Home | Community | Message Board

Mushrooms.com
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineStrumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
    #1263216 - 01/30/03 09:19 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

OK then :smile:

whoops


--------------------
Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me.
In addition: SHPONGLE


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
    #1263230 - 01/30/03 09:24 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

So four highly placed UN officials, one actually running the oil for food programme are mistaken are they?

According to the UNICEF studies, yes they are.

You know more than they do?

I know enough to read the actual reports before shooting off my mouth, yes.

All the evidence and reports they have read lead them to believe 600,000 kids have died...

It is not my fault they can't read, or that they are unable to UNDERSTAND what they read.

That's pretty hard evidence to fake.

Misinterpreting evidence isn't the same as faking evidence.

No, the people who conducted the research concluded there were 5000 kids under five dying a month thanks to sanctions.

They did no such thing. I urge you once again to read the reports. Don't rely on someone's erroneous interpretations of the reports. Read them for yourself, then make up your mind. Haven't you proudly proclaimed to us your practice of doing just that?

pinky -- "Of course these people never bother to point out that if Saddam had followed the terms of the surrender agreement there would have been no sanctions."

Alex123 -- What world are you living in?

A world where people debating on a bulletin board are expected to have at least a rudimentary grasp of logic. If Hussein hadn't invaded Kuwait, there would have been no sanctions. If Hussein had withdrawn voluntarily from Kuwait rather than forcing the UN to kick him out, there would have been no sanctions. If Hussein had abided by the terms of the surrender agreement, there would have been no sanctions. Why do you have such difficulty grasping these glaringly obvious facts?

They are bombing goatherders walking alone through empty valleys.

Since when are goatherders "public amenities"?

No, you are profoundly incorrect as usual. Read my reply again.

I read your replies, Alex. Do you? Here is all that you have said about whether or not you believe Hussein should be punished for his actions:

"You have yet to inform me what punishment Bush is going to recieve."

"Saddam isn't going to be "punished" for christs sake. The people who are going to be punished are the innocent Iraqi people."

I repeat: So my conclusion was correct -- you believe Hussein deserves no punishment.

Sounds like you know you've lost the argument and have decided to do an evolving and keep repeating meaningless questions...

Meaningless questions? You mean questions you are afraid to answer. Why are you so afraid to answer two questions that have a direct bearing on the matter under discussion? They're not trick questions; they are not couched in biased rhetoric -- they are as neutral as is possible to make them:

1) Do you agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________

2) Do you agree with their decision to leave Hussein in power in 1991 rather than eliminating him when they had the chance?
Yes _______
No ________

...instead of making any rational attempt to address the issues.

And you are making no attempt to address the issues, rational or otherwise. Instead you are indulging (as usual) in the patented Alex123 dance of evasion.

Suffer? Make up your mind. You've stated he isn't suffering.

Sigh. You are so transparent. I said that in your opinion, "Hussein is not to suffer even (for him) the mild inconvenience of dealing with sanctions." You think the readers of this thread are too dim to understand the meaning of "mild inconvenience"? Show them some respect.

Nope, he isn't the guy blocking childrens medicines from entering Iraq.

According to the numbers shown in the UN report, he is unable to block the goods arriving in NORTHERN Iraq, true, but I'll wager it's not through lack of trying.

Hmmm... I was going to post the link to my most recent posting of the excerpt of the UNICEF study you haven't bothered to read yet, but the link renaming function seems not to be working at the moment. I'll do a separate repost of it instead.

You only partially answered one of the four questions I posed to you, ignoring the other three and a half. I had asked:

"If Hussein continues to ignore the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement should the UN continue to do nothing more than maintain economic sanctions and file more condemnatory resolutions?"

You replied that they should lift the sanctions. Does this mean that you believe they should take no further action other than filing yet more condemnatory resolutions? No, that can't be right, because you also stated "...clearly there are other ways of dealing with the problem." I must confess I am too dim to think of any other ways of dealing with the problem that do not involve the application of force. Here's your chance, Alex. Specifically what "other ways" of dealing with the problem do you advocate?

You ignored the other question: "If the UN supported this proposed military action the way they supported the Gulf War, would you be protesting as loudly? If not, why not?" I presume you ignored it only because you had overlooked it, not because you are afraid to answer it, so I thought I'd remind you of it now.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
    #1263248 - 01/30/03 09:31 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

There are many contributors to this forum who seem to accept as gospel the inflated numbers casually kicked around by opponents of the UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq. "Half a million Iraqi children have died as a direct result of sanctions." -- "What about the 600,000 dead Iraqi children?" -- etc.

This is now the fifth time I have posted the following in this forum, but some of the newer members may not have seen it yet:

As UNICEF itself is scrupulously careful to point out in UNICEF: Questions and Answers for the Iraq child mortality surveys - BAGHDAD, 16 August 1999 (UNICEF) Survey Methodology/credibility --

"These surveys were never intended to provide an absolute figure of how many children have died in Iraq as a result of sanctions. Given the difficulty of accurately and specifically attributing the cause of death of a child to sanctions, any such figure that may be derived would certainly be questionable."

UNICEF also said in the same report:

"A dramatic increase in bottle-feeding of infants has occurred in Iraq. Given the contribution of bottle-feeding to higher levels of malnutrition and child mortality, UNICEF is urging the Government to remove breastmilk substitutes from the rations and replace them with additional food for pregnant and lactating women. UNICEF has also called on the Government to promote exclusive breastfeeding of infants as a national policy."

What is the connection between Iraqi women following the worldwide trend of moving towards a more modern (albeit arguably less nutritious) method of child-rearing (bottle-feeding vs. breast-feeding) and the imposition of the United Nations sanctions? The only connection I can think of is that infant bottle-feeding formula is one of the aid items being provided to Iraq's populace. Could it be possible that the sanctions have nothing to do with the situation at all -- that all of the increase in infant mortality is instead due to the "dramatic increase in bottle-feeding"? For the record, I personally don't believe it is entirely due to bottle-feeding, but as UNICEF themselves say, it is difficult to specifically attribute the death of a child to any single cause. Certainly UNICEF feels bottle-feeding is a serious enough factor in the increase in Iraq's infant mortality to emphasize in no uncertain terms their opposition to it.

Here's some more from the report:

"In the autonomous northern region, under-5 mortality rose from 80 deaths per 1000 live births in the period 1984-1989 to 90 deaths per 1000 live births during the years 1989-1994. The under-5 rate fell to 72 deaths per 1000 live births between 1994 and 1999. Infant mortality rates followed a similar pattern."

Now isn't that interesting! In the northern region of Iraq, where Hussein's control is weakest, the latest available mortality rates are actually 10% lower than they were ten years earlier, before sanctions were imposed. What is the only possible conclusion we can draw from this? Why, it must be that the sanctions are actually SAVING CHILDREN'S LIVES!!!!! *sarcasm*

Seriously, though, what is the most likely explanation for this documented drop? Someone with less belief than I in Hussein's oft-demonstrated concern for his fellow man might speculate that in the autonomous north the humanitarian supplies are actually making it to those who need it, rather than being hijacked by Hussein's thugs to be resold at a profit through the black market.

Sound bites and carefully selected snippets are worse than useless when it comes to statistical analyses. The methodology of the surveys must be considered, and all factors looked at, not just the ones which appear to support your personal agenda. Those who conducted the studies are well aware of this and took the trouble to warn specifically against such abuse of their work -- it is unfortunate that those seeking to foist their own version of reality on a trusting public have deliberately ignored such warnings.

Besides, all of this is moot, because it is all Saddam's fault anyway. Have the sanctions made life more difficult for the Iraqi poor? Yep. Would the sanctions have been imposed if Iraq had not invaded Kuwait? Nope.

pinky


--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (01/30/03 09:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Strumpling]
    #1263261 - 01/30/03 09:35 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

No problem.

What I find baffling about the situation is the astounding naivete the UN exhibited in taking Hussein at his word that he would actually destroy his weapons. How dumb is that?

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinemntlfngrs
The Art of Casterbation
Male User Gallery

Registered: 07/18/02
Posts: 3,937
Last seen: 3 years, 1 month
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
    #1263584 - 01/30/03 11:29 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

You really have no idea. They are bombing goatherders walking alone through empty valleys. Bombing missions arn't always like you see on the tv i'm afraid. Don't believe everything you are told.

The same should go for you. You think that because 1 of 100 missions goes wrong and the media jump on it that that is the norm. No other country in the world could wage a war with so few civillian casualties. We are the ones who have invested countless billions of dollars to develop technology to avoid civillian casualties.


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Strumpling]
    #1263744 - 01/31/03 12:37 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

There will be McDonald's in Iraq within 10 years.

Best damn news I've heard in a coon's age.  It's about time those people get something good to eat!

I just luv their fries. :smile:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
    #1264345 - 01/31/03 06:25 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

It is not my fault they can't read, or that they are unable to UNDERSTAND what they read.

I don't know how old you are pinkie but people don't tend to give up highly paid jobs for spurious reasons. I've certainly never known it. It usually takes an awful lot of convincing to get someone to give up a highly paid, high status job. Dennis Halliday isn't an idiot. He knows what's going on. And he was so disgusted he had to resign. As did 3 other UN officials for the same reason. You really expect us to believe they are all mistaken?

Don't rely on someone's erroneous interpretations of the reports.

Sorry man, but my experience of life has tended to show that people don't abandon highly paid jobs for no reason. Dennis Halliday was in a far better position to know what was going on in Iraq than me or you. Your knowledge extends to doing a 2 minute google search. Halliday has been working on the ground for years. I'm more inclined to trust Halliday.

If Hussein hadn't invaded Kuwait, there would have been no sanctions.

You've yet to address why Israel wern't kicked out of the west bank. It's no use having one rule for one country and one for another - what has that to do with justice?

Since when are goatherders "public amenities"?

If they're bombing goatherders they arn't going to worry too much about what their other bombing missions hit. Understand? It's not like they're sat in the planes terrified of hitting public amenities. That's perfectly clear.

"Saddam isn't going to be "punished" for christs sake. The people who are going to be punished are the innocent Iraqi people.

I repeat: So my conclusion was correct -- you believe Hussein deserves no punishment.
"


Nope, not even close. Read my response again and try and understand.

Explain to me how bombing Iraqi civilians is going to "punish Saddam".

Meaningless questions?

Yep.

Don't bury your head in the sand. Address why Israel hasn't been invaded after the UN resolutions were passed ordering it to stop the invasion.

According to the numbers shown in the UN report, he is unable to block the goods arriving in NORTHERN Iraq, true, but I'll wager it's not through lack of trying.

Actually the documentary I saw showed childrens medicines being smuggled into Basra. The greatest threat facing the western charities doing the smuggling was the americans not the iraqi's.

You'll wager? Based on what evidence? Or is this just something else you've made up? Do you have any evidence of Saddam confiscating childrens medicines?

I must confess I am too dim to think of any other ways of dealing with the problem that do not involve the application of force.

Look to Israel. How have we dealt with their flouting of UN resolutions for the last 3 decades?

If the UN supported this proposed military action the way they supported the Gulf War

Seeing as the US has such a stranglehold over the UN you have to very carefully consider what's going on. The UN has condemed Israel in dozens of resolutions, none have ever been acted on. Why?






--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
    #1265843 - 01/31/03 02:25 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

Your knowledge extends to doing a 2 minute google search.

And the knowledge of those who actually conducted the studies took many person-years of work and thousands of interviews. Your knowledge, however, took less than 2 minutes. You still haven't even bothered to read the studies.

Halliday has been working on the ground for years. I'm more inclined to trust Halliday.

I have no doubt that Halliday felt the sanctions are harming Iraqi citizens, and that he was so distressed by this that he chose to resign his position. I don't criticize him for resigning from a position in order to send a message that the sanctions were not the way to get Hussein to behave -- I (and many, MANY others) said at the time the sanctions were imposed that they would not bother Hussein one little bit.

What I do say is that the only people in a position to give an actual number of the deaths attributable to sanctions refuse to do so, for the very reasons they outline -- it is impossible to do so. The 600,000 figure is a myth. Not even Halliday uses that figure.

You've yet to address why Israel wern't kicked out of the west bank.

Look to Israel. How have we dealt with their flouting of UN resolutions for the last 3 decades?

The UN has condemed Israel in dozens of resolutions, none have ever been acted on.

So no action is ever to be taken against anyone before all unacted upon UN resolutions have been acted upon? Any dictator can do whatever he chooses with no fear of retaliation because Israel (and many other nations) has ignored UN resolutions?

It's not like they're sat in the planes terrified of hitting public amenities. That's perfectly clear.

They may not shed tears if it happens, but it isn't happening. That's perfectly clear.

Nope, not even close. Read my response again and try and understand.

I have read your responses. Have you? You have said that Hussein is not being punished by sanctions, so the sanctions should be lifted. You then say that some unspecified "other ways" should be used to solve "the problem". You imply that Bush should be punished, and Israel, but on Hussein you are strangely silent. Nowhere have you said that you believe Hussein deserves to suffer even a little bit for his actions. Come, come, Alex -- you usually miss no perceived opportunity to make your opponent look dim -- why are you not elaborating in great detail the glaring obviousness of your suggested punishment for Hussein which is so cleverly buried in your statements that I am just too dim to miss? I have once again carefully re-read all your posts, and this is all I have been able to find:

"You have yet to inform me what punishment Bush is going to recieve."
"Saddam isn't going to be "punished" for christs sake. The people who are going to be punished are the innocent Iraqi people."

Maybe another reader can help me out here -- can anyone tell me from reading these statements whether Alex even thinks Hussein should be punished at all? If so, what punishment is Alex advocating so subtly that I am missing it completely?

Do you have any evidence of Saddam confiscating childrens medicines?

No evidence, only a statistical correlation -- the infant mortality rate in Northern Iraq (where the aid is actually being delivered to the populace) has dropped 10% since sanctions were imposed and the humanitarian aid programs to offset the effect of those sanctions on the populace were begun. Is this hard evidence of humanitarian aid being diverted in Southern Iraq? Nope. Would a reasonable person reject that as a possible interpretation of the differing child mortality rates? Nope. Do you have an alternate explanation for the numbers?

You continue to ignore not just the UNICEF report, but also my previous questions. Why are you so afraid to answer the questions? What is it about actually stating your opinion that terrifies you? How much longer will you continue to evade and switch topics in the hopes the readers won't notice your evasion?

1) Do you agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________

2) Do you agree with their decision to leave Hussein in power in 1991 rather than eliminating him when they had the chance?
Yes _______
No ________

3) If Hussein continues to ignore the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement should the UN continue to do nothing more than file more condemnatory resolutions?
Yes _______
No________

3 a) If you answered "no", what actions (if any) should the UN take instead of filing more resolutions?
i) _____________________________
ii) ____________________________
iii)____________________________

4) If the UN supported this proposed military action the way they supported the Gulf War, would you still oppose miltary intervention in Iraq?
Yes________
No_________


pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
    #1266823 - 01/31/03 09:45 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

The 600,000 figure is a myth. Not even Halliday uses that figure.

You're right. Halliday thinks it's an underestimate:

Denis Halliday, head of UN humanitarian operations in Iraq, resigned his post effective last week. He announced his intention to resign last July, citing personal opposition to the economic blockade. Halliday managed the oil for food program for 13 months and prior to that had been with the UN for 30 years.

On October 6 he told a briefing in Washington, DC that UN estimates of 5,000 to 6,000 Iraqi children dying every month were "probably modest." "The death of one Iraqi child attributable to economic sanctions is one death too many. Unfortunately, we are faced with thousands," Halliday said. "It is unnecessary and unacceptable to allow this human tragedy to continue."

In earlier comments to the Reuters news agency Halliday called sanctions "a totally bankrupt concept." He said the trade embargo violated the UN charter and UN conventions on human rights. "There is an awful incompatibility here, which I can't quite deal with myself. I just note that I feel extremely uncomfortable flying the UN flag, being part of the UN system here," he said.

Halliday noted the "4,000 to 5,000 children dying unnecessarily every month due to the impact of sanctions, because of the breakdown of water and sanitation, inadequate diet and the bad internal health situation." He said the sanctions were impacting Iraqi society in many ways. Effects include the breakdown of family life, an increase in crime and the number of street children.

Using Hallidays "probably modest" figure of 5000 a month, we are well over 700,000 now not 600,000. Thanks for correcting me.

So no action is ever to be taken against anyone before all unacted upon UN resolutions have been acted upon?

What price justice? Do we jail all murderers unless you happen to know and like the murderer? Is that justice? Or a mockery of justice?

They may not shed tears if it happens, but it isn't happening.

Looks like the amenties can't even be rebuilt to bomb again thanks to the sanctions:

"In fact, Mr Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General had in October last year sent a letter to the Security Council indirectly criticizing the US for holding up approval of hundreds of contracts for humanitarian goods under the Oil-for-Food programme.

This means many basic items such as chlorine which is essential for water purification, are banned because of their alleged potential use in chemical weapons production. Such policies have made many other vital infrastructures providing amenities such as waste and sewerage treatment, electricity, food and oil production impossible to be rebuilt and/or repaired. "

You imply that Bush should be punished, and Israel, but on Hussein you are strangely silent.

You have been saying that because Saddam may theoretically be in breach of UN resolutions he should be "punished". You have ignored the fact that both the US and Israel have breached UN resolutions for the last 30 years and recieved no "punishment" yet. You are strangely quiet on my repeated question "Why".

You have yet to suggest how Saddam is going to be "punished". I have explained to you that sending 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad is going to punish the Iraqi people more than Saddam (who will be probably be nowhere near Baghdad). This is so simple a child could grasp it. Clearly you are having trouble.

but also my previous questions

No, I answered them the first time you asked them. Repeating them in the hope I will reply in the way you want displays your childishness in extreme clarity.

And if you think such questions can be answered with a childish Yes or No you need to apply to the George Bush admin for a job as a spokesman. You'd fit in well.

Again, I ask you why has Israel not been attacked when it has been in clear breach of UN resolutions for 30 years?



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
    #1266948 - 01/31/03 10:31 PM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

You're right. Halliday thinks it's an underestimate:

No, Alex -- he thought it was an underestimate. Once again you demonstrate your apparent inability to grasp the linguistic concepts of "past tense" and "present tense". Halliday resigned his position in early October of 1998, as the article you quoted states quite clearly. The UNICEF report I quoted was released in mid August of 1999 -- ten months later. Do you have any statements from him more recent than his resignation speech that show he is still throwing around the bogus 600,000 figure? Didn't think so.

Get the picture, Alex?

Do we jail all murderers unless you happen to know and like the murderer?

Nice try, but what you have actually been saying all along is that we mustn't jail any murderers until all other murderers have first been jailed.

"This means many basic items such as chlorine which is essential for water purification, are banned because of their alleged potential use in chemical weapons production."

So chlorine has to be made in Iraq rather than imported. What's the problem?

You have been saying that because Saddam may theoretically be in breach of UN resolutions he should be "punished".

No, I am saying because he embarked upon a war of conquest he must be punished. For some bizarre reason, the UN decided that he personally was to suffer no more than the indignity of having to abide by the terms of the astoundingly lenient surrender agreement. He was not required to step down from power, he was not required to call for a democratic election. All he had to do was fulfill his part of the deal. He hasn't.

You have ignored the fact that both the US and Israel have breached UN resolutions for the last 30 years and recieved no "punishment" yet.

In case you haven't noticed, Alex, the topic of THIS thread is Iraq, not Israel. If you want to ask that question in one of the many dozens of threads in this forum condemning Israel's actions, go ahead. This is one time you are not going to get away with de-railing a thread by dancing and dodging.

I note that you still refuse to give us your opinion on whether or not Hussein should be punished. Any reasonable person would presume this is because you believe he should NOT be punished, but are too afraid to say so. I am not surprised you believe he should get off scott-free. After all, he is not an American or an Israeli.

No, I answered them the first time you asked them.

No, Alex, you didn't. You didn't answer the first two when I asked them several times in October in the thread titled "Neville's Folly", and you aren't answering them today. We all know that if you had ever answered them, you would immediately have pointed out the thread where you had done so in the hopes of making me appear mistaken. You would never let an opportunity like that slide by. And of course the two I first posed in this thread remain unanswered -- that is apparent to anyone reading the thread. Here's your chance to answer them now:

1) Do you agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________

2) Do you agree with their decision to leave Hussein in power in 1991 rather than eliminating him when they had the chance?
Yes _______
No ________

3) If Hussein continues to ignore the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement should the UN continue to do nothing more than file more condemnatory resolutions?
Yes _______
No________

3 a) If you answered "no", what actions (if any) should the UN take instead of filing more resolutions?
i) _____________________________
ii) ____________________________
iii)____________________________

4) If the UN supported this proposed military action the way they supported the Gulf War, would you still oppose miltary intervention in Iraq?
Yes________
No_________

And if you think such questions can be answered with a childish Yes or No you need to apply to the George Bush admin for a job as a spokesman.

*scratches head* Gee, Alex, I have reviewed those questions a dozen times and I fail to see how they can't be answered with a simple yes or no.

Repeating them in the hope I will reply in the way you want displays your childishness in extreme clarity.

Once you have said, "No, I don't agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991," you are of course perfectly free to explain why you don't agree. I would expect nothing less. You are of course also free to continue ignoring them completely, hence demonstrating your childishness even more thoroughly than you have already. Your choice.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
    #1267158 - 02/01/03 03:46 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

still throwing around the bogus 600,000 figure?

700,000.

I certainly havn't heard him say he's changed his mind. Have you?

but what you have actually been saying all along is that we mustn't jail any murderers until all other murderers

No. But you cannot be selective about which you jail. Breaching UN resolutions is either a crime worthy of punishment or it isn't. There is no way round this pinkie.

So chlorine has to be made in Iraq rather than imported. What's the problem?

LOL. Don't be idiotic. Have you read a newspaper lately? If Iraq even attempted to make chlorine Bush would bomb them for "making weapons of mass destruction".

No, I am saying because he embarked upon a war of conquest he must be punished.

Israel? Why do you keep ducking Israel?

He was not required to step down from power

I think you'll find Bush Senior had no interest in Saddam stepping down from power. Which is why the americans turned a blind eye when he abused the no fly zone and slaughtered the shi'ites under their very nose.

In case you haven't noticed, Alex, the topic of THIS thread is Iraq, not Israel.

In other words you have no answer. Israel has committed exactly the same offence as Iraq and recieved no punishment. This isn't a minor point pinkie - it's the key to the whole issue.

Any reasonable person would presume this is because you believe he should NOT be punished

For the fifth time, explain precisely how bombing Baghdad and killing thousands of innocents will "punish" Saddam? Don't duck this question again.

Gee, Alex, I have reviewed those questions a dozen times and I fail to see how they can't be answered with a simple yes or no.

Sadly, i think your understanding of the issues really is this limited. Tragic.

No, I don't agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991

Once again explain why Israel can invade the west bank, be condemed in resolution after resolution and still recieve massive support from the US. Then explain why this is ignored while Iraq is slaughtered. Think about it.



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
    #1267170 - 02/01/03 03:58 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Maybe another reader can help me out here



Sorry but trying to show Alpo a point is like trying to show a blind man what he looks like in a mirror.

Trying to get him to answer a direct question has the same results as beating your own head against a concrete wall.... all you get is a headache.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1267176 - 02/01/03 04:04 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Nice to see you back looney.

Still nothing to say on topic I see  :wink:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSnuffelzFurever
Psychonaut

Registered: 09/17/02
Posts: 734
Loc: Miami, florida
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: zeronio]
    #1267180 - 02/01/03 04:07 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Quote:

Proove that he has disarmed.




It's funny that nobody finds nothing wrong with that. Since when do you have to prove to be innocent?




um, when you've waged wars and killed people and fuck shit up for everybody... i think that might have something to do with it. but i dunno. i mean, call me crazy, but somebody who praises airplane crashes into tall buildings to kill a couple thousand people doesnt just become peaceloving and treehugging... unless he did acid

wait a sec... thats the answer! fuck assasination! poison his water with acid! take it a step further! and put some psicocybin, weird maois, dmt, and let him drink that shit up unknowing of what will happen. while we're at it, try that on me?

now, dont go around sayin that I love Bush, cuz the only thing I love about him is the fact that he cant be president forever. Everyone is handling this situation all wrong tho. From the anti-war people to the blood-thirsty crackfiending republicans, you just gotta stop wanting shit for yourself. You gotta sacrifice your own beliefs sometimes, to save the lives of others. Which means sacrifice your bullshit protestingiscoolsoimgonna protest attitude and pull Saddam outta there. He isnt good for anybody. Taking him out of power would make a whole lot of people happy. No need for war. Just go up to him, deck him in the face, and jizz in his mouth. Take a picture, show the entire world, have a good laugh, and smoke some pot.

This was probably one of the worst posts I've ever made. It has no real point, I think. It doesnt state my position on the war, really. It just kinda says "I like to babble."

That's it for now :-)


--------------------
"I think it's time we stop
Children, What's the sound,
Everybody look what's going down"


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
    #1267183 - 02/01/03 04:12 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Never left Alpo, just been watching you show what an ignorant buffoon you are.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
    #1267195 - 02/01/03 04:34 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

I certainly havn't heard him say he's changed his mind. Have you?

Perhaps after reading the UNICEF report he was too embarassed to ever speak of it again. Have you any statements from him that were published after August 1999?

Breaching UN resolutions is either a crime worthy of punishment or it isn't.

As you are well aware, I hold no faith in UN resolutions, nor have I ever claimed that Iraq may rightfully be forced to comply with any UN resolutions (unless of course it is a resolution demanding that Iraq abide by the terms of the 1991 surrender... a redundant resolution, obviously). Hussein is to be punished for violating the terms of the surrender agreement. That's the way it has been throughout history, UN or no UN. You start a war and lose it, you have to eat crow.

If Iraq even attempted to make chlorine Bush would bomb them for "making weapons of mass destruction".

Incorrect. First of all, he would have no way of knowing whether they were making it or not. Secondly, if he hasn't bothered to bomb Hussein's other chemical plants, he isn't going to bomb a bleach factory.

Why do you keep ducking Israel?

Because this thread is about Iraq. If you want my comments on Israel, open a new thread, or bump an old one -- heaven knows there's enough of them. This is one time that I will not allow you to derail a thread. Confine your comments to the topic at hand or shut your gob.

Don't duck this question again.

That's not how it works, Alex. I asked my questions first. If you ever summon up the courage to answer them I'll answer yours -- presuming I'm not dead of old age by then.

Sadly, i think your understanding of the issues really is this limited. Tragic.

What's "tragic" is your terror at actually having to state an opinion. What's "tragic" is that this time the questions are worded so unambiguously that you have absolutely no wiggle room.

Last chance, Alex -- put up or shut up:

1) Do you agree with the UN decision to expel from Kuwait by force the Iraqi occupation army in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________

2) Do you agree with their decision to leave Hussein in power in 1991 rather than eliminating him when they had the chance?
Yes _______
No ________

3) If Hussein continues to ignore the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement should the UN continue to do nothing more than file more condemnatory resolutions?
Yes _______
No________

3 a) If you answered "no", what actions (if any) should the UN take instead of filing more resolutions?
i) _____________________________
ii) ____________________________
iii)____________________________

4) If the UN supported this proposed military action the way they supported the Gulf War, would you still oppose miltary intervention in Iraq?
Yes________
No_________

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Xlea321]
    #1267202 - 02/01/03 04:46 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Come on Alpo, answer the questions.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEvolving
Resident Cynic

Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
    #1267248 - 02/01/03 06:05 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

You really don't expect Alex to answer do you? That would be like expecting a rock to swim.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Evolving]
    #1267421 - 02/01/03 08:42 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

It's good to dream.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: What would it take to convince someone [Re: Phred]
    #1267445 - 02/01/03 08:56 AM (18 years, 8 months ago)

Have you any statements from him that were published after August 1999?

We have ongoing collective punishment of the Iraqi people, similar to the collective punishment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. These two situations are in blatant breach of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols written to protect civilians in time of warfare. What is happening in Palestine and in Iraq under sanctions is warfare. Sanctions are intended to target civilians the innocent so that the people will somehow revolt and overthrow a regime, the
decision makers that the UN wants to punish. In the case of Iraq, as we all know, the sanctions of twelve years are built on US war crimes leading to extensive civilian infrastructure damage committed during the Gulf War when the UN provided cover for the American military.

We have illegal bombing of most of Iraq by the US and Britain. There is no UN Resolution to support this aggression undertaken in blatant neglect of Iraqi sovereignty. And we have UN Resolution 1441 about
Weapons of Mass Destruction - no it's really about oil, and US control thereof. It is a game, a charade, a form of theatre. It's about war on Iraq, about oil and about providing UN respectability for Bush to have his unilateral war.

Dennis Halliday - December 19 2002.

Doesn't sound like he's embarrassed to me pink.

Hussein is to be punished for violating the terms of the surrender agreement.

You sure seem impressed by "surrender agreements". I've never been too impressed by them myself. Do you think the "surrender agreements" the Nazi's placed on the countries they conquered should have been abided by?

Incorrect. First of all, he would have no way of knowing whether they were making it or not.

Excuse me, but we've had inspectors in there until 1998, they're back in now. When precisely do you think he had time to rebuild the water amenties?

Secondly, if he hasn't bothered to bomb Hussein's other chemical plants, he isn't going to bomb a bleach factory.

Have you heard of Chlorine gas? It's a famous "weapon of mass destruction". Do you really believe Dubya would allow Iraq to make chlorine without invading? If he won't even allow them to import it? What world are you living in son?

Because this thread is about Iraq.

No, it's about what the international response should be to countries accused of breaking UN resolutions. George Bush has accused Iraq of breaching UN resolutions therefore it should be invaded. He has not done the same to Israel. For the sixth time answer me why.

That's not how it works, Alex

Well you're certainly doing some ducking and diving!

What's "tragic" is your terror at actually having to state an opinion.

No, the tragedy lies in being so utterly moronic you can only comprehend the situation in terms of "Yes" or "No". It's too childlike to be taken with anything but amusment.

Last chance, Alex

*yawn*  :smirk:







--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist wingnutx 1,027 2 01/29/14 06:52 AM
by theindianrepublic
* 500,000 iraqi children dead because of US sanctions. Albright: "The Price Is Worth It"...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
exclusive58 8,877 79 11/09/05 07:42 AM
by GazzBut
* Obama Tried to Delay Withdrawal Agreement of U.S. Troops
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 3,316 28 10/10/08 11:00 AM
by lonestar2004
* Do you think sanctions work? SirTripAlot 1,696 11 01/13/07 01:38 AM
by astralplaynes
* U.S. Announces Sanctions Against Iran
Too Vanilla
506 1 10/25/07 04:44 PM
by Too Vanilla
* N.Korea: Japan Sanctions Would Be War Declaration Great_Satan 855 5 12/18/04 02:26 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* Halliburton Ignores Sanctions Zahid 406 0 07/23/04 07:11 AM
by Zahid
* Iraq sanctions luvdemshrooms 646 8 08/06/04 06:35 PM
by JesusChrist

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,778 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.04 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 17 queries.