Author Topic: Powells speech so far... (Read 6424 times)

Boroda · « **Reply #30 on:** February 05, 2003, 12:38:25 PM »

"You're guilty just becase I'm hungry."

Remembering that Powell was against US participation in Gulf war I wonder what happened that made a wise person take part in this stupid circus.

welcome back to 1939.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #31 on:** February 05, 2003, 12:41:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
"You're guilty just becase I'm hungry."

Remembering that Powell was against US participation in Gulf war I wonder what happened that made a wise person take part in this stupid circus.

welcome back to 1939.

HUH!? Powell was a military commander in the Gulf war. Fully supportive of ousting Iraq from Kuwait.

SOB · « **Reply #32 on:** February 05, 2003, 12:41:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
welcome back to 1939.

In case you were looking for confirmation...Yes, you are a dipshit.

SOB

Boroda · « **Reply #33 on:** February 05, 2003, 12:45:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Err... hate to point this out to you, but Russia and China are on the security council last time I checked. If the security council says go, then China and Russia must have agreed or abstained.

If China, France or Russia will say "no" - then it will mean "no" to the whole attempt to justify another unprovoked agression.

Permanent Security Council members have a right to veto any decision.

It's not 1950, we can't afford military assistance against agressors, so we'll never let them use UN as a cover for another war. And they will not dare to throw China out from SC meeting again.

Boroda · « **Reply #34 on:** February 05, 2003, 12:48:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
HUH!? Powell was a military commander in the Gulf war. Fully supportive of ousting Iraq from Kuwait.

Rip, wasn't it an American TV film where they said Powell and Shwarzcopf were against US taking part in a war, they even stated they have to call reservists, thinking Bush will never afford that, to prevent US troops from going there? I thought it's a well known story.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #35 on:** February 05, 2003, 12:52:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
Rip, wasn't it an American TV film where they said Powell and Shwarzcopf were against US taking part in a war, they even stated they have to call reservists, thinking Bush will never afford that, to prevent US troops from going there? I thought it's a well known story.

LOL! Well known in your circle of friends maybe.

CptTrips · « **Reply #36 on:** February 05, 2003, 12:54:21 PM »

Of course Britain and most of the civilized world will be square behind us.

Russia will begrudgingly come along (because they want some latitude to deal with their Chechen problem).

China will abstain. They will eventually want our cooperation to help deal with those whacko nuclear armed goofs on their own southern border.

Germany lost her rights to ever have a real say in anything again after murdering 6 million Jews. She don't get a vote. And rightfully so.

The only question is if those cheese eating-surrender-monkeys (frogs) are going to act unilaterally and block the will of the rest of the world community with a veto. If so, we'll just go without a UN resolution but at least we can say we tried and were blocked by frog obstructionism.

Wab

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #37 on:** February 05, 2003, 12:55:53 PM »

i remember it more like they stonewalled him untill he gave them anything they wanted . the only logical way to fight . they knew all about viet nam.

i dont believe they were aginst the war at all .hell i dont know anyone who was. a soverign nation was invaded we all went to fix the wrong.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #38 on:** February 05, 2003, 12:58:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB
In case you were looking for confirmation...Yes, you are a dipshit.

SOB

Seconded.

Not only is Bush Hitler... but now Powell is who? Hess?

This is very confusing... can we go back to reality please?

Boroda · « **Reply #39 on:** February 05, 2003, 01:01:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
AKIron, the Taliban WAS the government of Afghanistan. The Taliban soldiers WAS members of the armed forces of a nation state.

You are mistaken. The legal government of Afghanistan led by president Rabbani was overthrown by taliban, but was still controlling land in the North, had a reprresentative in the UN and embassies all over the world.

ccvi · « **Reply #40 on:** February 05, 2003, 01:03:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
The world IS a very dangerous place.

mostly harmless.

AKIron · « **Reply #41 on:** February 05, 2003, 01:04:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Will Iraqi soldiers captured be granted POW status? Will they be labeled "unlawful combatants"? If so WHY? If not WHY? What is the definition of an "unlawful combatant"?

They were treated as POWs iaw the Geneva Convention during the Gulf War I believe GScholz. Though it was not a war declared by the US but rather a UN action.

I wish things were so simple in Afghanistan. As you know, the Taliban was harboring Al Queda. War should have been formally declared by the US imo as it should be now against Iraq.

Arrogant it may seem, but if the UN isn't aligned with the goals of the US then why should we remain a member?

ygsmilo · « **Reply #42 on:** February 05, 2003, 01:04:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
"You're guilty just becase I'm hungry."

Remembering that Powell was against US participation in Gulf war I wonder what happened that made a wise person take part in this stupid circus.

welcome back to 1939.

Guess that puts into prespective what Stalin said to the Ukranians in 1932.

devious · « **Reply #43 on:** February 05, 2003, 01:04:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKWabbit
Germany lost her rights to ever have a real say in anything again after murdering 6 million Jews. She don't get a vote. And rightfully so.

Wab [/B]

You Sir, are an idiot.

ccvi · « **Reply #44 on:** February 05, 2003, 01:07:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
Will Iraqi soldiers captured be granted POW status? Will they be labeled "unlawful combatants"? If so WHY? If not WHY? What is the definition of an "unlawful combatant"?

Thy have to be neither treated as defined by the geneva convention nor granted civil rights. They're of a lower rac...er religion.