Puppet regime in 8 easy steps

So, instead of actually issuing a statement saying "We dissaprove" you're just going to let things go by?
Right, if everyone thought like that, there would've been no public protest against the Iraq War (why bother, we can't stop it) or basically any governmental decisions.

Things "go by" because they can't be stopped, not because people don't want to stop them. The UN passes resolutions expressing dissatisfaction all the time. Almost nothing ever actually gets done, though.

I don't see why nations should hide behind resolutions to express dissatisfaction, or to implement measures that further their agendas. International outcry didn't change a thing, and it wouldn't change a thing if there were no resolutions. If the UN can't enforce it's own resolutions what's the point in passing them?
 
Things "go by" because they can't be stopped, not because people don't want to stop them. The UN passes resolutions expressing dissatisfaction all the time. Almost nothing ever actually gets done, though.
Yet you insist that doing nothing is better than at least issuing these statements. I fail to see the logic.
I don't see why nations should hide behind resolutions to express dissatisfaction, or to implement measures that further their agendas. International outcry didn't change a thing, and it wouldn't change a thing if there were no resolutions. If the UN can't enforce it's own resolutions what's the point in passing them?
You really don't get it, do you? In theory, these resolutions CAN be enforced, and they are, in fact, the only part of UN decisions that are legally binding. But the USA is such a large country that nothing could've actually stopped. But, most importantly, legally speaking, the UN couldn't do a thing, because the USA DID have the right to do it.
 
You really don't get it, do you? In theory, these resolutions CAN be enforced, and they are, in fact, the only part of UN decisions that are legally binding. But the USA is such a large country that nothing could've actually stopped. But, most importantly, legally speaking, the UN couldn't do a thing, because the USA DID have the right to do it.

Oh it could've been stopped. France, for instance, could have stationed troops in Iraq to protect Saddam, but that would eliminate the moral high ground that they love pretending they have.

Also, if the US did have the right to invade Iraq, then it wasn't illegal. That's what I was basing my first statement on. You can say that the war was wrong, but it was not illegal. If you think the war was illegal, then chances are that you'd think all war was illegal.

Yet you insist that doing nothing is better than at least issuing these statements. I fail to see the logic.

GOD! You're not paying attention to what I'm saying! WHAT IS THE POINT OF ISSUING RESOLUTIONS AND LAWS THAT DON'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING!? You can express dissatisfaction just as well without issuing a worthless resolution. International outcry would have more impact if statements were made by individual nations and their leaders, instead of a faceless international body.
 
Oh it could've been stopped. France, for instance, could have stationed troops in Iraq to protect Saddam, but that would eliminate the moral high ground that they love pretending they have.
PLus, you know, it would've probably caused a lot of distress in international relations, and it would've meant spending a lot of money, it would also have meant that they could've gone to war with the USA. None of that is actually, you know, reasonable to request.
Also, if the US did have the right to invade Iraq, then it wasn't illegal. That's what I was basing my first statement on. You can say that the war was wrong, but it was not illegal. If you think the war was illegal, then chances are that you'd think all war was illegal.
...
Again I say: I never claimed that the war was illegal. And "chances are that you'd think all war was illegal" is a completely useless sentence here.
GOD! You're not paying attention to what I'm saying! WHAT IS THE POINT OF ISSUING RESOLUTIONS AND LAWS THAT DON'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING!? You can express dissatisfaction just as well without issuing a worthless resolution. International outcry would have more impact if statements were made by individual nations and their leaders, instead of a faceless international body.
That's the first time you've actually said that. Secondly, you're full of shit. Several countries DID express their discontent, most notably France Germany and Russia. Having an international body to declare these things doesn't mean that suddenly countries can't express their opinions.
 
PLus, you know, it would've probably caused a lot of distress in international relations, and it would've meant spending a lot of money, it would also have meant that they could've gone to war with the USA. None of that is actually, you know, reasonable to request.

Certainly not from France. It raises an interesting hypothetical...would France have surrendered to Germany before or after going to war against the US?

...
Again I say: I never claimed that the war was illegal. And "chances are that you'd think all war was illegal" is a completely useless sentence here.

You've called it an "Illegal War" several times, in various anti-US rants...

That's the first time you've actually said that. Secondly, you're full of shit. Several countries DID express their discontent, most notably France Germany and Russia. Having an international body to declare these things doesn't mean that suddenly countries can't express their opinions.

France "expressed discontent" with something the US did. Well, hell, that's a shocker. France has been discontented since Waterloo. Russia "expresses discontent" out of pure reflex (nichevo). And for all of Germany's discontent, they still sent troops to back our play. What did the Netherlands do? What have YOU done, besides clutter up a game forum with anti-semetic, anti-US bullshit every chance you get? Poser...

Jay
 
Certainly not from France. It raises an interesting hypothetical...would France have surrendered to Germany before or after going to war against the US?
You know, for someone claiming that I'm "anti-semitic" and "anti-US" (ie. a prejudiced bastard) you hold a lot of prejudices. Moreover, you're trolling. You're not actually showing any arguments, all you're doing is spraying some empty rhetoric at me in the hope that I won't see past it and that I will, instead, get really pissed off and flame you. That, pal, is called trolling. It can get you banned.
You've called it an "Illegal War" several times, in various anti-US rants...
Bullshit. I've called it a war of false pretenses, not an illegal war.
If you're so certain that I claimed it was an illegal war, I'd like to see some proof.

France "expressed discontent" with something the US did. Well, hell, that's a shocker. France has been discontented since Waterloo.
Which had nothing at all to do with the USA so this is trolling. Get a life.
Russia "expresses discontent" out of pure reflex (nichevo).
Ehe. Ignorant.
And for all of Germany's discontent, they still sent troops to back our play.
They sent troops to help rebuild Iraq. There's a big difference.
What did the Netherlands do?
They sent troops because my government's policy is to support that war.
What have YOU done,
I've convinced people that this war was bullshit from the start.
besides clutter up a game forum with anti-semetic,
Anti-semitic? Where, exactly, have I been anti-semitic?
Anti-US? Far from it. Anti-US-policy, at the most. I do not rant against the US because I hate the US, I rant against the US because I disagree with what they're doing.
Since when is argumented logic with facts to support it "bullshit".
every chance you get? Poser...
Poser? I don't think you understand that word.
Besides that, thou art a troll. So shut the hell up before you get yourself banned.

And learn how to use the bloody BB-codes.

EDIT:And to think I'd almost missed this bit:
Jay said:
Fuck you right back...I'm sure now that Hitler is a fading memory and the Soviets are dead and gone you are more than happy to tell the US to fuck off and say you don't owe us anything. That's fine, you got what you wanted/needed, go ahead and screw us over. Just stop whining when we don't do what YOU want us to do all the time.
You're inconsistency and bullshit is amazing. Really. You ignore the bit where I say that owing someone something has no place in politics, and then you go off on more trolling. Moreover, you claim that we can't be pissed when you don't do what we want you to do? Why can't we? The entire point of the gift of speech is to let your opinion be heard. And, in case you hadn't noticed, there still is the UN. You know, that organisation that the USA helped create.

No, it's acting like a soveriegn state. Not only did we MAKE the UN and ram it down the rest of the world's throat to keep WWIII from destroying the planet,
Bullshit. The Atlantic Charter was voluntarily signed by all of the allies, and it had nothing to do with keeping the world from being destroyed, it was a way of keeping the Soviets in check and continuing the previous example of the League of Nations down a better path.

we funded it and continue to fund it to this day. The UN is our allies, not our parents or our bosses. We don't have to ask permission.
You're dead wrong here. First, you didn't create the UN by yourselves, and you certainly didn't fund it. In fact, you OWE the UN a lot of money that you simply don't pay. So you're not funding it, you're draining it.
And by signing the UN charter you confirmed that you would abide by the rulings of the security council.
You gave yourself these limitations, live with it.
Check your history. When WWII ended, the only one still standing in the west was the US. We rebuilt Europe, and yes, we profited from it. Thanks, guys.
Check my history? There wasn't a single bit of ahistorical fact in there. In fact, it was all correct, and this bit of retort of you adds nothing. It's not, in fact, a retort, it's a dodge.
As far as France is concerned, they helped us back in 1770's, and we pulled their chestnuts out of the fire twice in the 20th century. I'd call that fair.
Yet you claimed that they owed you. Whoops?

Sure, you didn't have to pay for things like armies and missles to keep the Soviets from turning your countries into "buffer states" during the cold war.
Riiight. Because, you know, we don't keep armies. And we didn't participate in the NATO. And we weren't one of the founding members of the EU. And we, of course, never sent troops with any UN mission.
In case you hadn't noticed, that was sarcasm sucker.
Ruined your chance to have all those cool celebrations like the East Germans when the Soviet Union turned into a failed economic experiement.
Non sequitur. Stop trolling.

But hey, we are still here, you still hate us...
No, we hate what the US is doing and what the US stands for:consumerism.
and because we are nice,
BWAHAHAHAH! The ignorance.
every time you get your ass in a crack we will come running to help, no matter how many time you spit on us or tell us to fuck off.

Jay
You silly silly person, you. You really have no idea how politics work, do you?
 
What have YOU done, besides clutter up a game forum with anti-semetic, anti-US bullshit every chance you get? Poser...

Jay

Jay- trolling and flamebait is not allowed. Mind your manners or they will be minded for you.

Consider yourself warned.
 
That's the first time you've actually said that.

Oh?

I don't see why nations should hide behind resolutions to express dissatisfaction, or to implement measures that further their agendas.

If nations are going to express dissatisfaction over something, they should do so in the form of public outcry (which happened quite a bit) and formal statements from state governments.

I didn't explain my reasoning behind this before, I'm sorry. But that is essentially, what I mean.

Secondly, you're full of shit. Several countries DID express their discontent, most notably France Germany and Russia.

And that's why they got all this airtime on the news.

PLus, you know, it would've probably caused a lot of distress in international relations, and it would've meant spending a lot of money, it would also have meant that they could've gone to war with the USA. None of that is actually, you know, reasonable to request.

Of course it's reasonable. If France really wanted Iraq to start pricing oil in Euros they could have done it. And the United States isn't going to risk going to war with a Nuclear Power. It's practically inviting the apocalypse.

...
Again I say: I never claimed that the war was illegal. And "chances are that you'd think all war was illegal" is a completely useless sentence here.

Not you as in you, you as in one. God, just forget it.
 
I didn't explain my reasoning behind this before, I'm sorry. But that is essentially, what I mean.
It clarifies a lot, as you can probably imagine that what you say without the reasoning behind it can sound very weird.

And that's why they got all this airtime on the news.
Is this sarcasm or not? Because they did get a lot of airtime here.

Of course it's reasonable. If France really wanted Iraq to start pricing oil in Euros they could have done it. And the United States isn't going to risk going to war with a Nuclear Power. It's practically inviting the apocalypse.
At the same time France isn't going to risk war with the USA either. The Nuclear Power thing works both ways, and moreso for the USA, since the USA has a much more powerful army than France.
Asking counries to back up what they think is right with armies is not a good thing, the last thing people want is war.
Not you as in you, you as in one. God, just forget it.
Then use the proper words. :P
In any case, there's no use in saying those things to me because I don't believe in them. I know that that war was legal according to international law, period. I never claimed it was illegal (at least, not after I saw the resolution bit, which was a long time ago), and there really is no need to tell me that thinking it's illegal is silly. Go tell someone else that.
 
At the same time France isn't going to risk war with the USA either. The Nuclear Power thing works both ways, and moreso for the USA, since the USA has a much more powerful army than France.
Asking counries to back up what they think is right with armies is not a good thing, the last thing people want is war.

It would have been a pretty significant gamble. But if you ask me, it probably would have worked.

Is this sarcasm or not? Because they did get a lot of airtime here.

No. Not really. When Chirac or Schroeder say something about the war it usually gets noticed. Though, if things keep going the way they are in Germany he won't have much to say about it for long.
 
It would have been a pretty significant gamble. But if you ask me, it probably would have worked.
Possibly, but the French didn't think it was worth it, and neither would I, really.
No. Not really. When Chirac or Schroeder say something about the war it usually gets noticed. Though, if things keep going the way they are in Germany he won't have much to say about it for long.
True, but Schroeder's discontent was also the people's discontent, so he did nothing wrong in the Iraq business.
 
Back
Top