Author Topic: Good Riddance to Kofi (Read 2246 times)

ByeBye · « **Reply #60 on:** December 19, 2006, 03:39:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
Illegal wars have illegal consequences. Iraq

How come Iraq is the only "illegal" war I have ever heard about? Funny how that is, heh?

Stringer · « **Reply #61 on:** December 19, 2006, 06:42:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SteveBailey
Did ya ever hear Nimoy sing that Bilbo Baggins song? Hysterical.

OK...I have to agree with you there!!

Thrawn · « **Reply #62 on:** December 19, 2006, 06:56:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Again, do a search of IRAQ and WMD. More are concerned about "being lied to by Bush Admin" than "Ridding the world of a tyrant".

No, unsurprisingly in discourse it is beholden of the person making a claim to actually be able to support it. You didn't qualify your meaning of "lefties". Apparently you were only talking about people on this BBS that you label lefty. Which is a neat rhetorical trick. It means that you can cherry pick with your arbitrary label of "lefty".

Quote

The claim stands. Unfortunately you are one "of them" and frankly I'm not sure how you can sleep at night.

See, exactly like that. You wish to dismiss my arguments, so you arbitrarily label me "one of them"...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

...and then go on to wonder how I can sleep at night because you have assigned an arbitrary label to me. Well, the answer to that is, I don't really give a fig about the labels you assign to me. Even if I believed in some Aristotelean essance, I wouldn't label mine "Left". I'm more capitalist than you have ever demonstrated yourself to be, and am quite happy with that.

It's not that your stupid Rip, it's either that you are ignorant of critical thinking and chose to remain so, or that you are purposefully trying to mislead people.

ByeBye · « **Reply #63 on:** December 19, 2006, 07:03:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
No, unsurprisingly in discourse it is beholden of the person making a claim to actually be able to support it.

Of course, you could state and quote were Bush lied about Iraq's WMD. That might be a good start. Then you could explain how *you* knew Iraq didn't have WMD.

Neubob · « **Reply #64 on:** December 19, 2006, 07:06:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ByeBye
Of course, you could state and quote were Bush lied about Iraq's WMD. That might be a good start. Then you could explain how *you* knew Iraq didn't have WMD.

Have you ever considered changing your name to ByeByeBye?

Silat · « **Reply #65 on:** December 19, 2006, 07:25:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Again, do a search of IRAQ and WMD. More are concerned about "being lied to by Bush Admin" than "Ridding the world of a tyrant".

The claim stands. Unfortunately you are one "of them" and frankly I'm not sure how you can sleep at night.

No most were/are concerned with being lied into a war where our sons/daughters/friends etc are being maimed or killed.

SteveBailey · « **Reply #66 on:** December 19, 2006, 07:39:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Silat
No most were/are concerned with being lied into a war where our sons/daughters/friends etc are being maimed or killed.

Silat, the UN, Russia, Italy, Germany, France, Great Britain, and several other countries all said Iraq had WMD's. It had to be a world wide conspiracy if they all lied. Amazing. So exactly who lied about what?
Answer the question.

Viking · « **Reply #67 on:** December 19, 2006, 07:40:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SteveBailey
Ok, so I'll pose the question again: What is your opinion about Annan? Was he a good and honest figurehead of the UN?

I know his son was involved in some scandal, but I’ve not heard anything that suggests Kofi Annan has not been honest. As for “good” I think he has done his job as well as anyone can expect under the circumstances.

Quote

Originally posted by SteveBailey
Here's another: Do you consider the UN to be an effective organization based on their declared purposes stated in their charter?

Compared to what? No UN? There is always room for improvement, but I think the UN works as effectively as can be expected with 5 nations having veto rights in the Security Council. It certainly is more efficient then no UN at all.

SteveBailey · « **Reply #68 on:** December 19, 2006, 09:47:14 PM »

Quote

Compared to what?

Compared to its' own mission statement that i provided for you. Not "As can be expected" do you consider it effective in attaining its' own goals?

Viking · « **Reply #69 on:** December 19, 2006, 10:23:09 PM »

As good as can be expected and certainly better than with no UN. Is that so hard to understand?

100% better than no UN. Is that better?

lukster · « **Reply #70 on:** December 19, 2006, 10:29:44 PM »

The UN has become nothing but a bloated bureaucracy that is far less than the sum of it's parts. I ask again, of those who think the UN is useful, what can it accomplish that can't be done better by individual countries?

Viking · « **Reply #71 on:** December 19, 2006, 10:50:11 PM »

Creating a forum for nations to talk and negotiate within a set of rules accepted by most countries in the world.

lukster · « **Reply #72 on:** December 19, 2006, 10:55:39 PM »

Nations can't talk without the UN? What are embassies for?

Viking · « **Reply #73 on:** December 19, 2006, 11:00:58 PM »

Like the US embassy in Iran perhaps? Or the Iranian embassy in the US?

Let me ask you this. What specific functions does the UN perform now do you think a single nation could do better?

lukster · « **Reply #74 on:** December 19, 2006, 11:25:25 PM »

Let me tell you rather that it would serve the interest of the US, and likely many other countries, better to deal directly with whatever other country they would like to influence. A country wants help or better trade relations then they deal with the country they want it from rather than push it before an organization with broadly varying interests.

Iran wouldn't be making the noise it is today if it didn't have the forum of the UN.