Author Topic: Is it true the Brits are going to make it against the law to spank your kid? (Read 1780 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #15 on:** November 17, 2003, 05:35:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
That was not my meaning. I don't have the right to initiate a "disiplinary" action against you for not doing what I think is right.

Really? What if I take all your money at gunpoint?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #16 on:** November 17, 2003, 05:43:30 PM »

Gsholtz, what does "Serious consequences" mean to you? I mean, outside of everything else that had been employed against iraq for failing on numerous other resolutions? Maybe no TV for a week? How about "no dessert!"

Not to worry though, we've still protected your future too by fighting back instead of wimpering in a corner asking the bad guys not to hurt us...

AKIron · « **Reply #17 on:** November 17, 2003, 05:44:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
I'd call the police who do have the right to arrest you, then the judicial system will prosecute you and if found guilty the penal system will punish you. I on the other hand have no right to punish you.

You did initiate it.

However, you've touched on a more interesting point. I believe that my police and my courts are accountable to me. Therefore I am responsible for what they do.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #18 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:10:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
[B"Fighting back"? Strange phrasing, when did Iraq attack you? When you are attacked you have the right to defend yourself and retribute. Your war against Afghanistan was so justified and you got the support of the UN and NATO. Not so for Iraq.

Bad guys hurting us? No bad guys are hurting us, we don't need to "whimper" in a corner, nor do we need your protection. [/B]

Alittle behind on the news, are you?

Quote

According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #19 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:28:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
"According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer..." When did you invade Iraq again? Getting a little ahead of yourself there I think. And "debriefing" a single officer (in Quantanamo no doubt) is hardly justification to initiate a war.

That reply made no sense whatsoever.

AKIron · « **Reply #20 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:43:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
No, not unless you're capable of common reasoning. How does the word of a single individual justify an invasion that took place months earlier? It doesn't. When you invaded Iraq you had no evidence of anything, least of all on WMD which is what this invasion was supposedly justified by at the time of invasion. No WMD, no 9/11 link, no Al Quaeda link (except the word of one man), and the Iraqis are fighting you rather than hailing you as liberators. I call BS.

I call BS on your denial of your earlier innuendo.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #21 on:** November 17, 2003, 06:43:50 PM »

WMD was a reason. Unfortunately, Saddam played the Ace, and fooled not only the US., but took you in as suckers in supporting HIS cause and not ours (which *was/is* for the good of the world, as well as his people) Using said WMD as terrorist weapons and/or selling them to these people was as much of a threat. It would have happened eventually, don't you think?

But no worries, we'll still protect your sorry futuristic butts, even without a "thanks".

AKIron · « **Reply #22 on:** November 17, 2003, 07:00:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
My country is not the one trampling on the rights of others

Tell me this wasn't directed at the US and that you didn't have Iraq in mind.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #23 on:** November 17, 2003, 07:22:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Which was?

I do believe terrorists will use WMD at some point in time, however your reasoning that Iraq was the biggest threat for supplying WMD to terrorists is flawed in the extreme. Iraq had nothing to win by doing this and everything to lose. Iraq was under UN inspections and had dismantled its WMD programs to practically inactive status. Other nations on the other hand like Iran and Syria has proved they have WMD (Iran used them in the Iran-Iraq war), and are also historically major supporters of terrorism. Why Iraq, when they are the least threat?

Countries like Syria are DEFINATLEY gonna think twice before supporting terrorists, don't you think? Why NOT IRaq? We know the country well! (1991) Now the Middle east KNOWS we're not gonna take chit...and we'll dish it out as well.

Iraq was an EXCELLENT decision to base operations out of for routing out these guys. Brings the fight to THEM, rather than they to us.

AKIron · « **Reply #24 on:** November 17, 2003, 07:35:41 PM »

You didn't deny it outright but your implication did when you said this.

"I'm hinting at me not feeling to have the right to tell you how to raise your children ... or how to run your country, including "disciplinary" action."

Oh well, those that are taking action won't be swayed by you and those looking for support from you no longer have the influence they so sorely miss. Moot point.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #25 on:** November 17, 2003, 07:41:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Right now it's the Iraqis that are "bringing the fight" to you. The same Iraqis that didn't seem willing to fight the much less formidable Iraqi army under Hussein. Why do you think that is?

No, insurgents from Syria, Iran, and Saddams leftovers are attacking us. Clean up is in progress. Stay tuned.

Christ, we got the terrorists so bent out of shape, Saudi Arabia has 2 min. radio messages every hour on the hour on our local radio stations saying "We are your friends, don't confuse us for terrorists, we are fighting them too!"

One thing a terrorist org understands is firepower. Bring it.

AKIron · « **Reply #26 on:** November 17, 2003, 07:43:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
No, I didn't specify Iraq, I was commenting on the broader perspective of the (perhaps only perceived) rising sentiments in the US that they have the right to police other nations.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Guess we'll just hafta look after our own interest and to hell with those that don't like it.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #27 on:** November 17, 2003, 07:45:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
No, I think they are supporting terrorism now more than ever ... terrorism in Iraq that is.

I think this may prove to be the biggest political blunder in modern times. Time will show.

That depends whether you view having the battle on your home soil or bringing the fight to them. I prefer on THEIR turf.

Corsair · « **Reply #28 on:** November 17, 2003, 07:52:09 PM »

The thread went from a rumor about making spanking illegal to terrorists in Syria....

cpxxx · « **Reply #29 on:** November 17, 2003, 09:01:57 PM »

Well corporal punishment may never have done you any harm but I bet you learned the power of violence. Saddam Hussein was beaten and humiliated as a child. He learned fast, violence works and he got away with for years until some bigger boys came along and took away his toys.