|
 Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
|
i find it funny that that when i state something the libbies jumped all over me for not sourcing it and to the extent that they hounded me. Well i posted a link like they requested..yadda yadda yadda.... Alpo has a severe problem with anybody or anything that challenges his convictions. I think it's fair to say that when someone says 30 million russians died in WW2 (when everything that i read was in the vicinity of about 12 to 15 million tops)it's only appropriate to list a source or at least say where you heard or saw it. Anytime someone states a stat like 75% of the earth was controled by the british empire, it is not only fair to ask for it but it should be included.
....oh and Alpo's magic number is 15,000 feet 
--------------------
America....FUCK YEAH!!!
Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
 Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 22 days
|
|
Seriously Alex, you can do better. Do some research, there are valid arguments out there.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
Anonymous
|
 Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!!  [Re: Innvertigo]
#1324600 - 02/21/03 09:58 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
There was a WWII movie made a while back - it showed a classroom and the teacher asked how much of the land England controlled, the answer being 3/4. I'm guessing this is Alex's source. Of course, the movie might have been Monty Python.
Edit: That is a reply to a post waaaaaaaaay back. I didn't notice I was on page one.
Edited by stonedfish (02/21/03 09:59 AM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Xlea321]
#1324613 - 02/21/03 10:03 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'll post them again in case you missed pinkys post....
1) Do you agree with the UN decision to expel the Iraqi occupation army from Kuwait by force in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________
Additional comments ____________________________________
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 ________
Additional comments ______________________________________
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 other actions should the UN take instead of or in addition to filing more resolutions?
i) _____________________________
ii) ____________________________
iii)____________________________
4) If the UN supports this proposed military action the way they supported the Gulf War, would you still oppose military intervention in Iraq?
Yes________
No_________
Additional comments ________________________
5) Rank the following possibilities to the resolution of the Iraq situation from best option (1) to second best (2), to third best (3), etc. Feel free to add as many more options of your own as you wish, including them (of course) in the ranking.
( ) -- Hussein resigns voluntarily, free democratic elections in Iraq are held
( ) -- Hussein is overthrown (or assassinated) by internal Iraqi agents, free elections in Iraq are held
( ) -- Hussein fulfills all the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement, and continues as Ultimate Leader of Iraq
( ) -- Hussein is captured (or assassinated) by a "SWAT team" of agents of a foreign power, free elections in Iraq are held
( ) -- Hussein is captured or killed by a UN-backed military invasion of Iraq, free elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- Hussein is captured or killed by a military invasion of Iraq that has no UN approval, free elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and arranges loans large enough to rebuild Iraq on the condition that Iraq fulfills all the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement, with the additional proviso that Hussein resign and free democratic elections in Iraq are held
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and arranges loans large enough to rebuild Iraq on the condition that Iraq fulfills all the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement, Hussein remains in power
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and arranges loans large enough to rebuild Iraq, Hussein remains in power
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and no one takes any further action apart from filing resolutions condemning Iraq, Hussein remains in power
( ) -- Alex123 proposal A
( ) -- Alex123 proposal B
( ) -- Alex123 proposal C
------------------------------------
Come on man, show some balls and answer.
--------------------
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
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Innvertigo]
#1324619 - 02/21/03 10:05 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
....oh and Alpo's magic number is 15,000 feet
Thanks! How could I have forgotten after he said it again and again.
--------------------
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
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Anonymous]
#1324672 - 02/21/03 10:39 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
i've always learned 1/4 (and we had the map to prove it). I also saw a special on the civilization channel that stated that the British empire consisted of approx 25% of the earths area. i have no problem believing that at all.
Quote:
Of course, the movie might have been Monty Python
it has to be true because that is my favorite comedy.
--------------------
America....FUCK YEAH!!!
Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
Skikid16
fungus fan
Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 19 years, 14 days
|
|
Luv, do you think just cause you and Alex tied for most entertaining you are gonna get him to answer those? I've tried before, but no matter what he doesn't seem to want to answer them. Hey, maybe if we all answer the questions, we'll start a trend and he'll answer them as well.
I'll go first
1) Yes
2) No
3) No, not if the UN wants to maintain any image of a legitamite organization.
3) a- inspectors should be increased in numbers, humanitarian aid should be directly distributed to the Iraqi by UN peace keepers, if all else fails, military force should be applied.
4) If all other options have been exhausted then no, I would not oppose military intervention
5)
1. Hussein resigns voluntarily, free democratic elections in Iraq are held
2. Hussein is overthrown (or assassinated) by internal Iraqi agents, free elections in Iraq are held
3. Hussein is captured or killed by a UN-backed military invasion of Iraq, free elections in Iraq are held.
I've tried to answer the above questions to the best of my knowlegde.
--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04
Edited by Skikid16 (02/21/03 04:34 PM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Phred]
#1325484 - 02/21/03 07:37 PM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
No, Alex, unlike you, I provide answers
Just not in this thread eh?
Or any other come to think of it...
pinky: Because that was their struggle; the sole reason for existence, for many of them
Once again, and I'm getting tired of repeating this:
THE AMERICANS WERE COMMITTED TO REMOVING THE TALIBAN. THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE DID NOT HAVE TO FIGHT AND DIE. WHY DID THE WARLORDS DO THE AMERICANS FIGHTING FOR THEM.
Not only that, but they felt that the American forces were going about it the wrong way, wasting their efforts on suspected Al-Qaeda strongholds rather than heading straight for Kabul.
Well this is your first attempt at answering the question. Had a couple of days to think about it i presume. Nope, this won't do either. The americans had committed to removing the taliban. The Northern Alliance could have sat up in the hills, not wasted any money or lost any lives and waited for Karzai to be installed. They chose not to. WHY?
They did the fighting on behalf of themselves.
I've told you three times that this is nonsense. How many times before it sinks in?
THE AMERICANS WERE COMMITTED TO REMOVING THE TALIBAN. THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE DID NOT HAVE TO FIGHT AND DIE. WHY DID THE WARLORDS DO THE AMERICANS FIGHTING FOR THEM.
Calling it "America's" ground war is a misrepresentation of what happened.
My god, where do you get this insanity from? So why did the american ask the Northern alliance to do their ground fighting for them?
The primary objective of the UN forces was to capture or kill Al-Qaeda members, not to eliminate the Taliban officials holed up in cities.
No, removing the taliban was a primary objective. Anyone who doesn't know this is utterly clueless.
The primary objective of the Afghani forces was to eliminate the Taliban. .
Which the americans would have done anyway. Once again:
THE AMERICANS WERE COMMITTED TO REMOVING THE TALIBAN. THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE DID NOT HAVE TO FIGHT AND DIE. WHY DID THE WARLORDS DO THE AMERICANS FIGHTING FOR THEM.
Most of them didn't give a damn about the Al-Qaeda
This is your usual utter and complete bullshit. The average Afghani hated al-qaeda far, far more than the taliban because they were arabs from other countries. Al-queda members were usually singled out for slaughter. You'll probably remember this now i've told you it.
Do you just make this shit up on the hoof and hope I'll let you get away with it?
concentrated instead on their objectives: seizing the cities which were the most strategic Taliban strongholds.
What is this bollocks you are making up? It's completly the opposite way around from reality. Kabul was a main strategic objective of the US forces. They put most of their effort into seizing Kabul and let the Northern Alliance track down the al-qaeda members in Tora Bora. That's usually given as the reason why most of them, including Bin laden, were allowed to escape.
It's hard to believe you can be so utterly and completly wrong. Suppose I should be used to it by now.
Now, Alex, you may disagree with these answers
LOL! You can say that again. Seeing as you just made them up and have no factual basis for a word of it yep, it's a good guess I don't agree with them.
Incidentally you forgot the little matter of the contras. (Funnily enough I thought you might ) What was Reagan doing funding and arming them if your alleged saviour Gerald Ford officially changed policy on trying to install dictators?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Xlea321]
#1325524 - 02/21/03 08:10 PM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
THE AMERICANS WERE COMMITTED TO REMOVING THE TALIBAN.
The Northern Alliance was committed to removing the Taliban long before the UN forces arrived in Afghanistan. You seem to think that when someone joins you in a common cause, it is acceptable for you to then sit back on your duff and drink goat's milk, rather than continuing towards your goal.
The Northern Alliance could have sat up in the hills...
Yes, they could have done so.
... not wasted any money or lost any lives and waited for Karzai to be installed. They chose not to.
I realize that the concepts of commitment, pride and honor mean nothing to you, Alex. They do to Afghani fighters.
Furthermore...
Wait, wait, wait.... what am I doing?
Answer the questions, Alex. I asked those questions before you asked any of yours. I (and quite a few others, it appears) have a keen interest in knowing where you actually stand on the Iraq situation. We already know that you believe every action the American government has taken since 1776 is evil and designed to further America's eventual takeover of the entire planet, you have made that abundantly clear. But do you believe it was wrong for the UN to eject Iraq's forces from Kuwait in 1991? Do you...
Oh! Here, this will make it easier for you:
1) Do you agree with the UN decision to expel the Iraqi occupation army from Kuwait by force in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________
Additional comments ____________________________________
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 ________
Additional comments ______________________________________
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 other actions should the UN take instead of or in addition to filing more resolutions?
i) _____________________________
ii) ____________________________
iii)____________________________
4) If the UN supports this proposed military action the way they supported the Gulf War, would you still oppose military intervention in Iraq?
Yes________
No_________
Additional comments ________________________
5) Rank the following possibilities to the resolution of the Iraq situation from best option (1) to second best (2), to third best (3), etc. Feel free to add as many more options of your own as you wish, including them (of course) in the ranking.
( ) -- Hussein resigns voluntarily, free democratic elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- Hussein is overthrown (or assassinated) by internal Iraqi agents, free elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- Hussein fulfills all the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement, and continues as Ultimate Leader of Iraq.
( ) -- Hussein is captured (or assassinated) by a "SWAT team" of agents of a foreign power, free elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- Hussein is captured or killed by a UN-backed military invasion of Iraq, free elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- Hussein is captured or killed by a military invasion of Iraq that has no UN approval, free elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and arranges loans large enough to rebuild Iraq on the condition that Iraq fulfills all the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement, with the additional proviso that Hussein resign and free democratic elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and arranges loans large enough to rebuild Iraq on the condition that Iraq fulfills all the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement, Hussein remains in power.
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and arranges loans large enough to rebuild Iraq, Hussein remains in power.
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and no one takes any further action apart from filing resolutions condemning Iraq, Hussein remains in power.
( ) -- Alex123 proposal A
( ) -- Alex123 proposal B
( ) -- Alex123 proposal C
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Phluck]
#1325655 - 02/21/03 10:43 PM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Phluck writes:
What I'm saying is, attacking Iraq is going to do FAR more harm than good. Not only to the Iraqi people, or the middle east, but to the entire planet, and the United States in particular.
And what *I* am saying is Iraq won't be attacked if Hussein resigns and calls for free democratic elections scrutinized by an impartial body of international observers.
My point here is that millions are trying to persuade Bush to change his stance, while no one is spending any effort at all to persuade Hussein to do so. Bush is getting all the condemnation, Hussein gets none. Bush's course of action is unacceptable, Hussein's is acceptable.
The only comment I ever see on Hussein's refusal to do the right thing is, "Yes, of course he should resign, but he'll never do it. Since he'll never do it voluntarily, even though he is clearly in the wrong and even though it is clearly the best solution to the whole mess, we must not even think of persuading him to do it." What kind of precedent does that set for other would-be conquerors to follow? Think about it.
pinky
--------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (02/21/03 10:46 PM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Xlea321]
#1325675 - 02/21/03 11:14 PM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Come on little boy with big mouth... let's see the answers to 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
|
MushyMay
Brian Eno is mypersonal God FNORD
Registered: 02/18/02
Posts: 423
Loc: ACT, Australia
Last seen: 6 years, 5 months
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Phred]
#1325706 - 02/22/03 12:06 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'd just like to say that while you are making a very good point, Saddam is a dictator and Bush is a democratically elected president. Sure, we should be protesting for Saddam to resign (although I still believe the US would interfere for their own gain.) The fact is, as a dictator, Saddam has no reason to listen to the public. Dubya should at least acknowledge the public's disapproval of the situation. Attacking Iraq is certainly not going to improve the situation. Rushing into war is what people are mostly against because of the worldwide ramifications of such action. Obviously the millions of people protesting think that Dubya and Blair might listen to their plea for peace (although they seem to be mistaken.) There are other solutions to getting Saddam out of Iraq and most people don't believe that these alternatives have been looked at well enough. What exactly do you think we should do in order to pursuade Saddam to resign? I'm quite surprised that Saddam hasn't been assasinated yet.
--------------------
MushyMay is a fictional character, as a result any information provided by MushyMay is also fictitious.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: MushyMay]
#1325719 - 02/22/03 12:31 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
MushyMay writes:
Rushing into war is what people are mostly against...
I hardly think that this war is being "rushed into". The UN has filed resolution after resolution for twelve years calling for Hussein to honor his commitments. The sanctions (which, by the way I opposed from the beginning) have also been in place for a dozen years, and they bother Hussein as little today as they did in 1990. International ostracism (little though it has been) also means nothing to him.
Face facts -- this is a man who has run his entire life by the principle that the way to deal with others is through force. This has been the case in his personal life, his political life, and in his foreign policy. Words mean nothing to him -- he sees those who do nothing but speak as weaklings unworthy even of his contempt. Treaties and agreements mean nothing to him. The only thing he pays attention to is FORCE. It is a fact that the only reason he has even allowed the UN inspectors to return is that the US is building up troops nearby.
There are other solutions to getting Saddam out of Iraq...
Name one. If you come up with the solution, you will have done what no one else has been able to do so far, and I will both nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prize and head the campaign geared towards awarding it to you.
What exactly do you think we should do in order to pursuade Saddam to resign? I'm quite surprised that Saddam hasn't been assasinated yet.
Exactly the same thing you are currently doing trying to persuade Bush to back down -- post on bulletin boards, send letters and faxes to your politicians, your newspapers, and the Iraqi government. March in the streets with placards calling for Hussein's resignations and for free elections in Iraq. Ask all the protesters for contributions to a fund that will constitute a reward to be paid to the ones who capture (or kill -- I'm not fussy) Hussein and remove him from office.
I'm quite surprised that Saddam hasn't been assasinated yet.
As am I. However, if there were a worldwide movement advocating Hussein's removal that was even a fraction as well-publicized as the movement to stop military intervention, do you not think that some key aide to Hussein (or a group of advisors) with some political savvy might not be emboldened to seize him and lock him up somewhere, knowing that they would then be regarded as heroes in the eyes of the entire globe? It certainly wouldn't be the first time a dictator was removed from power by those closest to him.
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Phred]
#1325776 - 02/22/03 02:17 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The Northern Alliance was committed to removing the Taliban long before the UN forces arrived in Afghanistan.
Please. After 10 years you really think they couldn't wait another few months until the Americans removed the Taliban? And saved massive amounts of weapons and men?
There's no getting round this pink. Warlords don't do americans ground fighting for no reason.
I realize that the concepts of commitment, pride and honor mean nothing to you, Alex. They do to Afghani fighters.
I suppose that's why they let Bin Laden and his men escape.
Wait, wait, wait.... what am I doing?
Beats me.
I guess you realised the rest of your points had been so comprehensively destroyed you would only embarrass yourself by repeating them. Fair enough. Better get back to cut and pasting questions from another thread eh?
Still no word on the contras....
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Phred]
#1325784 - 02/22/03 02:27 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
and they bother Hussein as little today as they did in 1990.
They have slaughtered 700,000 innocent children tho.
This has been the case in his personal life, his political life, and in his foreign policy.
You could say exactly the same about Bush.
Indeed in the 80's when Saddam was at the height of his violence, Rumsfield was shaking his hand and Bush was giving him billion dollar loans. Where was the american will to remove him from power then?
It is a fact that the only reason he has even allowed the UN inspectors to return is that the US is building up troops nearby.
No, the UN inspectors would still be in there if the UN hadn't removed them because they had been infiltrated by CIA spies.
Name one
Lifting sanctions would be a great start.
do you not think that some key aide to Hussein (or a group of advisors) with some political savvy might not be emboldened to seize him and lock him up somewhere
No. Key aides fates are usually tied in with their leader. Remove the leader and it's likely they will be killed by all the other groups they have oppressed. Politics 101.
knowing that they would then be regarded as heroes in the eyes of the entire globe?
So some brutal general who'se spent the last 20 years killing for Saddam decides to kill Saddam and that makes him a hero? Sorry, but that's just silly.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Xlea321]
#1325791 - 02/22/03 02:39 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
After 10 years you really think they couldn't wait another few months until the Americans removed the Taliban? And saved massive amounts of weapons and men?
I realize that as a committed English socialist/unionist you are accustomed to letting others carry your load for you, so the concept of actually assisting an ally will naturally be incomprehensible to you.
Still no word on the contras....
I have told you that we will not proceed further until I get some long overdue answers. Here are the questions again. Notice that they actually have something to do with the topic of the thread (Iraq) rather than a red herring such as the Contras.
1) Do you agree with the UN decision to expel the Iraqi occupation army from Kuwait by force in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________
Additional comments ____________________________________
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 ________
Additional comments ______________________________________
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 other actions should the UN take instead of or in addition to filing more resolutions?
i) _____________________________
ii) ____________________________
iii)____________________________
4) If the UN supports this proposed military action the way they supported the Gulf War, would you still oppose military intervention in Iraq?
Yes________
No_________
Additional comments ________________________
5) Rank the following possibilities to the resolution of the Iraq situation from best option (1) to second best (2), to third best (3), etc. Feel free to add as many more options of your own as you wish, including them (of course) in the ranking.
( ) -- Hussein resigns voluntarily, free democratic elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- Hussein is overthrown (or assassinated) by internal Iraqi agents, free elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- Hussein fulfills all the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement, and continues as Ultimate Leader of Iraq.
( ) -- Hussein is captured (or assassinated) by a "SWAT team" of agents of a foreign power, free elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- Hussein is captured or killed by a UN-backed military invasion of Iraq, free elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- Hussein is captured or killed by a military invasion of Iraq that has no UN approval, free elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and arranges loans large enough to rebuild Iraq on the condition that Iraq fulfills all the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement, with the additional proviso that Hussein resign and free democratic elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and arranges loans large enough to rebuild Iraq on the condition that Iraq fulfills all the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement, Hussein remains in power.
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and arranges loans large enough to rebuild Iraq, Hussein remains in power.
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and no one takes any further action apart from filing resolutions condemning Iraq, Hussein remains in power.
( ) -- Alex123 proposal A
( ) -- Alex123 proposal B
( ) -- Alex123 proposal C
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Xlea321]
#1325796 - 02/22/03 02:48 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
They have slaughtered 700,000 innocent children tho.
A figure as imaginary as your mythical 12 year old Chinese girls working 36 hours at a stretch for ten cents.
You could say exactly the same about Bush.
If you had no regard for the truth.
Indeed in the 80's when Saddam was at the height of his violence...
A typical socialist/unionist response... because mistakes were once made by previous administrations, it is necessary for future administrations to continue making them.
No, the UN inspectors would still be in there if the UN hadn't removed them because they had been infiltrated by CIA spies.
Regardless of why the inspectors withdrew, it is a fact that the only reason they were allowed to return (again your congenital inability to distinguish between past tense and present tense is apparent) was due to the threat of force.
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Phred]
#1325820 - 02/22/03 03:18 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
A figure as imaginary
All the UN experts who resigned quoting this figure as truth are wrong and you are right? Sorry. The truth remains true no matter how many times you say it isn't.
If you had no regard for the truth.
Havn't seen too much desire for diplomacy in his dealings with other countries. Force appears to be the preferred method.
because mistakes were once made by previous administrations
Mistakes? A mistake is a 12 year old kid spelling a word wrong. Arming a guy with chemical weapons is a little more than a "mistake". That's like calling what Ted Bundy did a "mistake".
it is a fact that the only reason they were allowed to return
Sorry but that's nonsense. If Bush sent every last troop home today the UN inspectors would still be in Iraq.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Xlea321]
#1325851 - 02/22/03 03:46 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
All the UN experts who resigned quoting this figure as truth are wrong and you are right?
All the UN experts who actually conducted the studies and wrote the reports quoted no such figure, as you are well aware. I have posted the relevant excerpts from their reports in this forum on five separate occasions, and will do so again if you wish. Claiming over and over that these experts said something they never said is dishonest, Alex. The truth remains true no matter how many times you say it isn't.
A mistake is a 12 year old kid spelling a word wrong.
A mistake is expecting you to summon the sand to answer a few questions, it appears.
Arming a guy with chemical weapons is a little more than a "mistake".
Fine. Let's call it "criminal negligence" or even "criminal act" if you feel it is more appropriate. As a side note, you are of course aware that several more countries than the USA supplied him with these weapons. The fact remains that it is foolish to insist that just because past administrations (of any country) were friendly towards Hussein current administrations (of any country) must also be.
If Bush sent every last troop home today the UN inspectors would still be in Iraq.
As you do in almost every post these days, you yet again confuse tenses; this time past tense with future tense. If the US withdraws its troops tomorrow will Hussein allow the inspectors to remain? Perhaps. If military action had not been threatened against Hussein, would he have allowed them to re-enter the country? Not a chance.
We're still awaiting your answers to these questions, Alex:
1) Do you agree with the UN decision to expel the Iraqi occupation army from Kuwait by force in 1991?
Yes _______
No ________
Additional comments ____________________________________
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 ________
Additional comments ______________________________________
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 other actions should the UN take instead of or in addition to filing more resolutions?
i) _____________________________
ii) ____________________________
iii)____________________________
4) If the UN supports this proposed military action the way they supported the Gulf War, would you still oppose military intervention in Iraq?
Yes________
No_________
Additional comments ________________________
5) Rank the following possibilities to the resolution of the Iraq situation from best option (1) to second best (2), to third best (3), etc. Feel free to add as many more options of your own as you wish, including them (of course) in the ranking.
( ) -- Hussein resigns voluntarily, free democratic elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- Hussein is overthrown (or assassinated) by internal Iraqi agents, free elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- Hussein fulfills all the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement, and continues as Ultimate Leader of Iraq.
( ) -- Hussein is captured (or assassinated) by a "SWAT team" of agents of a foreign power, free elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- Hussein is captured or killed by a UN-backed military invasion of Iraq, free elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- Hussein is captured or killed by a military invasion of Iraq that has no UN approval, free elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and arranges loans large enough to rebuild Iraq on the condition that Iraq fulfills all the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement, with the additional proviso that Hussein resign and free democratic elections in Iraq are held.
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and arranges loans large enough to rebuild Iraq on the condition that Iraq fulfills all the terms of the 1991 surrender agreement, Hussein remains in power.
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and arranges loans large enough to rebuild Iraq, Hussein remains in power.
( ) -- The UN lifts all sanctions, and no one takes any further action apart from filing resolutions condemning Iraq, Hussein remains in power.
( ) -- Alex123 proposal A
( ) -- Alex123 proposal B
( ) -- Alex123 proposal C
pinky
--------------------
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! [Re: Xlea321]
#1325969 - 02/22/03 05:21 AM (21 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Alex if you're going to make bone-headed accusation please have the balls to say where you get your dribble from.
i'm starting to feel sorry for you man............not really but wouldn't that be cool?
--------------------
America....FUCK YEAH!!!
Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Red Vein Kratom 
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
kykeon
Lenore
wingnutx
dee_N_ae
Snobrdr311