| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder  Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
| |||||||
 Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Are the US troops in Germany an occupying force? They've been there since the end of WWII. At what point did they cease being an occupying force?
hint -- think "formation of government" Phred -------------------- 
| |||||||
 Los_Pepes Stranger  Registered: 06/26/05 Posts: 731 |
| ||||||
|
exclusive38 is French. I wonder what he thinks of the French genocide in Rwanda http://www.atsnn.com/story/50105.html
-------------------- Bush bashers beware http://graypantherssf.igc.org/guantanamo.html http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46501 
| |||||||
|
CJay Dark Stranger   Registered: 02/02/04 Posts: 931 Loc: Riding a basslin |
| ||||||
Quote: Read the whole sentence, sentences have meanings, discover them. Quote: Its the qualitve value of the choices made, something beyond your grasp quite clearly. Saddam was teed up; many, many of his kind have come before him in this world and remained in power, as well as the US pocket, simply because they cow to US desire. Quote: The USA has supplied Hussain. Certainly it was not of the quantity for which he has later been accused, but it is rather ironic don't you think? In fact Saddam possessed no WMD at all, as has become quite clear, it was a ruse to claim his resources for the almighty dollar. Lets remember that was what this war was about, it was about the WMD. Quote: Nothing of the sort...interesting thought you had there though. However I am claiming that the energetics of the situation are that he, his type and the terrorists need each other. They thrive off each other, they define themselves by each other. They make each other and though they decry each other they subconsciously empower each other. Quote: I think it is obvious how it benefits Bush. He was able to give as little leeway at the talks as possible...and this was made much easier, Bush and co. were never keen to give ground at this summit. Tony Blair, despite his faults, has some kind of conscience and after the Iraq fiasco he is trying to redeem it by welcoming other leaders to the summit and pushing the agenda forward he has. This is not the case with Bush's governent, this is not the direction they want events to be going in. Quote: Yes you are right, I am pleased they managed to steer some discussion back, however you know as well as I that the momentum was lost and Bush was able to give the minimum to remain at the table, and this became a cinch. Its amazing, 30 years of these talks and this is as far as they have got, pathetic really. Well lets hope it changes, its good now the precedent has been set to invite other world leaders, but I'm not holding my breath. Quote: The term 'damage' does not cover the concept of 'death' for me. This doesn't seem at all precise, how can death be a type of damage? Nonsense is the most precise term to describe your use of the word damage. The expressions you use are souless, hollow and meaningless....oh shall we repair these damaged people? Have you ever seen a dead person get repaired Phred? Quote: Many more than 10,000 have been killed my friend, the US military doesn't seem to have qualms about killing Iraqi civillians either. In fact Iraqi civillians are the great sufferers here, while the US and the Fundamentalists fight it out to prove their ideologies the actual everyday Iraqis spend their lives in the war zone of the 2 camps. And in fact they are helplessly drawn into the fiasco and forced to join one side or the other...as time goes on they are ever pushed to do this and divided, their unity as a people gone and their land a lawless war ravaged place. Its a hard choice for many of them to make, perhaps one might find the idea of democracy attractive, but then the US army kills one's family and one becomes cynical wondering where the freedom for one is. And vice versa when terrorists strike, and ever more complicated convolusions. I'm sure a lot of people lived reasonably normal lives but now live in a warzone, this makes for a painful existance and this existance is no more free than that under Saddam. The USA brought this new existance to the people. Instead of Shock and Awe's explosive type bombs the USA could have launched an aggressive campaign of bombing with information, food and supplies, water and so forth, building up the strength of the people and allowing them to make their own choices and move their own country forward. This campaign could have been initiated years and years ago, and the cost would have been fractional to the war we are having. Quote: 'brainwashed by those with an agenda', that's rich coming from you! I must point out to you that I think you mis judge the difference between us. You see I a free thinker, I hold myself to no political ideology, I am out of that trap. You on the other hand hem yourself in by ideologies and then agressively protect them, you career along looking for some way to define yourself and the rules that make you feel safe. Bouncing from hardcore communist to hardline laissez-faire capitalist and everything in between, joining the groups, pamphleteering etc. Eternally trapped in your constructs. On the other hand I have never done anything of the sort, it seems to me extremely foolish to define oneself in such a way and exclude so many choices and so much of oneself, I prefer to live through my heart. So now here you are desperate to believe whatever you are fed by the living people at the top of your current ideology. There you are hemming in your thoughts and your world, always building boxes to think in. Quote: ...and the Falklands....etc what are you on about then? Thought you were precise Mr Critical Thinker? You are far less precise with your initial statement here than I ever was in saying Iraqi towns have been levelled. If you look back at my posts you will see the letter from the people of Falluja and they use the term 'levelled' to describe the effect of US bombardment on their city. I am happy to use their terminology. Quote: The government of Iraq serves them, and so they are one force. You see like you say words have meaning, and people like you and the US government have become experts at playing semantics, parading around deflecting issues with your eternal word games rather than concentrating on the signified and therein the reality. Quote: What a sad world you live in heartless and wholly material.....emotions may not be tools of cognition per ce, but they are what make us human and ensure we hold decent values. With out them functioning correctly a person can easily become a monster, or simply a heartless megolamaniac with no empathy....or worse. Peace out 
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
CJay writes:
Quote: What does his being "teed up" or the fact that he wasn't the first murderous tyrant in history have to do with anything? You asked: "Besides, who has the right to tell Saddam to step down save his own people?" This implies you hold the same view the UN does -- once someone manages to murder his way to the top he is de facto the legitimate ruler of country X. The simple fact is that if Hussein --one man-- were to have arranged free elections, then stepped down and taken his stolen billions into exile with him in any of a dozen countries willing to offer him sanctuary, there would have been no invasion. No deaths, not even Hussein's. You and the UN appear to hold the same view: "War is bad, the worst thing imaginable. So, you can butcher as many children as you want, torture as many people as you like, crush as many minorities as you please, treat your women like chattel, lobotomize and execute your homosexuals, grind every religious minority into the dirt, break as many bones and chop off as many limbs as you see fit, and obliterate every human freedom that annoys you: just don't bother your neigbors." Quote: With what? I repeat -- despite your assertions to the contrary, the US didn't arm Hussein. The USSR, France, China and others looked after that. You'd have more credibility in this discussion if you were to stick to fact. Quote: I repeat, you'd have more credibility in this discussion if you were to stick to fact. Hussein did in fact have chem and bio weaponry as well as chem and bio weaponry programs. Quote: I repeat, you'd have more credibility in this discussion if you were to stick to fact. The war was never just about WMDs. I give you the same challenge as I have given a dozen other discussion opponents in this forum: provide us a link to any speech by either Blair or Bush where WMDs were the only justification given for resuming hostilities. A single speech will do. Quote: That's a pseudo-psychological fantasy which ignores reality. The terrorists certainly don't need Bush's "type". Islamic terrorism didn't begin when Bush took office. Nor does Bush's "type" need terrorists. He's perfectly capable of being president of the US without terrorists. Quote: Bush made no secret before the Thursday attacks that he was canceling debt and doubling aid to Africa. He also made no secret before the attack that he had no intention of signing the Kyoto accord. Nothing changed in his stance. Quote: Death is the ultimate damage, duh. Damage subsumes a number of subsidiary concepts -- death, injury, psychological trauma, loss of property. I presume you object to the term "casualty" on the same grounds? Quote: The expressions I use are accurate. I doubt very much there is a single reader of this forum unaware the term "collateral damage" includes death. You, on the other hand, are more enamored of imprecise and hysterically overblown (and often downright wrong) terms -- ....plus a puppet government, plus leveling entire cities like Falluja, plus targeting mosques and the people's cultural identity with missiles and this forced 'freedom'.... marauding marines, tanks and ground artillery 'Mission Accomplished' paegentry. many places are razed to the ground they all but destroyed falluja the Bush camp rigged the 2000 elections... the USA is a colonising force. these people are pathological liars Saddam was teed up I have been accused of many things in this forum, but no one can can accuse me of not putting forth my views in the clearest and least ambiguous terms possible. I don't hide behind weasel words or dual meanings and I don't use exaggerated and emotionally-loaded catch phrases. You, on the other hand --until caught at it-- claim that you were just using "a figure of speech". Or you say "call it what you will". Quote: Of course they are. They've been the greatest sufferers since the Ba'athists seized power. Tell us something we don't already know. Quote: The difference is that the Islamists have an ideology of death, and the Coalition has an ideology of freedom. Quote: Nonsense. The vast majority of Iraqis have "joined" neither side. They just go on with their lives. Quote: As it has been since Hussein took power. Quote: Just as those European civilians who had family killed in the Allied invasion of Hitler's Europe wondered where their freedom was, eh? ..... to be continued.... Phred --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
.... continued.....
CJay writes: Quote: You think of yourself as "open-minded", I take it. There is such a thing as being so "open-minded" that whenever one tilts one's head, one's brains fall out. The only agenda I have is that of individual rights. Quote: I have no idea who you are describing. It certainly isn't me. Quote: Which explains your disdain for facts. Quote: That's a very pretty pseudo-psychoanalysis. To whom does it apply? Quote: Incorrect. The reverse is true. The coalition force serve at the pleasure of the Iraqi government. The instant the Iraqi government tells them to go, they will go. Quote: Ah. The standard "projection" ploy. You are the one attempting to distort reality with your sloppy, emotionally-laden "descriptions" of what your preconceptions tell you must be the case. I, on the other hand, rely on fact. I don't play word games -- I speak rationally and accurately. Quote: LOL! Yet more pseudo-psychological "analysis" from one who claims as a "free thinker" to have no ideology. I don't say I don't experience emotions. I correctly point out that emotions are not tools of cognition. Quote: Choosing your values on the basis of feelings leads to situations like the current one in Iraq. Hussein, for example, felt he had the right to attempt becoming a modern day Saladin. The Iraqi people are still paying for that. Quote: As is certainly the case with the deadenders currently slaughtering Iraqi civilians due to the "decent values" they chose through emotional means. Phred --------------------
| |||||||
 Baby_Hitler Errorist   Registered: 03/06/02 Posts: 27,652 Loc: To the limit! Last seen: 3 minutes, 57 seconds |
| ||||||
|
Him using the word "genocide" is as accurate as George Bush using the word "liberate".
-------------------- This space for rent
| |||||||
|
IsaacHunt Stranger Registered: 05/27/05 Posts: 176 |
| ||||||
Quote: Cut the melodrama. Women in Iraq were treated a damn sight better under Saddam than they are in US backed dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia. Uzbekistan, yet another US ally, boils it's opponents to death. Quote: The situation is very clear. If Saddam Hussein agrees to disarm Iraq of all chemical, or biological, or nuclear weapons programmes and capability then conflict will be avoided INTERVIEWER: But Resolution 1441 doesn't call for regime change. If the Iraqi President Saddam Hussein will comply fully, can you convince the American Administration and can you trust the Iraqi regime? PRIME MINISTER: So far as our objective, it is disarmament, not regime change - that is our objective....I have got no doubt Saddam is very bad for Iraq, but on the other hand I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge from the United Nations is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change. Tony Blair - Nov 14 2002. Quote: Could you expand on what you mean by these meaningless Fox news buzz phrases? What exactly is an "ideology of freedom"? Quote: Nonsense. Read up on the history of Iraq in the 1970's. Compare and contrast living standards, literacy rates and public services with other middle eastern countries. You'll be surprised. Quote: Please don't dare to compare the occupation of Iraq with the fight to free Europe of Hitler.
| |||||||
|
CJay Dark Stranger Registered: 02/02/04 Posts: 931 Loc: Riding a basslin |
| ||||||
|
As IsaacHunt points out, "So far as our objective, it is disarmament, not regime change - that is our objective....I have got no doubt Saddam is very bad for Iraq, but on the other hand I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge from the United Nations is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change." Tony Blair - Nov 14 2002.
Once again you are wrong Phred. You constantly assert your critical skills and precision yet your argument is continually broken and weak. Quote: Phred I have no doubt you have convinced yourself, as those who are trying to push a certain agenda have, that your terms are correct, but infact they are adumbrations and they mask meaning. Not only that you are so often downright wrong yourself. Quote: No you are utterly wrong in making that statement Phred. Quote: No you are wrong again Phred. A living subject is only damaged while it is still alive - it means injury, loss of function, harm....not death. Death is not the ultimate damage, if one is to extend the concept there would be collateral death when there was no collateral left to damage. The concept of damage never holds death as a subsidary unless one is talking about damage to a wider body which may have smaller parts. I.e. in mechanical terms, the damage to the car was irrepairable. The only time this is really used to speak of human death is in dehumanising terms - mechanising terms. For example, we have damaged the western flank, might be a term used in a war. That is why it becomes so easy to dehumanise and accept the death of some large number of Iraqi people here by calling it 'collateral damage'. Of course so far you have only damaged the machine which is innocent Iraqi society (the enemy?) - only damaged not killed...(notice that, the difference between damage and kill..last time you swatted a fly and left it squashed was it only damaged, or was it killed dead?)..... try looking at the human parts, the people themselves included in your 'damage' they are all dead not damaged. They are not parts of machinery, they are dead people. Quote: What like 'liberate' 'damage' and other words chosen to mask meaning. You like the governments of the world use words to hide where possible and dehumanise where necessary. 'Damage' is hardly the word to use when describing 'innocent civillian death toll' since it is hardly unambiguous, look up damage in the dictionary - damage does not cover death of the subject. likewise 'collateral' is hardly the clear word one would pick to mean 'human beings'. Nice ambiguous newspeak. Quote: Likewise I will not be describing the deaths resulting from the London bombings as 'primary damage' or any other kind of damage. Its not the speak one uses unless one is dehumanising. I think you will find that people on this forum do understand what you mean.  Quote: In other words you are wrong again. The effect of this invasion has not brought any benefit to the Iraqi people. In fact now they do not have any rule of law whatsoever, it has been lost, the very thing GWB says he is bringing left the day his troops arrived. Last Thursday in London is like every single day in Baghdad since the Coalition arrived....and you call that progress? Quote: Oh give up with the emotionally laden claptrap Mr Critical Thinker, Mr Precise. Quote: So that explains the burgeoning insurgency, as well as the huge queues to join the police? I'm sure they are trying hard to get on with their lives but I think it is quite difficult when you have bombs going off around you everyday, can't get the food or water or fuel you need and live amongst rubble with no proper sewerage. They may be proud and strong in the face of it, but I think: 'just go on with their lives' is a pretty savage way to prescribe such a situation. Quote: As IsaacHunt says..... Quote: As IsaacHunt says..... What a poor comparison, and you think I'm fond of overblown emotional catchphrases eh? to be continued...
| |||||||
|
CJay Dark Stranger Registered: 02/02/04 Posts: 931 Loc: Riding a basslin |
| ||||||
|
...continued...
Quote: I think you will find my brain is quite securely in my head  Quote: Nice to see that progessing so beautifully around the globe with the motions you support. A lot of brains falling out of heads in that quest though! LOL You have the right to be 'liberated' LOL! People who come up with this shit must have their brains in their butts, they can tilt their head anyway they like and nothing will fall out, not even a word of wisdom; just look at Bush. Quote: Come on don't play coy, remember back when you used to be Pinky you confessed to me one time in a thread. Unfortunately some large number of my posts seem to be missing when I look at them, at this current moment only 330 appear for me to look back at whilst my actual postings at this moment number 920. The ones missing are not purely chronological either...strange, perhaps it is some kind of data loss from the server? What's the story there mod? In any case we were talking one time and now the thread is not available in my posts history, in any case it was our WTC discussion, the one you had to change your name not long after. You took a fatherly approach briefly, opening up to me, thinking I was a leftie and thinking I was like a younger you. You admitted to me that you had tried all the political doctrines from the far left to the right getting fully involved in the associations all the way....you even told me the charming story about a world controlled by invisible monkeys pulling invisible strings. You were wrong about me though Pinky, but the invisible monkeys put a smile on my face.  Quote: No Pinky, I have no disdain for facts, I have a disdain for one sided corporate media, and a corporate whore government with a president who controls too much of each branch and writes blank cheques. Their very one sided view, their agenda, I do not take as fact. The USA has supplied Hussain by the way. encyclopedia along withthe rest of the West.... some details of US weapons supplies to Saddam You are wrong again Pinky... Quote: I repeat -- The US armed Hussain. Hussain used other suppliers too, the governemtns of the world that could manufacture these things revelled in the death that came from their business; for it only meant more business! And now look! For the US it eventually meant a whole country and a shit load of oil! WOOHOO! That'll keep the right people in pocket. Quote: Yeh back when the USA supplied him maybe, but that was all long gone. All he had at the time of invasion was pride....oh and what was it? 2 lowly and very lonely sarin shells! Ahaha - imagine if we had waited for his devastating attack, what a chortle that would have been as he launched his supposed WMD. Quote: Bush has not cancelled African debt what has happened is that 18 countries within Africa have had their debt 'cancelled', this is not the same. For a start, the promise to deliver by 2010 is like waiting 5 years before responding to the tsunami, and like all previous G8 meetings allows a trail off to inaction. Much more needs to be in done in terms of the number of countries, the amount of money and the eradication of conditionalities, especially if one is to call it 'cancelling debt and doubling aid to Africa' in any true sense. Sheesh! And you say I stretch my use of language, just look at those guys and you as you lap up their agenda. Africa will stay poor under the moves these 8 have secured. The debt relief package will force privatisation and a liberal economic agenda. I'm sure you think that sounds great Pinky but actually like other system addicts you will see your 'good for one is good for all' approach fail (all but the rich), for it does not actually empower individual rights. In fact its failure almost seems deliberate on the part of the Western leaders, for it keeps Africa down while they carry on with a new facelift looking philanthropic. Developing countries must "tackle corruption, boost private sector development, and attract investment" and remove "impediments to private investment both domestic and foreign." said the G7 finance ministers in June this year. Subjecting vital services in developing countries to the rigours of market forces can have very serious consequences HIPC (Highly Indebted Poor Country) status comes with strings, for instance Mosambique had to privatise its water supply to get it, as did Tanzania. Both fiascos which leave people in disaster zones as well as with less accessible water; and no development. The World Bank also encouraged Mozambique to increase its user charges for health care, this shows just how damaging liberal economics can be on the poorest nations - you don't pay you die. Hey thats proper Save Africa Stuff isn't it? Money cannot be made from poverty stricken people and their (ahem)individual right to water, and in other cases education and or medicine is denied through the blind persuance of single minded political ideology. Quote: You are wrong again - I think it is quite clear from this post alone, not to mention this thread, that you are sloppy, you use emotionally charged expression to advance an agenda, you state untruths as if they were facts, you play word games and so forth. My emotions are well integrated into my personality and I am level headed Pinky, that is quite obvious to all. Feelings got us into this alright, like you say, the feeling that Saddam could launch a WMD attack in 45mins (top intel!), feelings that he had in operation "literally thousands of sites" (Tony Blair 2003) producing the weapons that would kill us all. The crystal ball got us into this. Wheras rationale would have waited for the UN inspections team that was progessing satisfactoraly according to its leader....yet about to reveal the facts. I do not believe my preconceptions, I challenge them. Its fun, you should try. Laters dude
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Whatever, dude.
I'm quite content to let the readers of this thread decide who is being emotional and overwrought and who is being rational and factual. Phred --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
IsaacHunt writes:
Quote: The ones not being gang-raped by Hussein's goon squads. Interesting you chose to focus on a single phrase and let the whole rest of it slide by. And of course, the UN's stance on this kind of thing is not confined to Iraq. The UN is doing nothing about Muslim mistreatment of women in any country. Quote: I asked not for an isolated line or two from an interview where the interviewer decides which questions are asked, I requested a link to a speech by Bush or Blair. I'm still waiting. While I'm waiting, perhaps you could provide us a link to that interview. It might be interesting to see what other reasons Blair gave, assuming the interviewer covered that. Quote: One in which the populace is governed by representatives chosen by the populace. One in which the actions of those chosen representatives is limited by a written constitution. Quote: I was responding to CJay's characterization of Iraq and Iraqis -- "...their unity as a people gone and their land a lawless war ravaged place." There was no law in Iraq other than what Hussein decided was law. Their was no unity -- the Sunni minority ruled over the Shi'ite majority. And the invasion of Iran followed by the invasion of Kuwait left the country ravaged by war. Quote: Why not? Because you have no rebuttal for it? Were there or were there not thousands of civilians killed in the Allied invasion of Hitler's Europe? When the Allies killed the families of Europeans in countries occupied by Hitler's Germany, don't you think some of them might have "become cynical wondering where the freedom for one is"? If not, why not? As has been pointed out here many many times before, Hitler was no threat whatsoever to the US or to Canada. Those civilians were killed by soldiers and airmen who had no business being there at all. Phred --------------------
| |||||||
|
IsaacHunt Stranger Registered: 05/27/05 Posts: 176 |
| ||||||
|
who is being rational and factual
Obviously you were far from factual about the "find me Bush or Blair saying it was about WMD". I'm wary of your claim to have challenged a "dozen" opponents on this before I proved you wrong too. I'm sure someone else would have found examples of Blair saying it was about WMD and not regime change.
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker  Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
The ones not being gang-raped by Hussein's goon squads. Interesting you chose to focus on a single phrase and let the whole rest of it slide by.
Even more interesting is that you fail to actually addess the point made (yet again) and instead obsfucate by alluding to gang-rapes. Australia is the world leader in rape and Iraq barely registers according to web page . American women have it pretty good, at least those not being gang-raped by Naval cadets and frat house boys... 
--------------------  The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
IsaacHunt writes:
Quote: Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem. Of course it's not hard to find a quote from Bush or Blair saying WMDs were one of the justifications for resuming hostilities. I suggest you re-read the following: Quote: Phred --------------------
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Swami writes:
Quote: More standard Swami dodging of the point under discussion. For one thing, there is no "alleging" that Hussein commonly used gang-rape of women --often with male relatives forced to watch-- as a torture technique. It's a well-established fact. Anyone who attempts to deny this fact is being intellectually dishonest. For another thing, the point being addressed was the UN attitude towards tyrants. Hussein's use of gang rape against women was just one of many other torture techniques he perpetrated against Iraqis. The UN position (and that of non-interventionists in general) is that once a murderous thug has fought his way to the top of the food chain in a given country he is then untouchable by any save the residents of that country -- providing he restricts his actions to within the borders of that country. You are well aware that the UN rejects assassination as a way of instigating regime change in a rogue state. You are also aware that the UN rejects outside interference in the political process of rogue states -- no rabble-rousing by outside agitators, no substantive support for opposition parties, no shipping of arms to opposition. The only thing the UN allows is carefully worded statements of disapproval. Phred --------------------
| |||||||
|
IsaacHunt Stranger Registered: 05/27/05 Posts: 176 |
| ||||||
|
The ones not being gang-raped by Hussein's goon squads. Interesting you chose to focus on a single phrase and let the whole rest of it slide by. And of course, the UN's stance on this kind of thing is not confined to Iraq. The UN is doing nothing about Muslim mistreatment of women in any country.
Irrelevant. I asked not for an isolated line or two from an interview where the interviewer decides which questions are asked, But not the way Blair answers. I requested a link to a speech by Bush or Blair So you accept Blair said it but you want him to have said it in a "speech"? Any reason why? perhaps you could provide us a link to that interview http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/PMO/uk-pmo-blair-111402.htm Why not? Because you have no rebuttal for it? No, because it is silly and I am pressed for time.
| |||||||
|
IsaacHunt Stranger Registered: 05/27/05 Posts: 176 |
| ||||||
|
The UN position (and that of non-interventionists in general) is that once a murderous thug has fought his way to the top of the food chain in a given country he is then untouchable by any save the residents of that country -- providing he restricts his actions to within the borders of that country.
Could you direct us to the section of the UN charter that states this? Thank you. You are well aware that the UN rejects assassination as a way of instigating regime change in a rogue state As does the US.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
Sigh.
CJay's position, and the position of so many others here, is that this war was "sold" on the issue WMDs. Since as yet no significant stockpiles of ready-to-go WMDs have been found within Iraq's borders post-March of 2003, they then trumpet that Bush and Blair's justification (singular) for taking action was bogus, since "the justification" hasn't panned out yet. My point was that this war was never "sold" on the existence of WMDs alone. Admittedly, Blair leaned on the WMD issue more heavily than Bush did, because Blair was more concerned with getting the UN on board than Bush was. But even then, whenever Blair gave an address explaining why he felt it was necessary to resume hostilities in Iraq, he recited a list of reasons. Did Blair mention WMDs as one of the reasons in each of his speeches on the subject? Sure he did. Did Blair ever make a speech where WMDs were the only reason given? Nope. Phred --------------------
| |||||||
|
IsaacHunt Stranger Registered: 05/27/05 Posts: 176 |
| ||||||
|
Did Blair mention WMDs as one of the reasons in each of his speeches on the subject? Sure he did
He said if Saddam disarmed conflict would be avoided. That's making it pretty clear. Did Blair ever make a speech where WMDs were the only reason given? Nope. Can you tell us what difference it makes if he said it in a speech or an interview?
| |||||||
|
Redstorm Prince of Bugs   Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 5 months, 27 days |
| ||||||
|
All I know that if Hussein did not laugh in the face of the UN repeatedly; and give weapon inspectors anything but a hard time this would not be an issue right now.
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
My thoughts, Iraq, war, and genocide |  Ellis Dee |
1,784 | 14 | 03/18/03 04:11 AM by Anonymous |
|
|
Iraq may be on the edge but France has hit rock bottom abyss (  1 2 3 4 all ) |
 wingnutx |
6,156 | 69 | 08/25/03 12:37 PM by Anonymous |
|
 |
Dutch arrest in Iraq genocide case |  Great_Satan |
611 | 1 | 12/08/04 07:32 AM by Asante |
|
|
Support US war on IRAQ ( 1 2 all ) |
 LordMorham |
4,594 | 29 | 09/20/02 09:56 AM by LordMorham |
|
 |
Stop Genocide in Sudan |  queenannie |
928 | 10 | 03/01/24 07:55 PM by CHeifM4sterDiezL |
|
|
Did the President Lie about Iraq? ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 lonestar2004 |
5,482 | 50 | 06/24/05 11:42 PM by Swami |
|
|
Revisionist Thoughts on the War on Iraq | wingnutx |
491 | 2 | 11/07/03 01:01 PM by wingnutx |
|
|
Bomb Saddam! Free Iraq!! ( 1 2 3 4 ... 13 14 ) |
flow |
17,558 | 264 | 01/07/06 07:11 PM by CommunismIsRight |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 10,181 topic views. 4 members, 11 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||