|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted March 18, 2003 11:13 PM |
|
|
Wolfie, as a point on 1441, there is some legitamacy there, but there is the added issue that the UN inspectors on the ground do not agree with Powell over his judgement that the current evidence is sufficient, and therefore wish more time to gather evidence. As the UN is supposed to be the one to enforce 1441 as you stated there, surely it is up to the UNWeapons inspectors to prove the issue of WMD's and not for a quad of nations to jump on the first slight evidence and then throw away the inspectors and go in without UN backing. They're not carrying out 1441, they are ignoring the wishes of the inspection team. To me that would smack of using the inspectors as a political tool to give tacit approval for 1441 when in reality you just wanted them to show a few pieces of evidence and jump ahead of them entirely.
Again, I'd imagine those that voted (esp France and Russia) did so in the expectance that the inspectors would be given the time they required. That has been a basic stance of Germany and France all along, to at the very least ensure time for the inspectors. Had you told France when 1441 came to the vote that the inspectors would be selectively ignored as soon as some small and frankly circumstansial proof became available and war would be declared that trio would have likely told you exactly where you could stick 1441......
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 11:20 PM |
|
|
Here is part of 1441:
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations
If you don't believe me go here: http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 18, 2003 11:30 PM |
|
|
Ahhhhhhh so we've gone from
Quote:
You can declare war
To
Quote:
You will face serious consequences
How interesting, surely given your proven knowledge you are fully aware that the term "serious" is open to discussion and interpretation. That resolution provides no backing whatsoever for war within it's words, it's all about how the individual members interpret "serious".
How many interpreted that phrase as war? Not as many as Bush liked apparently as he sought resolution number 2 to clarify the issue, now it's a case of interpretation......
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 04:44 AM |
|
|
But PH, what else could "serious consequences" have meant??? Iraq was already under heavy sanctions. What did they THINK it meant, harsh language???
[GRIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
(See, I'm not above being indecisive....)
Remember boys, as we all become passionate over this, it is pretty clear to me that everyone in this debate believes (s)he is on the right track.... Do tey and be gentle with each other, please???
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 08:43 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 19 Mar 2003
|
Quote
"I doubt most of those that voted for 1441 expected non-compliance to be met with war."
Again...please answer what the heck does "serious consequences¨ entail other than war? Every other possible solution has been attempted endlessly...can you please name for me a serious consequence that hasn't been implemented? Well there is of course all the world leaders sending Saddam pictures of themselves giving him the "evil eye¨ but besides that...what hasn't happened except military intervention???...everyone knew that was the case...they now just lack the courage of convictions to follow up on their useless resolution. Full and immediate disclosure was mandated in 1441...Iraq DID NOT COMPLY...thus there is material breach...clear as fresh air what has happened and what needs to happen.
Quote
"Again, I will expect you to fully back russia's next battering of Chechnya when it comes"
Please refrain from hyperbole...please make a analysis that compares Chechnya to Iraq referencing UN history, war crimes, crimes against humanity, invasion of neighboring nations, sponsorship of terrorism, attempt to assassinate a president, etc. Upon quick reflection you will find that the situations are completely incomparable!
Quote
"primarily because you tend to insult people with whom you disagree"
I have occasionally engaged in insulting people...to my chagrin. More typically I try to insult ignorant statements not people...though I find that to many posters are either thoroughly uninformed of factual data or possess below average intelligence...I try to my best to argue their ignorant comments rather then insult them or call them stupid. But on the other hand sometimes stupid is as stupid does...when people make some of the dastardly claims here...well they are begging to be called stupid...much the same if someone stated "Clinton had sex with underage boys"....that person would most likely be stupid. Likewise some of the comments about Bush's motives, intelligence..US history, world history, etc. clearly are insight impoverished or stupid. But back to my point too many people make ignorant statements....such as Sir Dunco who I will address soon.
Quote
"if you did a word search for the word "stupid" in HC, I think you'd be surprised to find that about 75% of the usages came from you"
Did you actually do a search or you are guesstimating? To me calling someone stupid vs calling a statment ignorant are two completely different concepts.
Quote
"I much prefer someone explaining why they think I am mistaken so I can learn from new, frequently better-informed viewpoints"
I have probably written 10 pages of this whole thread...so I think I have used a much more thorough analysis then saying "stupid, stupid, stupid"...I have wasted far to much time debating foolish statements...and tried to take a break from it....seems I have been pulled back into my addiction As far as your "typically flawed" statements...well I could go back and quote what I thought were flawed...but I am trying to recover from being longwinded ....but I will be a failure at this goal A quick example was your statement about Bush's intelligence comes to mind... given he graduated from Yale and Harvard...NOBODY who graduated from those prestigious institutions could have an IQ under 100...come on now Other than the general flaws I notice....I do appreciate your intellectual contribution which is unfortunately greatly lacking from too many of the posts here.
Quote
"was not referencing any particular president, but the concept, as it has existed in international habit for two thousand years, has become recognized as "international law"
The concept of a "just war" came from Saint Augustine...and this situation clearly qualifies upon analysis of the exact "doctrinal" statements made to qualify for a "just war"
Quote
"THis is sort-of analogous to the idea that defense of another is as legal as self-defense"
Do you not think that an attempt to assassinate our president is self defense? Do you not think that his direct sponsorship of his own terrorist groups in 1991 and his further support of Palestinian suicide bombers of our ally is defense? Do you not think that his training and general support for the OBL network is a defensive response?
Quote
"Iraq is not attacking anyone right now"
I believe for a year or so before 9/11... OBL was not attacking anyone either. Moreover Saddam's sponsorship of terrorism within recent years is an attack.
Quote
"our push is unilateral"
Please help me understand how 30-45 countries supporting an attack on Iraq is unilateral. Uni=ONE.
Quote
"that we may never be able to finish..."
I agree with that sentiment...9/11 showed clearly that our fight will go on for years and years to come...terrorism is a whole new type of battle to which victory is elusive.
Quote
"Nuclear weapons are not "maturity""
If we use nuclear weapons...I will buy you a cookie. Other then that move to the back of the class
Quote
"until now the iraqui regime wasn't such a huge threat until herr Bush started to lose out on his popularity...interressting coincidence"
Ignorant statement alert. Please provide references for this backwards analysis. Bush's popularity before 9/11 was above 50%. After 9/11 it shot up to an unheard of 90% due to his superb handling of the situation. Since Bush's move towards Iraq his ratings have decreased...indicating Iraq is a huge political risk....thankfully we have a president who knows right from wrong and will not pay head to fickle popularity ratings...after all the Iraqi people are freed from slavery in Iraq and terrorism is diminished through Saddam's departure...the polls will rise again.
Quote
"Ok yes the inspectons are working."
LOL now that is hilarious....What we have found of Saddam's WMD is equivalent to an inspector finding 6 bullets in a city's complete police force. The inspections have found but less then 1% of his WMD and you call this "working"...hehe.
Quote
"Do u think that the US is above some international law."
UMMM do you know who created the UN...picking up a history book...it might be profoundly enlightening.
Quote
"During the early part of the 20 Century, the US tried to impose its particular form of democracy on every single of the hundreds of Indian nations that were already here"
Our actions against Native Americans was clearly imperialistic as most nations were at the tim...but please don't compare that situation to this situation. We would be imperialistic if we liberated Kuwait, Kosovo, etc and claimed them as our land...we don't practice imperialism any longer....there is a big difference between liberation and imperialism.
Quote
"The so called "evidence" that Colin Powell presented was rejected in all major powers except in Britain"
Hmm that is a complete fallacy. Please provide evidence save the uranium situation that has been disputed by any major government! Everyon...save possibly yourself...knows there are WMD in Iraq. I expect a prompt apology to the US from you upon our liberation of Iraq and all of these "non-existent" WMD being found.
Quote
"UN Weapons inspectors to prove the issue of WMD's"
Again please read 1441...Iraq was to provide all WMD!!!!!...the inspectors job was not to search every square inch of Iraq for WMD...they were to verify that Iraq had provided them all. You have it mixed up as to what the responsibility of Iraq was and what the responsibility of the inspectors was.
Quote
"But PH, what else could "serious consequences" have meant??? Iraq was already under heavy sanctions. What did they THINK it meant, harsh language???"
There we have it....whit combined with intellectual analysis....nice job
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 10:13 AM |
|
|
You know damn well neither Russia or France wished serious consequences to mean pay a small bit of attention to the inspectors, then recall them and go to war. That wording's been used before many times, it's diplomatic speech and can be interpreted any way anyone likes, that's why it was really there. France and Russia want more time, I imagine they wished you to wait longer, and when they signed 1441 they expected you to at least pay attention to the calls from the inspectors.
As for chechnya, if you think they don't sponsor terrorism you clearly pay no attention to the news as they recently were involved in a huge hostage situation in russia. But my point here is that you are using part of the reason for the Iraq war as a pre-emptive strike on a country deemed to be a danger to your country. Russia could deem Chechnya a danger and strike out by themselves at them.
If america wants to go around creating dangerous precendence, it shouldn't be suprised if in a few months or years time other nations provide their own little pre-emptive strikes, justified or not against their own enemies. Chechnya's just a sample, I could have used Israel or any number of other nations. And this time the americans and british will have set the scene already for such a conflict to be deemed "legal and moral" and we won't have any moral high ground to stand on whatsoever.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 02:42 PM |
|
|
"Please help me understand how 30-45 countries supporting an attack on Iraq is unilateral. Uni=ONE."
They are forced to do it. Forced by diplomatic means, by money and by threats. USA is powerful and dangerous, who dares to contradict?
I happen to live in one of the countries which "supports" the war. Don't think we are with you. I don't know a single person in the country who agree that the US' attack is rightful and supports it. No one. It is said that there are people like that, cause polls say that there are a 7% mass who supports the war IF UN supports it too.
Our leaders just go against the will of the country. They will pay. But I can't even blame them, cause I believe that they are told to do it or ...
See, it's a small country.
Do Dargon, please try to hear with your ears and read/see with your eyes. Don't be ignorant.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted March 19, 2003 04:52 PM |
|
|
Thank you dArGOn!
And csarmi, just because we (dArGOn and I) support the "war" and back up our claims with facts does not mean we are ignorant. Far from it actually.
____________
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 05:13 PM |
|
|
I said ignorant, because he said that a lot of countries support USA.
People around the word are getting tired of the USA running amok. Consider this.
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 05:55 PM |
|
|
DAM I JUST WIPED OUT ABOUT TWENY MINUTES OF REPLY!!!
Csarmi, thanks for this input. It calls to question how many more countries "support" this push and for what reasons. I have heard rumours that the U.S. is "winning" support through a number of pressure tactics. Do you have any particulars on what has happened with Holland in that respect???
Speaking of input, it has crossed my mind several times that there are no Middle-Easterners posting here. For that matter I scanned the members list and did not see any individuals from the Middle East. Their input here is greatly needed and missed in my opinion.
daRgON, good morning. First, I went back and looked through some of your posts and you're absolutely right. Your attacks of posts have been much more eloquent than just calling them "stupid." But the effect is the same. I have not done a word search of CH and would not have the first clue how to go about doing this. I also want to tell you that I do not mean to give you such a hard time on this, just to bring it to you attention. You are obviously so bright, and have much to offer. Your analyses clearly deserve consideration. I know it is frustrating when somebody just isn't getting it!!!
But people will hear your words much more clearly if they are not angry when reading them. It is the job of the bright and informed to inform the less advantaged around them. If you are kind most people will not only hear you better and learn from your analyses, but they will respect you as well!!!
Now to reconstruct my replies:
Quote
____________________________________________
The concept of a "just war" came from Saint Augustine...and this situation clearly qualifies upon analysis of the exact "doctrinal" statements made to qualify for a "just war"
__________________________________________________
daRgON -- Can you remind me was St. Augustine's original concept was??? Is it that a just war is one fought in defense of established boundaries??? or did that come later (sorry -- it's been too long)
Quote
____________________________________________
"THis is sort-of analogous to the idea that defense of another is as legal as self-defense"
_____________________________________________
Do you not think that an attempt to assassinate our president is self defense? Do you not think that his direct sponsorship of his own terrorist groups in 1991 and his further support of Palestinian suicide bombers of our ally is defense? Do you not think that his training and general support for the OBL network is a defensive response?
________________________________________________
On the attempted assassination and other actions in 1991 -- no, this is the reason for the presence of the word "present" in the "clear and present danger" concept --- once the threat or danger has passed, the justification for self-defense also passes. In other words, if you have someone in your house waiving a gun at you, you are legally justified in shooting him dead, but if he's running down the street with your stereo and you shoot him in the back, it is (at the very least) manslaughter, even if he was waiving his gun in your face moments ago, since the imminent danger has passed and he has his back to you now. It's been about fifteen years since I studied international law, and you all will have to forgive my feeble memory. But while the analogy to international relations may not be direct, I do believe a twelve-year-old assassination trail has grown too cold to provide any justification.
The other points would be more persuasive if I did not know that Saddam is secular and has no allegiance to any particular fanatical cause other than his own personal one. But still even knowing that, these latter points hold some persuasion for me personally... My husband analogizes him to Hitler and says if we had not waited to squelch him we could have averted WWII... (THAT should start another big argument)
Quote
_____________________________________________
"Iraq is not attacking anyone right now"
I believe for a year or so before 9/11... OBL was not attacking anyone either. Moreover Saddam's sponsorship of terrorism within recent years is an attack.
_____________________________________________
Yes, of all the arguments in favor of war now that I have heard, I find this thinking most persuasive. However, a couple of responses that need to be taken into consideration here. While I believe Saddam is a freaking lunatic egomaniac, I do not believe he is stupid. Directly attacking the U.S. would be stupid because it would hand us the very justification we lack right now. I do believe he will use his weapons on somebody because he has done it already about a dozen times. However, it will likely be somebody helpless like a tribe in his own boundaries, or someone smaller in an attack that would pack the direct punch desired by the polarized Middle-East community, like probably Israel. But daRgON, this IS a PROBLEM: without either a clear and present danger to US, or international community support to lend legitimacy, we are arguably setting a dangerous global precedent by claiming such a danger to justify this attack, which puts us back in PH's point about Chechnya.
Also, is it not the case that we have evidence of OBL being behind several attacks against US interests, for instance, wasn't he behind the attack on the Kohl???
Quote
____________________________________________________
"During the early part of the 20 Century, the US tried to impose its particular form of democracy on every single of the hundreds of Indian nations that were already here"
________________________________________________________
Our actions against Native Americans was clearly imperialistic as most nations were at the tim...but please don't compare that situation to this situation. We would be imperialistic if we liberated Kuwait, Kosovo, etc and claimed them as our land...we don't practice imperialism any longer....there is a big difference between liberation and imperialism.
_____________________________________________
I will concede that our brand of inperialism is different than it once was, but the point of my analogy was twofold on different points than this one.
Primarily, my point is that we cannot, even with the best of intentions, impose "democracy" on nations whose cultural/social/religious/economic infrastructure is not set up for it and ready to receive it. Once again, imposing one form of political structure on another form of society is frequently doomed to disintegrate. Culture, society, religion, economy and politics are all organic parts of a whole which need to evolve or revolve together, usually from within. Sure we can help those who are ready for such changes along, but a change in one element necessitates changes in all the others in a given human system. This phenomenon is very poorly understood by Americans in general.
Second, my point in the Native American analogy is that while we (U.S.) frequently profess to be acting in the bset interests of others, as is the case with many nations in the nation-state system, our professed reasons are frequently bunk. It is an established matter of international fact that nation states usually do not articulate the real motivations behind their actions. But the U.S. is particularly disliked for claiming credit as a do-gooder when it is really acting in its own self-interest. NOWHERE is this truer thant in the Middle-East.
Many have blind faith in their government here, which I do not and simply cannot have, in my own personal experience. I have been there and stood there and watched my government manipulate people to their great detriment in order to secure its own best interests, then make pathetic excuses which the general public swallowed whole. THis continues to happen and is NOT a phenomenon of the distant past. I admonish you, daRgON, you really do not want to argue with me on this point; regrettably, I know whereof I speak. It is way off point for this thread but we can move aside and discuss it elsewhere if you'd like.
PH -- sorry! I owe you an e-mail -- soon!!! We're digging out from beneath three and a half feet of snow here and I lost a whole day's work yesterday just moving snow. Sorry to be so neglectful....
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 06:15 PM |
|
|
Ah, Peacemaker must live in or around Denver.
Anyway...I am now listening to Rush Limbaugh...great radio program, peacemaker and dArGOn should listen to it. It is on right now. Peacemaker could call in and voice her/his opinion, if you do say peacemaker somewhere in your call.
dArGOn will be pleased that someone out there is as outspoken as we are.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 06:37 PM |
|
|
On the 30...... it's quite a list really, namely
Afghanistan
Albania
Australia
Azerbajan
Bulgaria
Columbia (such a morally upstanding nation huh?)
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungaru
Italy
Japan (but not until post conflict)
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
The Netherlands
Nicaragua
The Phillipines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey - hmmmmmm didn't they refuse to station american troops there?
Britain
Uzbekistan
A list of some importance? Well only 3 sit on the current UN secrurity council - Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. There's also 146 nations not in support (or not caring) on the UN, with 13 of them sitting on the security council. No arab nation is openly voicing it's support, though it's possible that they may be counted under the shadowy 15 Bush also says give their support.
France, Germany and Russia have asked for a meeting of the Security council. Putin condemmed America saying the issue should be dealt with diplomatically, Schroder said that threats of hussain didn't justify killing innocent civilians in a war and Chirac condemmed the move, but hinted that french backing was possible if sadam uses WMD.
Me? I say 45 out of 191 is as far from what should be considered support as it is from unilateral.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
FIREOFTRUTH
Bad-mannered
|
posted March 19, 2003 07:23 PM |
|
|
WE ARE THE BAD GUYS IN THIS WAR. IRAQ IS NOT THE ENEMY
SINCE THE DESERT STORM WAR AGAINST IRAQ THE AMERICAN MILITARY HAS BOMBED THE IRAQI PEOPLE YEAR AFTER YEAR KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I USED TO WORK FOR THE MILITARY AND KNEW OF THEIR PLANS. NOW THINK ABOUT THIS IF YOU HAD A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT BOMBING YOU WOULDNT YOU RETALIATE I THINK THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT DESERVED WHAT HAPENNED ON SEPTEMBER 11 NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BUT THE INNOCENT ALWAYS PAY FOR THE GUILTY. WE GAVE IRAQ NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON THE IRAQ-IRAN WAR AND WE TRAINED OSAMA BIN LADEN AND OTHERS WHO ARE NOW AGAINST THE U.S. BECAUSE WE TURNED AGAINST THEM FIRST THE U.S. NEEDS TO RE EVALUETE ITS VALUES OF PEACE,TRUTH AND JUSTICE AND SEE THE REALITY BEHIND THIS. IT ANNOYS ME TO HEAR HOW AMERICA IS AGAINST HATE CRIMES AND PROTECTS THE WEAK BUT WAKE UP AMERICA YOU ARE HATING THE FRENCH BECAUSE THEY DONT SUPPORT YOU TELLING THEM THAT THEY ARE INGRATES FOR NOT HELPING THE U.S. THAT IS WRONG AND ON TOP OF THAT ATTACKING A WEAKER COUNTRY. THE WAY I SEE IT IS THAT THIS WILL TURN INTO ANOTHER VIETNAM AND THE U.S. WILL LOSE THIS STUDID WAR REMEMBER ON DESERT STORM THERE WERE 35 COUNTRIES HELPING THE U.S. NOW IT IS JUST THE U.S., ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA BUT OF COURSE THE GOVERNMENTS ARE DOING WHAT THEY WANT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DOES NOT WISH FOR WAR. WHY IS IT THAT ALL OF THE SUDDEN WE FORGET ABOUT BIN LADEN AND CONCENTRATE OUR EVERY THOUGHTS ON IRAQ BECAUSE THE TRUE PURPOSE OF THE U.S. FOR GOING TO IRAQ IS TO CONTROL THE OIL RESOURCES. GREEDY COUNTRY THE U.S. IS ISNT IT WELL WITHOUT NATO OR THE UN SUPPORTING THE U.S. ATTACK ON IRAQ I HOPE DEEP IN MY HEART THAT THE U.S. LOSES THIS WAR AND IF IRAQ USES CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST U.S. SOLDIERS THEN I FELL SORRY FOR THEM FOR FOLLOWING A snowED UP COUNTRY TO BEGIN WITH. THEY DESERVE THE CHEMICAL ATTACK JUST FOR GOING OVER THERE AND THINKING THAT THE U.S. IS ALWAYS RIGHT WHICH IS BS. HOW BOLD IS PRESIDENT BUSH TO DEMAND THE DICTATOR OF A COUNTRY TO LEAVE IN 48 HOURS THAT IS LIKE TELLING SOMEONE TO LEAVE THEIR OWN HOUSE AND DONT COME BACK. THAT IS MORE BS WELL I AGAIN HOPE THAT THE U.S. LOSES THIS WAR SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN WAKE UP FROM THEIR SLEEP AND REALIZE WHO THE REAL EVIL IS IRAQ OR AMERICA.WAR WILL EVER RESOLVE ANYTHING SO WHY GO THERE AND FIGHT THIS IS WHAT EVERYBODY KNOWS EXCEPT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT SAYS RIGHT THERE HOW EASY THEY ARE BEING CONTROLLED BY THIS WAR MACHINE CALLED THE U.S. ONE MORE THING WHY IS EVERYBODY DEMANDING BOMB INSPECTIONS ON IRAQ AND NOBODY ASKS FOR BOMB INSPECTIONS ON THE U.S. BECAUSE AMERICA HAS THE BIGGEST ARSENAL OR CHEMICAL,BIOLORICAL AND NUCLEAR BOMBS IN THE ENTIRE WORLD WHY NOT ASK THE U.S. FOR CONSTANT INSPECTIONS WE DO THE SAME THING IRAQ DOES WE ARE JUST BETTER AT BEING DIPLOMATIC AND CHANGING PUBLIC VIEW WITH OTHER THINGS QUICKER THAN OTHERS CAN. JUST INFORM YOURSELVES AND SEE THE TRUTH I RECOMMEND READING A BOOK CALLED: ADDICTED TO WAR WHY THE U.S. CANT KICK MILITARISM IT WILL ILLUSTRATE EVERYONE IN WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT SO TAKE CARE AND OPEN YOUR EYES FOR THE TRUTH
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 08:30 PM |
|
|
Private Hudson!!! Good Morning /afternoon!! (It's probably dinnertime there huh?)
Where did you get that list by the way??? I want a peek at your cheat sheet baby....
Hello also to FireOfTruth. Any chance of you sharing where you're from?
Yes, Wolfman, speaking of which, we're just west of Denver and actually our snow is deeper (we're in the foothills)... It's really something. The first-floor windows are almost completely obscured...everything's shut down... cabin fever time!!! You out here too???
(For PH's sake I should clarify for the rest of you that I am indeed a female)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 08:53 PM |
|
|
Quote from dArGOn:
"If we use nuclear weapons...I will buy you a cookie. Other then that move to the back of the class."
I did not write the USA would use the nuclear weapon. You used words such as "grown-ups" and "responsibility" talking about the upcoming war. My point was that American power could not be presented as a sign of maturity. Do not put words into my mouth, pretty please.
You haven't answered me, though... Ever seen a war yourself?
************************************************************
Boy, what a list of allies. As if you forced people by arms or pay them money to come to your birthday party and call them friends.
Phoenix, you can unlock caps on your keyboard. In a couple of hours innocent women and children will start dying no matter what you write or how you write it.
As for other generals on this forum... Think about it and imagine your parents or children instead of them, you smart, smart asses.
____________
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 09:32 PM |
|
|
Dammit I did it again!!!
Say PH, I hope I didn't like cross the line with my inside joke, you know, about "harsh language" and all. [WINK]Actually this is a very legitimate point you are making. From a strictly legal standpoint, when a term is ambiquous, past usage within a given forum is a perfectly legitimate manner of determining intent. What has been intended in the past by this term when used by the U.N.???
By the way, Wolfman, I forgot -- thanks for the invite on Limbaugh, but I'm only checking this site periodically today and the show was prob'ly over by the time I came back on. That would have been cool!! but sometimes Rush gets my dander way up and chances are he would have hung up on me long before I ever got to "peacemaker."
How do you get along with Howard Stern??? He can be kinda rude too, but he's got humility, unlike Limbaugh... I'm kinda big on humility.... (just ask dArGOn -- I think I've given him a snootful and better ease up on him now)
Say, dArGOn,it just came to my attention that I've really been screwing up your name. I think I've got it now.... Sorry about that. This was not intentional. People in RL do that to me all the time and it drives me nuts.
OH -- and one more thing -- Wolfman, I think it was you the other day who asserted that war is good for the economy. Actually that is a fable based on the deceptive appearance that was created by the fluke of post WWII. From what I recall, the recovering economy was actually attributed to some pretty unique major forces by economists, the primary one being the entry of women into the workforce (recalling that we were primarily non-producing dependents before the Rosie-the-Riveter revolution brought about by WWII). Our entire economy was transformed by that social change, which brought half our populace out of a position of dependency, basically relying of the male half for their survival.
Actually, investment into wartime activity has a negative econommic impact. The "M1" value of a dollar invested in war implements is usually only one dollar, since that implement then either sits idle in non-war times or is destroyed in combat. (Wartime dollars in the form of paychecks to soldiers have no different effect than any other paycheck dollars; they get circulated about the same either way.)
Alternatively, the value of a non-war dollar (the "M1" value) is usually about six or seven dollars, since in a healthy economy, the dollar gets circulated about that many times before coming to rest in a bank account somewhere. In other words, when you buy a car or a house with the money the car or house stays around for a long time and holds its value. But if you buy shells or tanks which are then detonated/blown up, the value is destroyed with them.
Finally, it is pretty well established that citizenries whose governments are involved in war become very frugal, cautious, and typically engage in recessionist activities. The end of war usually leads to a brief spending boom, which further contributes to the appearance that war is "good" for the economy. But this is only in perspective "good" because of the preceding recessionist period.
Again, this is all may be yet another oversimplification in the other direction based on my feeble memory of studies on this topic some twenty years ago (yish)!!! If you have better, more current data I'd love to hear it!
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 09:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
SINCE THE DESERT STORM WAR AGAINST IRAQ THE AMERICAN MILITARY HAS BOMBED THE IRAQI PEOPLE YEAR AFTER YEAR KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I USED TO WORK FOR THE MILITARY AND KNEW OF THEIR PLANS.
Woah buddy, if you were in the military, do you really think you knew much of anything as far as plans go? Unless you were high up in the ranks like a 4star general you knew squat.
Quote:
WE GAVE IRAQ NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON THE IRAQ-IRAN WAR...
We also gave Iran the same help, and that is why Iraq hates us so much.
Quote:
...AND WE TRAINED OSAMA BIN LADEN...
Yes we did, because we were against the Soviets for so long.
Quote:
...THAT IS WRONG AND ON TOP OF THAT ATTACKING A WEAKER COUNTRY.
Of course we are attacking a weaker country! How could we not be? We are the worlds' only superpower!
Quote:
THE WAY I SEE IT IS THAT THIS WILL TURN INTO ANOTHER VIETNAM AND THE U.S. WILL LOSE THIS STUDID WAR REMEMBER ON DESERT STORM THERE WERE 35 COUNTRIES HELPING THE U.S. NOW IT IS JUST THE U.S., ENGLAND AND AUSTRALIA BUT OF COURSE THE GOVERNMENTS ARE DOING WHAT THEY WANT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DOES NOT WISH FOR WAR.
Actually, right after Pres. Bush's speech and ultimatum on Monday, the polls went up. about 70% are for a war if Saddam does not leave the country.
Quote:
WHY IS IT THAT ALL OF THE SUDDEN WE FORGET ABOUT BIN LADEN AND CONCENTRATE OUR EVERY THOUGHTS ON IRAQ...
Well, if you know "their plans" you would realize that that is totally wrong. The CIA and Special Forces teams are in search for bin Laden as we speak.
Quote:
...BECAUSE THE TRUE PURPOSE OF THE U.S. FOR GOING TO IRAQ IS TO CONTROL THE OIL RESOURCES.
Ummm, no it will be turned over to the Iraqi people. If you were paying attention to the news you would have heard that.
Quote:
GREEDY COUNTRY THE U.S. IS ISNT IT WELL WITHOUT NATO OR THE UN SUPPORTING THE U.S. ATTACK ON IRAQ...
It doesn't need to go through the UN! As I have stated before with the reasons.
Quote:
I HOPE DEEP IN MY HEART THAT THE U.S. LOSES THIS WAR AND IF IRAQ USES CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST U.S. SOLDIERS THEN I FELL SORRY FOR THEM FOR FOLLOWING A snowED UP COUNTRY TO BEGIN WITH.
So I am going out on a limb in saying that you don't support the troops.
Quote:
THEY DESERVE THE CHEMICAL ATTACK JUST FOR GOING OVER THERE AND THINKING THAT THE U.S. IS ALWAYS RIGHT WHICH IS BS.
Obviously you think very strongly about the issue, but do you think that you are always right, because I think that is as you put it "BS".
Quote:
HOW BOLD IS PRESIDENT BUSH TO DEMAND THE DICTATOR OF A COUNTRY TO LEAVE IN 48 HOURS THAT IS LIKE TELLING SOMEONE TO LEAVE THEIR OWN HOUSE AND DONT COME BACK.
But he would do it if he really cared about hiis people wouldn't he.
Quote:
THAT IS MORE BS WELL I AGAIN HOPE THAT THE U.S. LOSES THIS WAR SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN WAKE UP FROM THEIR SLEEP AND REALIZE WHO THE REAL EVIL IS IRAQ OR AMERICA.
Does the US attack its neighbors, and use poison gasses on its own people? If you have seen the pictures of the Kurdish cities after Saddam gassed them I think you would be more reasonable.
Quote:
WAR WILL EVER RESOLVE ANYTHING SO WHY GO THERE AND FIGHT THIS IS WHAT EVERYBODY KNOWS EXCEPT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT SAYS RIGHT THERE HOW EASY THEY ARE BEING CONTROLLED BY THIS WAR MACHINE CALLED THE U.S.
Who said that? The only person who I saw say that is Jenine Garafolo and she is just against war period, no matter how many people die because we don't do in there. She is ignorant as I think you are.
Quote:
ONE MORE THING WHY IS EVERYBODY DEMANDING BOMB INSPECTIONS ON IRAQ AND NOBODY ASKS FOR BOMB INSPECTIONS ON THE U.S. BECAUSE AMERICA HAS THE BIGGEST ARSENAL OR CHEMICAL,BIOLORICAL AND NUCLEAR BOMBS IN THE ENTIRE WORLD WHY NOT ASK THE U.S. FOR CONSTANT INSPECTIONS WE DO THE SAME THING IRAQ DOES WE ARE JUST BETTER AT BEING DIPLOMATIC AND CHANGING PUBLIC VIEW WITH OTHER THINGS QUICKER THAN OTHERS CAN.
When has the US used Chemical or Bio weapons on its own people like Saddam did, I can't think of a time.
Quote:
JUST INFORM YOURSELVES AND SEE THE TRUTH I RECOMMEND READING A BOOK CALLED: ADDICTED TO WAR WHY THE U.S. CANT KICK MILITARISM IT WILL ILLUSTRATE EVERYONE IN WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT SO TAKE CARE AND OPEN YOUR EYES FOR THE TRUTH
I think I am plenty informed, and I don't need to read some liberal book that is trying to change my opinion. My eyes are open to the "truth"!
Peacemaker: No, I am not in the mountians of the west. I just know were things are happening in the world, because I am INFORMED.
____________
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 09:42 PM |
|
|
VLAAD -- hey dude. You must have been writing this while I was writing mine because I did not see you post until after I was done. Just wanted to say Hi again.
Just one humorous observation. Somehow a person named "Vlaad" saying "pretty please" invokes a strange image of inconruity. 
So how'bout it dArGOn???? Ever been shot at???
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 09:45 PM |
|
|
Yes, I know there were other factors in that but the war did help the economy.
____________
|
|
peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted March 19, 2003 09:49 PM |
|
|
Wolfman -- How?
************* STOP THE PRESSES*************
PEACEMAKER JUST SUBMITTED A TWO-WORD POST
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
