conducted 110,000 aerial sorties against the defenseless "cradle of civilization," dropping 88,500 tons of bombs. The widespread bombing destroyed the economic viability of the civilian society throughout the nation. It killed tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens and others. A major part of the bombing was directed at
civilians and civilian facilities. It was less accurate than the recent indiscriminate attacks in Afghanistan. U.S. bombs destroyed Iraqi water systems, electric power transmission, communications, transportation,
manufacturing, commerce, agriculture, poultry and livestock, food storage
facilities, markets, fertilizer and insecticide production, business
centers, archeological and historical treasures, apartment houses,
residential areas, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches and synagogues.
The Pentagon stated its casualties were 156. One third were from "friendly fire"; the rest were accidental. The U.S. had no combat casualties.

The United States Forced The Imposition Of Genocidal Sanctions On Iraq
In 1990 The U.S. crafted economic sanctions against Iraq which the Security Council approved on August 6, 1990, the 45th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima. Those sanctions are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people. This is the greatest crime against humanity, in the last decade of the most violent century in
history. Each painful death of an individual wasting away-from malnutrition; Kwashiorkor; the rush of dehydration from contaminated water and from diseases-was preventable. The sanctions continue to this time to cause hundreds of deaths each day. Every United Nations agency dealing
with food, health and children-including FAO, WFP, WHO, UNICEF-has proclaimed the horror, magnitude and responsibility for this human catastrophe. The great majority of the deaths caused by the sanctions are
infants, children, the elderly, the chronically ill and emergency medical
cases. These are the people most vulnerable to polluted water, malnutrition, and the lack of medicines and medical equipment and supplies. U.S. claims that it is the Iraqi government that is responsible for deaths
from shortages of food and medicine are false. The U.S. blocked oil sales by Iraq for six years before appearing to yield to humanitarian pleas to permit oil sales to purchase food and medicine. Since 1997, when sales began, it has effectively frustrated and delayed the Oil for Food program, which does not provide sufficient income at the levels approved to stop the
daily deterioration of health and growing death rates in Iraq. Before sanctions there was virtually no malnutrition in Iraq and free hospital, health services and medicines were a model for the region. Its present system of government distribution
of available food staples is a model of
fairness and efficiency, lacking only in quantity and variety of food.

United States Military Aircraft Have Attacked Iraq At Will For Eleven Years
The U.S. has engaged in air strikes against Iraq at will since March 1991, when the massive attacks averaging one aerial sortie every 30 seconds ended. Without losing a single plane, U.S. attacks have killed: cleaning personnel at the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad in a failed attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein; scores of people each year in attacks on radar
stations in or near the U.S.-imposed no-fly zones; all the persons aboard a U.N. helicopter shot down by U.S. aircraft; and civilians from all walks of life, including the internationally famous artist and Director of Iraqis' National Center for Arts, Leila al Attar.

Iraq Is Not A Threat To The U.S., Countries In The Region Or Others
The U.S. has falsely claimed that Iraq is working to develop weapons of mass destruction to a ttack the U.S., Israel, its neighbors and others. The U.S. claimed its 1991 attacks destroyed 80% of Iraq's military capacity. The U.N. inspection efforts claimed to discover and dismantle 90% of Iraq's post-1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction. Iraq, its
peoples and resources are exhausted. It has a "stunted" generation of children under age 10 and a debilitated population at all ages. It is the victim of the worst crime against humanity in recent decades.

The United States Is The Greatest Purveyor Of Violence On Earth
Two of the highest U.N. officials responsible for U.N. weapons inspection within Iraq and a principle U.S. citizen participating in the inspections have
resigned, denounced the sanctions and denied that there is a threat that
Iraq will develop weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. has more nuclear
weapons than all other nations combined as well as the most sophisticated and numerous systems for the delivery of nuclear weapons, including the Trident II submarine fleet. It possesses the greatest stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and the most advanced and extensive research in mass destruction weaponry in the world. Military spending by the U.S. exceeds that of the nine next largest budgets for war
combined. President Bush has repeatedly declared the right to strike first. The U.S. attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs and continues to justify those acts. The U.S. has renounced treaties
controlling nuclear weapons and their proliferation; voted against the protocol enabling enforcement of the Biological Weapons Conventions; and rejected the treaty banning land mines, the International Criminal Court and virtually every other international effort to control and limit war. The U.S. War Against terrorism is a declaration of right by the U.S. to attack first-anyone, anywhere, on mere suspicion, or without excuse, unilaterally. The U.S. wants to overthrow the government of Iraq and many others in violation of law. Unless restrained the chance for peace and global equality of economic, social, cultural and political opportunity among nations will be lost. Which government presents the greater threat to peace globally or for Mesopotania and its neighbors-the U.S. or Iraq?

An Attack By The United States On Iraq To Overthrow Its Government Would Be A Flagrant Violation Of The U.N. Charter, The Nuremberg Charter And International Law
If, as promised so many times, the U.S. does attack Iraq to overthrow its government, it will be the most notorious, arrogant and contemptuous violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the Nuremberg Charter and international law yet experienced, or likely hereafter. Only
absolute power unrestrained by any rule of law or standard of human decency openly taunts an intended victim as President Bush has taunted Iraq. Because the U.S. has committed historic injustices against Iraq, most during his father's presidency, and still seeks dominion in the region,
President Bush, his Vice President and others in his administration hate Iraq and want finally to destroy it. I am writing this letter to you; to each U.N. Representative of a Security Council Member; the President of the
General Assembly; and President Bush. This is one of a series of letters describing and protesting U.S. and UN wrongs against Iraq. The threatened wrong addressed here is the worst. If twelve years after its devastating aerial assault and after twelve years of genocidal sanctions, the
omnipresent risk and frequent fact of random attack with the ever present
stalking by U.S. aircraft and endless threats against its helpless victim,
the U.S. commits its coup d' grace on the people of Iraq to the silence of
the U.N. and wealthy nations of the world, human shame and impotence will doom us to ever greater violence.

A U.S. Assault On Iraq Will Cause More And Greater Violence; Urgent Action By The United Nations To Prevent A U.S. Assault Of Iraq Is Required
I urge you to immediately activate the United Nations, the General Assembly, the
Security Council and all its agencies to denounce the continuing threats by the United States against Iraq, to demand immediate cessation of the threats and to warn the United States that an attack by it on Iraq will violate the Charter of the United Nations, international law and the
friendship of all who seek peace and respect the dignity of humanity.

An Attack By The U.S. On Iraq Would Violate The Constitution And Laws Of The United States Requiring Impeachment, Trial Before The U.S. Senate And Criminal Charges In Federal Courts Against President Bush And All Officials Responsible
An attack on Iraq by the United States would also violate the Constitution and laws of the United States and expose President Bush to impeachment by the House of Representatives under the Constitution of the United States for the highest of crimes, those against peace and humanity,
to judgment by the United States Senate and trial in federal court for crimes charged. Unfortunately in recent years our Constitution has been more honored in the breach than in faithful observance of the rights it is intended to protect for all. But the effort to hold accountable any U.S.
authority who participates in an assault against Iraq will be made here by those who love their country and for that reason insist that its acts be just.

Sincerely,

Ramsey Clark

---

As always, discuss.

It's war. It's not going to be pretty. Those apologies we had to give Japan about 7 years ago were bullshit, too. They put their people at risk, by going to war with the world. We owe them no apologies for what we do to keep the world safe, and we shouldn't be swayed by what the Iraqi government might possibly be exposing its innocent civilians to if they go to war with us.

So, *if* Hussein is indeed doing something over there that is going to endanger the world, and there's something that can be done about it, then something should be done about it. It's horrible what might happen to the people, but we can't use that as an excuse to sit on our asses and do nothing. Hitler started small, too, and people ignored him until it was nearly too late.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that while we did bomb the hell out of Iraq during the Gulf War and work to take out their ability to take shots back at us, the whole reason we got involved in the situation out there was because Iraq invaded and sought to annex the independent nation of Kuwait.

Was it a one-sided battle? Yeah for the most part. Was more like a Smackdown in the Middle East rather than a "Gulf War". We've got the means to throw out a massive battle operation, but as is clear in the War in Afghanistan, while we can make people flee really well, there's an inherent problem in trying to bomb some folks back to the stone age (namely the fact that the Afghani people already live pretty close to stone age conditions).

MEANWHILE...Saddam has toyed with the UN's own edicts an inspectors. "Let us come search your country for illegal weapons of mass destruction" "No." That's about how the exchange went. He COULD have biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. He likes to taunt people with that threat. His folks have already said (about a month ago) that if the US comes after him again he will attack Israel. The guy plays religion and politics to his own uses. Iraq under Saddam's regime is a dangerous area of destabilization. It's like Germany in the early to mid 1900's, it's like Cuba was from the 50's onward, except it's a lot better equipped and it's surrounded by people it can potentially play on for aid.

I think it's just a matter of time before someone goes in and clears out that rat's nest.

BUT! I also think that now isn't the time. Right now we're struggling to pull a coalition together again, and it isn't working. We could take out the Iraqis on our own, but the cost and effort would be astronomical, where the United States populace almost seems to be in a sort of seclusion mode like we've been in in the past.

quote:

---

Everyone wondered WTF when Lyinar Ka`Bael wrote:
if they go to war with us.

---

ya, but what's being talked about right now is the US starting a war with Iraq, not the other way around like what happened last time.

considering being the instigator of a fight is a lot different then beating the shit out of someone who hit us in the face (so to speak)

the question that must be asked is whether going to war with Iraq would be offensive or defensive in nature. if the former, then we must ask ourselves as a country whether we have the right to be the police force for the rest of the world.

and if the case is the latter, we must first ask ourselves whether Iraq poses a serious threat DIRECTLY to the US. if not, then mabey we should actually go through the established channels that are actually meant to govern these sorts of affairs (the UN) rather than becoming global vigilantes.

quote:

---

Maradön² wrote this stupid crap:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
-John Stuart Mill

---

Look, I can play the quote game too!

"Your mother was good last night"
-Me

Simply put, that quote doesn't apply in this case. Should Iraq have attacked us, or even openly engaged other nations unprovoked, and there was nay saying because it wasn't "worth it", then the quote fits.

Also, since when has the United States been granted the power to unilaterally declare which regimes should be destroyed. Can any nation have such decision making powers?

Hmm, show of hands who'd think we'd have this problem now if we had accually stayed in Iraq and rooted out Hussien and all the dictaorshiop that he has held down on the people back in 91?

Tough call really.

That whole "element of surprise" thing seemed to work well in the pre-CNN era.

quote:

---

Vorbis of Pie obviously shouldn't have said:
Simply put, that quote doesn't apply in this case. Should Iraq have attacked us, or even openly engaged other nations unprovoked, and there was nay saying because it wasn't "worth it", then the quote fits.

---

So by your thinking, there is no wrongdoing unless specifically America is attacked?

Do you even know why Desert Storm was fought?

quote:

---

There was much rejoicing when Azrael Heavenblade said this:
Wait a tick...this is an American guy writing this?! And is also a former Attorney General?

---

Extreme left democrat. nuff said.

quote:

---

Maradön²'s fortune cookie read:
So by your thinking, there is no wrongdoing unless specifically America is attacked?

Do you even know why Desert Storm was fought?

---

There is a difference between fighting a war to protect our oil interests (and because an economic ally of ours is being invaded) and fighting a war because the Bushes don't like Saddam.

As far as we know, there are no WMD in Iraq - just because he didn't recieve the weapons inspectors at first doesn't mean they never got it. Further, there is no evidence that Iraq is planning any military action.

If we were to attack and destroy any nation because of a supposed threat with only speculation about what may or may not happen we would have become that which we seek to destroy.

Maybe except the fear popularity ratings are going to fall soon.

Please note, I will not come back and write a small essay defending this view, I suck at that kind of stuff, nor will my view change.

EDIT INFO: Added the word "the"

[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: ImNotTrent Inc. ]

quote:

---

Vorbis of Pie had this to say about pies:
As far as we know, there are no WMD in Iraq - just because he didn't recieve the weapons inspectors at first doesn't mean they never got it. Further, there is no evidence that Iraq is planning any military action.

---

As far as we know, there could be an arsenal of nukes or viruses fit to destory all life on earth. "You can check me for weapons. Just not in these places?"

Further, there is no evidence that Iraq isn't planning any military action. You talk as if you're in some kind of recon group in Iraq.

Guess what? You don't know everything. In fact, you probably don't even know MOST of the story. And as long as we're on the topic of blind assumption, you talk as if war has already been declared! What makes you think we won't wait until we have solid evidence, apart from your blind political dogma?

Did not read.

quote:

---

Nobody really understood why Lyinar Ka`Bael wrote:
Damn, Mara about summed it up.

"It's war. It's not going to be pretty. Those apologies we had to give Japan about 7 years ago were bullshit, too. They put their people at risk, by going to war with the world. We owe them no apologies for what we do to keep the world safe..."

---

If i recall, the apologies were for the use of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - whereby 80,000 and 70,000 were killed respectively. By the end of the year, a total of 210,000 had died as a result of the bombs (most of these casualties were civilians might I add).

I had a rather long-winded post ready, but frankly I am too disgusted by those comments...that someone could not see how such an act warrants an apology.

There is no excuse for killing civilians in a time of war (accidental deaths, are quite different).

If I am recalling incorrectly, and the US apology was for something else entirely, then ignore this.

I don't agree with the content of the letter but I do agree with it's purpose. Right now it is pointless to threaten Iraq, Iraq will just ignore the threats and welcome the invasion. Aside from Britan no other country supports an overthrow of Iraq through US military intervention. Now if our intention is to alienate ourselves from the rest of the world and attempt to use our military and economic might to bully others into our camp then so be it, but I find that an improper use of power.

Right now American resources should be focused on restoring our own destablized and weak economy. As well as attempting to better intergrate ourselves into the global society instead of fighting change.

So keep things with Iraq the way they are, shut down the silly rhetoric, and just spank Sadam when he does something stupid. The threat to American proper by Iraq is at best very limited in terms of a direct attack, and Iraq knows better than to attempt another regional invasion. Just let them stew they really can't hurt anyone but themselves in the current situation. It is far more important to try to improve our relations with Iraq's neighbors. It's hard to believe that we've put ourselves in an almost no win situation just because we've been too hard headed to find good alternatives to our oil dependance in the middle east.

I'm aware that he's hardly a comforting factor in the middle east, and he's probably working to destabilize any american progress there any way he can, but I don't think that's enough cause for a full attack. I'm quite confident that Saddam will get cocky sooner or later and overreach his power. That's the time to strike at him in my mind, rather than try to gat at him while American worry is high because of an unrelated incedent.

Of course, I could very well be wrong in this one. We may end up with another Cuba, where there is a near-permanent figure opposed to the US, only this time in the middle of a warring and politically dangerous area. However, I don't really see an alternative here, I simply don't think an attack is worth the price we'd have to pay in foreign politics in the middle east.

Second of all, I'd like to quote the movie My Cousin Vinny by saying "Everything that guy just said is bullshit."

Saddam has been and always will be a threat, so long as he has any shred of power. The inspections were a joke when they were even being allowed. Who else here remembers the satellite photos of the Iraqi compounds, where the investigators were being purposely delayed while sensitive materials of sorts were being removed, destroyed, or otherwise taken out of sight?

Peace is an illusion, right now. Anyone who can't see that the world is going to hell in a hand basket with all these conflicts needs to quit being an ostrich and get their head out of the sand. While people like that talk, and type up letters, there are other people fighting and dying, either for their country, for their lives, or for their beliefs. No politician will ever be able to understand that, or understand that paperwork will not solve anything.

Next... What, exactly, will the UN do anyway? I wish I had the articles I read in the past to quote, but as I understand it, the UN is the world's largest organization devoted to doing nothing when it counts. I understand that this broad summary is flawed, and I seriously request any proof to the contrary. The fact stands, though, that the UN can do very little about this, or they WOULD have done something already!

Gah... Civilization may be advanced, but some people are still living in the stone age...

Take Osama out of power, get afganistan under something less abusive of religious passion and after thats finished take on the other guy. If you leave saddam alone ad whisper peace treaties or whatnot in his ear through some sort of security leak and then get him after you;ve neutralized te other threats.

One of you said he wasnt a threat? I dont get this because he could easily do what osama did, get a bunch of kamikazes and fly them over, or just sneak a bunch of people over the mexican border carrying smallpox or something dangerous.

Eh, As long as a plane doesnt crash into my backyard because their dropping explosives somewhere. I could care less about this whole situtation

And the point is that it was *war*. They had come to OUR country and attacked US, dragging us into that war. The US did what was necessary to bring things to a close. They knew the danger to their civilians when they came over here and brought us into things.

So no, I don't think it warrants an apology. If they didn't expect retaliation, they were idiots.

quote:

---

Lyinar Ka`Bael got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
No, it was for the A-bombs being dropped.

And the point is that it was *war*. They had come to OUR country and attacked US, dragging us into that war. The US did what was necessary to bring things to a close. They knew the danger to their civilians when they came over here and brought us into things.

So no, I don't think it warrants an apology. If they didn't expect retaliation, they were idiots.

---

So, if if we assume that Iraq realy had the ability to build ABC-weapons, and uses them against major civilian US targets in retaliation for an attack, this would be a perfectly justifiable act of war?

[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: Gevarien / Modrakien ]

Outraged, angry, and eager for revenge, yes. But we shouldn't come years down the line and say Iraq should apologize for trying to win a war. Just as we shouldn't need to apologize for trying to win a war that the country in question brought us into.

War doesnt need apologies, apologies mean nothing other than your trying to suck up or your being forced into it.

The only truth is action, if someone wants to apologize to me they can help me when Im in a future pinch ya know?

quote:

---

Mooj had this to say about Robocop:
[...]Peace is an illusion, right now. Anyone who can't see that the world is going to hell in a hand basket with all these conflicts needs to quit being an ostrich and get their head out of the sand. While people like that talk, and type up letters, there are other people fighting and dying, either for their country, for their lives, or for their beliefs. No politician will ever be able to understand that, or understand that paperwork will not solve anything.[...]

---

While that may be true, "But everyone else is doing it!" is not a rational reason for going to war.

If bombing someone else keeps me and everything I hold dear safer for any amount of time then so be it. Their I said it, I would wish pain to be inflicted on others to safeguard my own interests. Flame me all you want, but isnt that was war generally is. Fighting so you wont have to fight any more?

Japan attacked a noncombatant nation. We were guilty, if we were guilty of anything, with supplying the British with equipment. Japan may have been allied with Germany, but we hadn't gone after Japan.

Civilian populations? Read about what went down between Japan and China during WWII. Read about what Japan did all up and down the Asian Pacific Rim. Japan was guilty of all sorts of nastiness. It picked a fight it couldn't win. But it DID pick the fight. It had gotten arrogant and had overstretched its strength, but that was its fatal flaw, and we used our strength to hit them hard as we could when they weren't at full strength.

Don't think that war is something where the generals get together over drinks afterwards, say "Jolly good fight you put up there, let's look at the play by play" and shake hands on the matter. That's stupid. All you can say decades later, all you SHOULD say decades later is "I'm sorry we went to battle" and even then if you weren't the aggressor nation you shouldn't say that.

That's why I think the term "Police Action" or "Peacekeeping Mission" or whatever the hell it is the UN likes to use these days is assinine. You send trained military troops in and you tell them to "Pacify the area". Well guess what? If you're being sent in there's a whole lot of people out there who are going to try and "Pacify" you right back.

War is war. It's not a sport, it's completely separate from policing, and it should be understood and respected as the violent thing that it is.

You want to stamp out war in the world? then you make damned sure everyone knows the difference between War and Peacekeeping. Police are keepers of the peace. War is fought by soldiers.

And in that respect, the UN is the dumbest organization in the world. It wants to stamp out war but it sends in "Peacekeepers".

Ha.

Japan went to war with another nation in WWII. When you go to war you're either going to defeat the enemy, or you're going to be defeated. You accomplish your goals or your fail them. Japan was defeated, it failed to accomplish its goals. The United States knew they were going to win. They knew if they were forced to land men on Japan they were just going to end up having to fight the populace. So they made a choice. Take out two cities. Better they die than we die, and if we take out two cities, entirely, without one of our men dying in the process, they'll hopefully get the point.

And it worked. Japan had to go down and it did and it's all been good ever since.

You do anything half-assed and you'll end up with another Vietnam. Don't plan, aren't willing to take things as far as they need to go, give up, you lose. We lost Nam. The tragedy lays in the fact we didn't have to.

We didn't lose the Gulf War. Outting Saddam would've been an added bonus, but we accomplished our objectives at the time. Kuwait was free. Saddam backed off and we put it to him to submit to no fly zones, trade restrictions, and weapons inspectors.

And the fucker cut the inspectors off. He didn't let American inspectors in, he didn't let UN inspectors in. He made the agreement and then he violated it. And he's proceeded to fund and support terrorist acts.

Example? Okay...paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That's a terrorist act. There's proof Saddam's been paying them. He's sent personal letters to the families.

Bin Laden's power structure is broken. Al Qaeda was tough right up until someone could afford to put a hurting on them. We've dedicated ourselves to building Afghanistan up, we've dedicated ourselves to trying to bring stability to the area. Saddam is a BIG problem over there.

BUT!

We need to do it carefully, we need to plan shit. We need to move from a base of strength. We can't do that right now. The Israel/Palestinian situation is causing trouble (let's face it...if things were peaceful there we could talk other nations into working with us), Russia's not sure who it likes (we're it's buddy nation, but Russia is severely poor and two of its neighbors, Iran and Iraq who are both part of the "Axis of Evil" are willing to supply money to buy money for nuclear reactors. Russia hasn't sold to Iraq yet, but it has to Iran and Iran welcomes inspectors to make sure it's all, eheh, kosher, but America's position on Iran still makes things difficult), Pakistan is about stretched to its limits at this point, and we can't guarantee support from Saudi or even Kuwait. Add to that the British who (despite Blair's continued support of us) don't want to come (don't blame them either...few months before we went to Afghanistan, Britain discovered that the armed forces they'd been preparing for decades to fight USSR wasn't really ready for long-term desert deployment...believe the operation was called "Sweeping Sword" if you want to look it up), and most of Europe is pretending shit doesn't happen to them or that Neo-Nazis are worse.

So we're a long way from being ready to go after Iraq, and I question how ready we are to go it alone. So while I think we have the spirit and the impetus and the right to go, I think the logistics are what's holding us back right now.

I reall wish you would post later on. Noting more to say that wouldnt flame ya and would still contribute meaningfully.

If we want russian aid, why dont we just do what is easy when your the richest country in the world. Bribe em, buy the nuclear reactors that they want, or offer them part of one of the offending countries in exchange for military support.

I dunno, ignore me

quote:

---

Elvish Crack Piper attempted to be funny by writing:
If we want russian aid, why dont we just do what is easy when your the richest country in the world. Bribe em, buy the nuclear reactors that they want, or offer them part of one of the offending countries in exchange for military support.

---

Actually that's what some people are asking. If it's 7 billion dollars they need in like a decade, we could pay them a billion dollars a year for 10 years and not be hurting. But then Russia doesn't want two hostile nations right smack up next door to their southern border. It'd be like if Canada and Mexico were significant military threats to the US and pissed at us.

Iraq and Iran dont mind fighting us, one reason I thought about was because we cant fight an effective land war against them. Logistics and all that. Like what your were talking about why we "won" the revolutionary war.

Russia doesnt have that problem, and if we could get russia to at least not sign with them and act as a sort of wall then they would want to bother russia less because it costs russia less to attack them then its gonna cost us.

Now bring down your response in .002 seconds and smack my logic down ok

It seemed to fit.

quote:

---

Elvish Crack Piper Model 2000 was programmed to say:
I dont want it, this is just me little mind at 5am doing some random thoughts. I dont really care to follow any of this. If Im going to die in a nuclear war, Id rather do it blissfully playing cards without a worry in the world.

Iraq and Iran dont mind fighting us, one reason I thought about was because we cant fight an effective land war against them. Logistics and all that. Like what your were talking about why we "won" the revolutionary war.

Russia doesnt have that problem, and if we could get russia to at least not sign with them and act as a sort of wall then they would want to bother russia less because it costs russia less to attack them then its gonna cost us.

Now bring down your response in .002 seconds and smack my logic down ok

---

Part of the reason Russia doesn't want to get involved is that they have a rather substantial Islamic population. If people start pushing the holy war button in a nation of disgruntled folks like Russia, who's to say what would happen? Things work there at the moment. Not well, but something working is better than nothing working.

And you have no idea, Mort, how funny it is for me to hear of a Brit cracking jokes about Imperials

quote:

---

Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael spewed forth this undeniable truth:
And you have no idea, Mort, how funny it is for me to hear of a Brit cracking jokes about Imperials

---

Hey, we're not like that anymore!

It's the State's turn. Then another country gets the ball.

Excellent... *grins evilly and rubs his hands together*

quote:

---

Elvish Crack Piper had this to say about (_|_):
So what your saying is that they are essentially stalling vbecause they finally have some structure going on and dont want to screw it up with things flying into them? Essentially they are being pressured into doing nothing because of a fear of religious zealots

---

Now you're catching on, Junior.

I should go to school like this