how iraq was, is, and shall continue to be a total f - up

[RedTop]

Originally posted by patrone
Then, the matter of the coalition of the willing, attacking Iraq would be brought up to the International court of Law.

You think it would have legal grounds or be scraped just as Serbias complaint over the Nato bombing?

That would be a comedy worth watching. Trying to hang someone or some country or countries out to dry. Mean while the Oil for food scandal is beyond reproach and Kofi I got rich Anan gets nothing.

Certain parts of the world may want to have a countries head on a paltter. I say to them , Dont throw rocks in a glass house.

[JB88]

redtop.

i appreciate your service.  my arguement has never been with those who serve.  

ever.



arguing against the action doesnt make it an arguement against the servicemen, nor against america.  nor is dissent a personal affront.

it makes it an arguement for what america is perhaps...or an arguement about what the world may become.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by patrone
Yes you did, I said "If". The outcome or the actull voting figures has not been issued yet and we will just have to wait and see.

no, no, no.....I meant.....did I misinterpret the number of provinces that will be able to vote.  Is it.....14 of 18 provinces WILL be able to vote or 14 of 18 WONT?

[patrone]

Originally posted by RedTop
That would be a comedy worth watching. Trying to hang someone or some country or countries out to dry. Mean while the Oil for food scandal is beyond reproach and Kofi I got rich Anan gets nothing.

Certain parts of the world may want to have a countries head on a paltter. I say to them , Dont throw rocks in a glass house.

Well, if the Iraqs make a complaint about it, it has to be brought up, even if Kofi Annan was quilty as hell, (Kurt Waldheim was actully a NAZI, but UN still continued its work, If I recall correct).

SO, the whole issue would be considered nonvalid, because of the "Oil for Food" scandal?
Hm...I do not think it would work that way. And, if there was really any proofs about this scandal, why donīt USA bring it to the International court of Law? It couldīnt be vetod by the SC.
To me, it seem to be just a smokescreen, really, to misscredit countries that was against the attack on Iraq and stoped it in SC.

[Nash]

Originally posted by JB88
but understand, i am speaking to americans.  it is not meant to sound pompous.

Out of curiousity, have you ever considered what it sounds like to non-Americans when your President says, during the SOTU for example, stuff like "Greatest country in the World"... "God is on our side"... etc?

[patrone]

Originally posted by Elfie
no, no, no.....I meant.....did I misinterpret the number of provinces that will be able to vote.  Is it.....14 of 18 provinces WILL be able to vote or 14 of 18 WONT?

Well, thats what is stated or was stated before. 14 out of 18. But the actual figures from when it happends, we have to wait for.

[JB88]

Originally posted by Nash
Out of curiousity, have you ever considered what it sounds like to non-Americans when your President says, during the SOTU for example, stuff like "Greatest country in the World"... "God is on our side"... etc?

ya.

to quote sherman potter from mash, i think that it sounds like a bunch of horse puckey.

but that is only because i prefer the quote
"sir, my concern is not whether god is on our side, but that we are on the side of god."

regardless of religious affiliation, at least that means that one is considering the higher force rather than speaking for it.

[RedTop]

Originally posted by JB88
redtop.

i appreciate your service.  my arguement has never been with those who serve.  

ever.



arguing for the action doesnt make it an arguement against the servicemen, nor against america.  nor is dissent a personal affront.

it makes it an arguement for what america is perhaps...or an arguement about what the world may become.

Dissent is one thing. I respect the arguments made against actions taken. When those arguments are put forth in a thoughtful way they lead to thoughtful respones. When you start trying to force your point on me , and you know I may not agree already , thats when the mud slinging and hatefulness starts.

President Bush made certain points in his inauguarl speech about bringing democrocy to the world. That is, IMO , a pipe dream. But it makes people who already have a chip on their shoulder about America , that much MORE hardened against the U.S..

I don't believe for a minute that this country should try to make a democratic world. People in other lands simply don't want it. They don't need it. They have no use for it. They will fight to be the way they are. That is a stone fact. However , if a country DOES want it. Why are there americans , who "Claim" to love this country ,yet not want others to enjoy the same as what we have. Even if it is on a smaller scale?

I wasn't thinking you were affronting the troops. Never thought that.

There are , on this BBS , many whom if they were HONEST with not only others , but them selves would admit that they did mean the troops when they were talking smack.

[Nash]

Originally posted by JB88
ya.

to quote sherman potter from mash, i think that it sounds like a bunch of horse puckey.

but that is only because i prefer the quote
"sir, my concern is not whether god is on our side, but that we are on the side of god."

regardless of religious affiliation, at least that means that one is considering the higher force rather than speaking for it.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
Out of curiousity, have you ever considered what it sounds like to non-Americans when your President says, during the SOTU for example, stuff like "Greatest country in the World"... "God is on our side"... etc?

I wonder why anyone would care. If China or Russia or North Korea said that same thing, I'd laugh.

[Nash]

Comparing yourselves to midgets again. Whoopty-doo.

[RedTop]

Originally posted by patrone
Well, if the Iraqs make a complaint about it, it has to be brought up, even if Kofi Annan was quilty as hell, (Kurt Waldheim was actully a NAZI, but UN still continued its work, If I recall correct).

SO, the whole issue would be considered nonvalid, because of the "Oil for Food" scandal?
Hm...I do not think it would work that way. And, if there was really any proofs about this scandal, why donīt USA bring it to the International court of Law? It couldīnt be vetod by the SC.
To me, it seem to be just a smokescreen, really, to misscredit countries that was against the attack on Iraq and stoped it in SC.

No no...Don't mean that the scandal (which does exsist) is a smake screen and means anything. Or, that it would be a leverage tool.

My point is , when all is said and done , it wont hold water. Trying the coalition of the Willing from Iraq , IMO , wont happen. Iraq certanly won't bring it up. I don't think they think that anyway.

As far as the Oil for food thing being brought to "International Court" I don't think it can be. I wont try to make a case as I haven't really studied it alot. If memory serves tho there is some UN thing where they are exempt from all sorts of laws and stuff. Not sure how it works. So , would be best I don''t try to speak to that.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Nash
Comparing yourselves to midgets again. Whoopty-doo.

So, are we obligated to market ourselves and our STOU to a world audience? Maybe we are. Are we that important?

[Nash]

Originally posted by NUKE
So, are we obligated to market ourselves and our STOU to a world audience?

[/b]

If not, why do you?

Originally posted by NUKE
Are we that important?

Now more than ever.

[Rolex]

Hey NUKE...

I have a couple of sincere questions for you. No sarcasm or trap being set - just a couple of adults (You are an adult, right?) having a beer and shootin' the breeze. Can you handle that?