Author Topic: WMD's found in Iraq (Read 17399 times)

Staga · « **Reply #345 on:** January 16, 2004, 08:10:41 PM »

Toad I hope that someday you get a prez who doesn't fck you w/out KY-Jelly

Godzilla · « **Reply #346 on:** January 16, 2004, 08:21:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
Toad I hope that someday you get a prez who doesn't fck you w/out KY-Jelly

Wow, great argument:aok

Care to actually involve yourself in a debate? Guys like you usually have no logical sequence of thought, but it might be fun to have a debate with you based on the extraordinary point you have made here.

Toad · « **Reply #347 on:** January 16, 2004, 10:07:34 PM »

We don't have Finnish-style Politicians. Ours ALWAYS use K-Y!

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #348 on:** January 16, 2004, 10:31:22 PM »

i think the analogy stands your claiming a clear statment in a charter means somthing cant happen yet you have clear evidence in front of you that it has/did. the un charter forbids agressive violence, but not defensive and you have a soldier who was there ( are you honestly suggesting they painted their tanks white as a ruse? the other option is your wrong by the way quibble or no) under the un command and still you pretend that it was illeagal in the same manner as the invasion of iraq. the fact that the vast majority of countrys in the world were against the iraq invasion notwithstanding.i.e. you have quibbled.

you know soldiers were there you know the un ( all but two countrys ?) supported it you know its a totaly different situation

the list of bush/neocon crimes/lies grows dayly and going "im right im right" denighing even understanding of your at best quibbled at worst deluded arguments. only helps you in the minds of the non thinking party faithfull.

1.he was there the un approved; the vast majoity of the world aggreed or didnt care

2.bush lied the un didnt approve; the vast majority of the world was dead set against the dead being done in a insane illeagal manner. so he tried a number of different justifications. not the same thing.

and we are back to the 10 year old unusable mortar rounds.

your arguments arge getting weaker and weaker. relighing more on smoke and mirrors.

and my vote is getting more a more threatend every day beacause of immoral candidates you support out of dogma
its a nightmare. my wife sister just had a neice her daddy was scedualed out of the reserves but noooooo he was forced extention and then activated 1 day afeter his baby was born hes off to iraq directly because of these lies and hell no he dosent want to go. hes been drafted against his will.

Yeager · « **Reply #349 on:** January 16, 2004, 10:44:05 PM »

he didnt have to go. The constitution protects us from involuntary
servitude. He could have refused to go on reasons of morality.

The only other reason I can see him going was because it was his duty. I dont like it all. Being forced to go fight in a illegal war.
But I realized early on that volunteering for the armed forces meant that my own personal freewill would be voluntarily exempted at the whims of whomever was CIC.

I salute him and his family
==============================================

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to

sling322 · « **Reply #350 on:** January 16, 2004, 11:26:24 PM »

Jeeeezus TOWD......if I was as miserable as you, I would have employed the Colt .45 by now.

Toad · « **Reply #351 on:** January 17, 2004, 02:07:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
the un charter forbids agressive violence, but not defensive

[/b]

You're absolutely wrong about this. Even Scholz will tell you that. It just has to have SC authorization.

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
under the un command and still you pretend that it was illeagal in the same manner as the invasion of iraq.

[/b]

You don't understand that either. PROFOR, IFOR, KFOR and SFOR all were UN[/b] authorized force deployments that include troops from both NATO and non-NATO countries.The UN merely put NATO leadership on the operation of I/K/SFOR. Those were UN operations (with troops from non-NATO countries) that were put under the operational command of NATO officers. None of those were "NATO" operations.. they were UN operations.

So while NATO troops were involved, they were under UN rules and regs for use of force, not NATO which is a purely defensive alliance (or was until they violated their charter.)

When NATO unilaterally attacked Yugoslavia, a non-NATO country that had not attacked any NATO country, they violated their Charter. Especially considering they did that without UN SC approval.

The UN SC, as evidenced by Kofi Annan's statement and the statements out of Russia, that permanent member of the SC with veto authority, DID NOT authorize the NATO air war against Yugoslavia. No amount of wishful thinking on your part is going to change that. It was simply illegal. This situation is DIRECTLY analogous to the Iraq invasion.

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
the fact that the vast majority of countrys in the world were against the iraq invasion notwithstanding.i.e. you have quibbled

[/b]

Go back and read some of the news articles for Operation Allied Force; there were a lot of countries in the world against the NATO air war against Yugoslavia. So?

Again, the UN didn't approve either one. Further, NATO violated its charter. You can repeat your incorrect version of history but that won't change history. Well, you may convince some folks too lazy to actually research the topic.

Quote

LDV:daddy was scedualed out of the reserves but noooooo he was forced extention and then activated 1 day afeter his baby was born hes off to iraq directly because of these lies and hell no he dosent want to go. hes been drafted against his will.[/b]

Either you or he obviously failed to read and understand the Reserve agreement he signed. He can be extended, he can be deployed and he can be sent against his will. This was all explained to him when he signed up. There's lots of folks think the Guard/Reserve is "free money" with no obligation. They're simply wrong.

Too bad for him; it's a tough time to go. But you take the king's shilling, you do the king's bidding.

I knew a lot of Guard/Reserve guys in the airline that used to love bragging about the easy duty and flying top line fighters for sport on the weekends. Then they got called up for GW1 and deployed, some had their enlistments extended. Big difference in Airline Captain pay and Air Force Captain pay. But 99% of them knew what they had signed on for and went without a tear. 1% of them cried and *****ed uncontrollably about the sheer injustice of it all.

Which one is your friend going to emulate?

You're a sad, sour man with an obvious hardon for the US military. You've made it clear you didn't like the Navy. You continually moan that life just isn't fair.

Well, as many have said, you get out of the military what you put into it. Looks like you put the same vitriol and sour grapes into the Navy that you got out of it.

And hey... life ain't fair. No news flash.. it's probably the last thought that went through Abel's mind when Cain whacked him with the rock.

Lance · « **Reply #352 on:** January 17, 2004, 09:28:39 AM »

This thread really, really, really needs that "Arguing on the internet is like being in the Special Olympics..." picture.

Ping · « **Reply #353 on:** January 17, 2004, 09:35:02 AM »

G S
Please just let this die!

Kieran · « **Reply #354 on:** January 17, 2004, 09:43:16 AM »

Towd, the fact Gscholtz (or any NATO soldier) was in the region is not proof it was authorized to use force by the UN. What in the world do you believe supports that statement? American troops are in Iraq; does that by your logic mean the UN must have backed that up too? Of course not.

I would also say your assertion it didn't matter in any event "because the world didn't care" is in serious error as well. As has been stridently pointed out by many different international posters (Thrawn for one) the law is the law. If you want to beat the US (for you specifically, Bush) about the head about breaking the law, you are going to have to expect to see an obvious contradiction like this thrown back at you.

I'd known the NATO action years ago was "illegal" by world standards. I didn't know the minutae, and undoubtedly Toad has studied it far more than me or many others, but one thing was clear at the time; the UN failed to act when it should have, and NATO was forced to do what the UNSC wouldn't/couldn't. It has been discussed here and other places before, it's old news. I didn't and still don't have a problem with that, because I place absolutely no faith in the UN in these matters. The UN is not a viable body for settling international disputes today any more than it was then - if anything, worse.

Lance · « **Reply #355 on:** January 17, 2004, 09:45:02 AM »

And here we go!

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #356 on:** January 17, 2004, 09:49:26 AM »

I think we should start to argue about whether this thread is too long. That should be good for another 30 posts.

It is intresting to look at the development of this discussion.

That poison munitions were found is relatively unquestioned yet apparently gas weapons transform into harmless artifacts after the 'use by' date passes.

The condition of the munitions has something to do with their existance. Apparently if the are in good condition they exist, if in bad condition they do not exist.

The 'use by' date also somehow has something to do with Boznia, and when this date passes, all agreements and treaties regarding the former status of said munitions are null and void.

That the former munitions existed at all presents no indication of possible further weapons and casts no bad light on those who possesed them.

I think I may understand this now....

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #357 on:** January 17, 2004, 10:56:03 AM »

toad: hehe close i have a hardon for liars and the old boy networked liars. and a damn good reason ill hold to my grave. and they are not the military just corrupt criminals in uniform there is a difference and its in their mind not mine.

my friend is not emulating anyone he signed up and new what the "convienience of the army" clause was and hes goin. just like alot of guys went in nam and the first gulf. just doin duty under a lieing cheat is a onerous thing. his father was bad enought but the present "king" is a dealbreaker.

p.s. his contract time was up. the "king" (your analogy not mine) broke the deal and turned a volunteer into a conscript. he was never asked to extend of offered any bonus. i dont thing i have to tell you the difference. your "king" started a unwinnable illegal war with no end and is now forcing unwilling g.i.s to fight it. hense they are gonna start to get hard to find, patriotism as "i think"you know is in the bellybutton of the beholder. his new kid and lonly wife miss him while hes out "defending america"

p.s. hes a medic, but now hes gona be re assigned policeduty. after 10 years of medic (he manages emt service). always a smart move, way to many experinced medics around always in a war. hes lookin forward to being sniper bait, really he is.

Toad · « **Reply #358 on:** January 17, 2004, 11:28:16 AM »

I'm glad you had so much fun with it. It's an old saying, having its orgins in the British Army.

"When you take the King's shilling, you do the King's bidding."

Sort of that old accountability/responsibility thing; might be hard for you to grasp.

Hard-on for liars? That explains a lot; you always seemed like an internally unhappy person and still do.

You really have a hard time with reality, don't you?

Quote

LDV:new what the "convienience of the army" clause was and hes goin.

Good. Most folks understand that when they join the military.

Quote

LDV: p.s. his contract time was up. the "king" (your analogy not mine) broke the deal and turned a volunteer into a conscript

Huh? Cleary YOU don't understand but your friend does. Ask him to explain "convenience of the Army" to you again in relation to "contract is up".

"Stop loss" doesnt' break any deal, it's always been part of the deal. It was when my father was in for pete's sake! Had a job with TWA and was out processing when the NK's crossed the border. He stayed in the USAF and did his job and made a career of it. The TWA job just wasn't available after the Korean War. He didn't cry about it. We missed him while he was gone. That's just the way it was, for a lot of families, not just ourss. But I guess you don't understand that kind of stuff. Oh, BTW, did you know that NK says the US invaded NK first? I bet you believe that too... that lying Truman!!!!!

Obviously, your friend understands his obligation though. I respect him and salute him for his service.

Quote

LDV: his new kid and lonly wife miss him while hes out "defending america"

Gosh! I hadn't thought of that! I'll be they're the only two folks in the entire USA missing folks that are on military duty.

***********

Once again, just for you with all your "illegal" this and that.

The NATO air war against Yugoslavia had almost exactly the same "authorization" from the UN SC as did the recent Iraq invasion by the COTW.

Now you can rant and rave and fling frothing slobber all around, but that's just the way it is and it is historically documented.

The UN SC did NOT approve either action.

There were previous UN SC resolutions in both cases that, depending on the reader's particular bias can be shown to either support or not support either action.

The UN Sec General is on record as saying BOTH actions did not have the necessary UN SC approval.

So, if you're going to rail against the Iraq invasion, you're just railing agaist the NATO attack on Yugoslavia as well.

Like it or not, BOTH actions happened because, in almost every instance, the UN SC cannot bring itself to authorize the use of force.

That's why the dirty jobs always fall to some other organization, coalition or country.

***********

As for the rest of you gentlemen that want this thread to end, I'll point out that this thread has done more towards surpassing the post count in General Discussion than any other one currently on page on of the O'Club.

Ping · « **Reply #359 on:** January 18, 2004, 03:04:13 AM »

Well in that case then......437