Originally Posted by IamAlejo

I'd say any war that involves the US, as of now each and every country in the world has interests in the matter. So...no.

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Because the US sat around and waited for the UN to give clearance. Honestly, the US gives the UN...what, like 75% of the money. So when we ask for UN backing on something and they don't give it, or sit on their ass about it, it doesn't go over to well. That's why the US just said no sir and decided to get things under way. And as of countries against it....well, most people have a strong idea why countries such as Russia were so strong against the war..

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

NATO was created as a defensive mechanism to communism and the Warsaw Pact. Neither of those are a threat anymore, which makes NATO not needed.

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

US = not UN

the UN is not binding. Nor should one nation decided on a national platform based on the wills of other nations.


I think it's wonderful how people point out all the things we aren't doing right now (as in action in other countries). Because if we were doing them than they would scream at us for being imperialist.

Originally Posted by adidasss

that's why i'm saying that the UN needs to be dismanteled, why hold up the pretence that you are making joint decisions when that's not happening, the UN should become a humanitarian organisation aimed at helping the poor, doing something about the AIDS situation in africa and help countries that have gone through a catastrophy like the tsunami....


you don't think we need an organisation that will be ready to act in situations such as coos in west africa and darfur in sudan? and kosovo?you're right , we should just let america solve everything her own way.....

Originally Posted by adidasss

i meant we are not involved....

Originally Posted by adidasss

look, the fact remains, regardless of Iraqs actions in the past, when they invaded Kuwait and launched misles(sp?) at Israel, that now, they did absolutely nothing to nobody and still got invaded under a pretence that they have weapons of mass destruction, you're being very clever at avoiding THAT fact, that THAT was the main reason for the invasion and it turned out that Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction, sure, they own biological weapons that are illegal but why hasn't anyone intervened when they used them in the war against Iran? and the US want to war because of a thread to it's safety? i haven't heard that Iraq owns weapons that can reach the US...there was no imediate threat and the war was pointless....

Originally Posted by adidasss

you don't think we need an organisation that will be ready to act in situations such as coos in west africa and darfur in sudan? and kosovo?you're right , we should just let america solve everything her own way.....

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

NATO has surpassed its purpose. As I said, it was created as a defense mechanism against the WARSAW pact. As of now, most of the countries that were a part of the Warsaw pact have joined NATO. There's no point to it.

Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks

^ i see no colonies. Nor any exploitation of nation resources. Nor America supplanting the fledgeling Iraqi government.

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

That doesn't mean that the war does not effect you.