I feel naked.......

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by Baby-K
Some of these remarks are also provoked unwittingly (for instance the English language does not have a plural for "you" so I have noticed many a time that just that little thing causes a big frackas because people read it as a personal attack).

Hey, we Southerners have a plural form of "you" -- y'all. It's a contraction for "you all", meaning two or more people. See the full definition here.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Hey, we Southerners have a plural form of "you" -- y'all. It's a contraction for "you all", meaning two or more people. See the full definition here.

In addition to y'all (I hate that damn word by the way ) in that link Khamul provided it also lists this:

"In addition to y'all, other forms for plural you include you-uns, youse, and you guys or youse guys. Youse is common in vernacular varieties in the Northeast, particularly in large cities such as New York and Boston, and is also common in Irish English. You-uns is found in western Pennsylvania and in the Appalachians and probably reflects the Scotch-Irish roots of many European settlers to these regions. You guys and youse guys appear to be newer innovations than the other dialectal forms of plural you. See note at you-uns."

[wahine]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You weren't around last year during the summer when the REAL anti-Americanism had come out. Things had calmed down quite a bit because the admins had closed several threads. It got so bad that threads had to be postfixed with "(No America Bashing)" or similar statements. The things which went on in this last Iraq thread were tame.

I also agree with Gwaimir Windgem and Dúnedain - 65% of Americans support Bush's stand and support military action. A poll just came out also indicated that less than 50% of Americans have a favoriable opinion of the UN now.

The UN has never been required to conduct military action. Some how France has convinced the world that it is.

My view on the UN.

America and her *wonderful* citizens pay the vast majority of the UN's bills, and yet we are treated as the ugly step-sister.

UN can shove its bills, and eat radiation! *does a hill billy dance* YEE HAW! *my impression of other nations impressions of Americans.*

But seriously- We don't need UN approval. It is nice to have allies, but we don't need them either.

Especially the dammed frenchies.

And canadians-What is canadian bacon about anyway?

[Baby-K]

LIES! You know you are picturing it and loving it!!!

Ha! Not on yer life *out damned vision*

K, i hate to say it, but again here is what is wrong with statements on this board. You claim Bush is being obtuse, when in actuality you yourself were just obtuse. The reason I say this is you said he is ignoring comments "from his own as there are many Americans who are also opposing the war efforts." That is true, however it is a small minority in America. As of the most recent poll, 65% of Americans are for military action. Now how is he being obtuse?

Nope - read carefully, my statement was that he seems obtuse due to the image portrayed by the media. And no, you do not need the ok from other countries to defend your own, however you need the ok from other countries to declare war on another country. This is the reason the UN has a security council & that some of the members have veto rights, all member countries are supposed to accountable to each other (and thus to the world) on their actions.

Oh I thought of better names then that Baby-K but I didnt want to get slapped.

Don't lie - you know you wanna be slapped silly by me

I also agree with Gwaimir Windgem and Dúnedain - 65% of Americans support Bush's stand and support military action. A poll just came out also indicated that less than 50% of Americans have a favoriable opinion of the UN now.

Sure, but similarly more people across the world view the UN more favourably now due to it's stronger stance against the US's wishes. From my experience (and this is not US bashing - do not take it as such) the UN was widely regarded as a figure head for what was actually the US's wishes - it just always seemed that the US, being the strongest nation, was dictating terms to the rest of the world, using the UN as a guise. Now it looks as if the UN has decided to stand up against that - pity they decided to do that at such a crucial time...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Baby-K
Nope - read carefully, my statement was that he seems obtuse due to the image portrayed by the media. And no, you do not need the ok from other countries to defend your own, however you need the ok from other countries to declare war on another country. This is the reason the UN has a security council & that some of the members have veto rights, all member countries are supposed to accountable to each other (and thus to the world) on their actions.

Actually you're wrong. The UN has hardly ever been consulted for permission to attack a country before. The US was just trying to be nice this time. Technically - we didn't have to go there at all. We didn't go to them during Bosnia, Libya, Vietnam and many others.

Sure, but similarly more people across the world view the UN more favourably now due to it's stronger stance against the US's wishes. From my experience (and this is not US bashing - do not take it as such) the UN was widely regarded as a figure head for what was actually the US's wishes - it just always seemed that the US, being the strongest nation, was dictating terms to the rest of the world, using the UN as a guise. Now it looks as if the UN has decided to stand up against that - pity they decided to do that at such a crucial time...

Actually the UN didn't really stand up to us per se. It was more that they were just happy to let Hussein ignore UN resolutions and go about his business of building his chemical and biological weapons. We weren't. If we listened to the UN - the Balkins would still be a mess.

The thing is - France just destroyed any chance of the US ever going to the UN for anything again. We won't be going back for their opinion. We'll get enough people on our side and then go in to protect our interests. They can handle the nation building stuff - we'll handle the tough decisions and actually lead.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Baby-K
Sure, but similarly more people across the world view the UN more favourably now due to it's stronger stance against the US's wishes. From my experience (and this is not US bashing - do not take it as such) the UN was widely regarded as a figure head for what was actually the US's wishes - it just always seemed that the US, being the strongest nation, was dictating terms to the rest of the world, using the UN as a guise. Now it looks as if the UN has decided to stand up against that - pity they decided to do that at such a crucial time...

I don't think you can say the UN has stood up to the US, only France, Russia and Germany are, possibly China too. If France didn't say "We will veto war no matter what" then the Security council countries would have voted for the resolutions and use of force, but with that being said there really is no point. France thinks they will be running the UN and that they will be the head of Europe, I am sure Europeans will have no part of that...

I've said it time and time again. Frankly, the US doesn't really care what the UN Security Council votes if they ever do. The thing is they have no backing to what they are preaching. For instance, the French plan is to be diplomatic no matter what with never having the use of force as an option. Now what dictatorial regime would ever comply if there is no consequences outlying the scheme of things? Exactly, none, so the French plan makes no sense in such a situation. The only reason Iraq put on it's public display of supposedly complying was due to the armed and ready US & British forces sitting on the other side of the Iraqi border. Pressure like that is what made anything happen, unfortunately nothing came from it. Anyway, back to my point, basically the US didn't want to go into this without the backing of the UN, because they know that the UN is an already weak organization, because they only issue words backed by no action. Also, if the US went without UN approval it would just be showing the world how weak the UN really is, and we truly don't want that. The UN is good for stability in the worldy atmosphere and in certain areas of the world, however if the UN doesn't follow through with the words that they preach then it is inevitable anyway that the organization will fail. Now I am not saying they will, but if they pass certain resolutions and call for the use of force following said resolutions or what have you, then they cannot all of a sudden go back on the words they preached. That is what the UN has done, well certain countries in the UN I should say...

[jerseydevil]

Dúnedain - I agree. The thing is - France buried the UN. We're not going to waste diplomatic capital and try to go to the UN again. No need to. We didn't have to for this and we don't have to in the future. Less than 50% of Americans think the UN is a worthwhile organisation now. That's the lowest it's ever been.

[Baby-K]

This is quite frustrating - I am talking about perceptions - not hardcore facts. Our perceptions are formed by the assimilation of selected pieces of information to our preconceived world view. You have your opinions & I have mine, I don't think we sill be able to change each other's views, but I do appreciate the fact that we can have an intelligent (or at least semi intelligent) discussion. This is the problem with net comms - there will always be some sort of gap................

I've said it time and time again. Frankly, the US doesn't really care what the UN Security Council votes if they ever do

But Dúnedain, that seems careless - if the US doesn't care what the UN does, why should the rest of the world? Why have such a body at all? And then why should Saddam care what the US thinks?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Baby-K
But Dúnedain, that seems careless - if the US doesn't care what the UN does, why should the rest of the world? Why have such a body at all? And then why should Saddam care what the US thinks?

Well that's what the US has been wondering. All the things the Un was set up to do - they don't do. What action did the UN take with Bosnia? NOTHING - the us had to go in there. What did the UN do about Rwanda? NOTHING - and who gets blamed fof the millions who were slaughtered? The UN? Hell no - the US. Is the world screaming for the UN to handle North Korea??? NO - of course not - they want us to handle it. People around the world don't want us to be the world's policemen unless it suits them. Well some things suit us and somethings don't. We will make the decision on where are military goes - not the UN or France.

Also - hardcore FACTS are what matter. It's a fact that Hussein has not complied with any of the UN resolution. It's a fatc he was not complying with resolution 1441. It's a fact that 1441 stated that "severe consquences" would be the result for not "full and unconditional compliance". The resolution passed unanimously and all the UN ambassadors could read it. They just wanted UN inspections to go on forever until the world got bored and let Hussein go back about his business.

This whole affair was basically a power trip for Chirac - who even had a worse election than George Bush. The only reason he ended up being reelected was because the other guy was LePen.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Since we have a new thread on the topic of Iraq and the war, we need to post our views there and keep this thread on topic, the same as the "protest" thread, a bit hard to do since it concerns the same thing, but let's try to keep these threads seperate.