Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Capt. Pork on April 15, 2004, 01:13:24 AM
-
MSNBC article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4743768/)
So, basically, he's saying 'I've accepted the quick BJ and have agreed to call it even..."
The tape said the March 11 train bombings in Madrid that killed 191 people were payment for Spain's actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and "Palestine."
"What happened on September 11 and March 11 are your goods returned to you so that you know security is a necessity for all," the voice on the tape said.
What a generous man he is, pointing out people's faults for their own good.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
MSNBC article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4743768/)
So, basically, he's saying 'I've accepted the quick BJ and have agreed to call it even..."
The tape said the March 11 train bombings in Madrid that killed 191 people were payment for Spain's actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and "Palestine."
"What happened on September 11 and March 11 are your goods returned to you so that you know security is a necessity for all," the voice on the tape said.
What a generous man he is, pointing out people's faults for their own good.
What a great freedom fighter!! I should put up a poster of this hero next to the one I have of Che!!!
-
Looks like you boys might be on your own then...
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Looks like you boys might be on your own then...
Divide and conquer.
Didn’t Stalin accept a truce of sorts with Adolph? Worked out okay for Josef... only 30 million or so dead...
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Looks like you boys might be on your own then...
So eager for the terrorists to win? Did you dance and cheer on 911?
But a truce with Bin Laden is good for Europe, it will bring them "peace in our time."
(http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/chamberlain.jpg)
WTG Europe, you guys are so smart!!
BTW accepting a truce with Al Qaeda means that you accept the 911 and 311 terror attacks, and would be dropping out of the war on terror alltogether... That would make you weak cowards of the higest order, and this time you couldnt hide your cowardice behind some false claim of morality like you did in your opposition to the Iraq war...
-
Where have you read that Europe accepted a truce?? You should get out of Disneyland from time to time to have a small cup of RL.
And if OBL does matter so much to you, what the f%$çk are you fooling around in Iraq?
-
Originally posted by deSelys
Where have you read that Europe accepted a truce?? You should get out of Disneyland from time to time to have a small cup of RL.
I'm responding to schedes post, which mentions the pissobilty. I'm simply explaing what it would mean...
-
actually I think you boys are pretty much on yr own whatever Bin Laden says to the Euro's - Brits don't have the military muscle to help and none of the other European states with any significant military capability are prepared to - you may have some small political support in the form of Poland, Hungary etc sending a 1000 men but you need a lot more to have any real effect.
But you knew all this when you started the war so there's no use complaining now that no-one wants to come to your party......
-
17 out of 26 NATO countries have troops in Iraq...
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
actually I think you boys are pretty much on yr own whatever Bin Laden says to the Euro's - Brits don't have the military muscle to help and none of the other European states with any significant military capability are prepared to - you may have some small political support in the form of Poland, Hungary etc sending a 1000 men but you need a lot more to have any real effect.
But you knew all this when you started the war so there's no use complaining now that no-one wants to come to your party......
Not if kerrie wins the election, then french and german NATO troops will flood into iraq - he promises that.. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
But you knew all this when you started the war so there's no use complaining now that no-one wants to come to your party......
Actually .... the war pretty much started when Saddam invaded Kuwait. There was a long cease fire during which time Saddam tried to play some mind games and fugged himself.
Your saying that America has essentially been on it's own all along must sit well with British troops that've been there.
But ... ummm ... you don't see it that way, do you? :D
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
17 out of 26 NATO countries have troops in Iraq...
Apart from Britain's 8,000 troops could you give details of the actual numbers of boots and bayonets on the ground that those 26 nations have provided? If it averages out at a 1000 men per state - ie 26,000 troops I will be very surprised.
When you take into account that the numbers of front line troops to remfs is like 10 or 15 to 1 then it's easy to see why there is a manpower shortage in Iraq.
-
We have 150 combat engeneers there....not as part of the coalition but to deliver aid and repair stuff that gw1, gw2, saddam and iran has destroyed. Things like watersupply, schools, houses, hospitals, roads. etc..etc... They are also clearing up tons of explosives and minefields of all kinds. Doing a great job and the locals apreciate and help them. They use as many local contractors as possible and also hires some other civilians for odd jobs and that seems to work. Too bad they are prolly going home in june.
If i undersand correctly we are gonna send more troops to afghanistan and we are readying a contingent for possible deployment to Sudan if the UN asks.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Actually .... the war pretty much started when Saddam invaded Kuwait. There was a long cease fire during which time Saddam tried to play some mind games and fugged himself.
Your saying that America has essentially been on it's own all along must sit well British troops that've been there.
But ... ummm ... you don't see it that way, do you? :D
The one has nothing to with the other - Britain's armed services are hugely respected, even loved by the British public - they are also covering a tiny area of Iraq - ie Basra and it's surrounds - have you seen any British forces involved in the fighting around the capital - nope you haven't and you won't either.
The fighting of this month is being done by the US army, Hungary simply pulled it's troops out when they they were confronted as did Poland.
Since the insurgents are targeting the Achilles heel of the coalition - ie their supply lines and civilian contractors it means that even more troops are going to be need to make those lines of communication secure.
Bush has promised the theatre commander 3 brigades, 3 full divisions wouldn't be enough - but that's just my opinion.
All you have to do is look at the casualty lists to see who is doing the fighting.
Btw your argument that the Iraq war is simply part of the Gulf War is erroneous - Gulf war had international support in terms of troops and perhaps more importantly money and most importantly UN support.
The Iraq war has no UN support, US is paying all the bills to the tune of $1 billion a week and from what I can see is currently taking all the casualties - I'll dig out the casualty lists if you like am sure they're posted somewhere on the net.
However it's easy to point out mistakes -I have no idea how to fix the problem - but hey I'm in good company, neither do Bush, Rice, Cheney or Rumsfeldt.
-
It seems useful to remind from time to time that...
- OBL is Al-Quaeda
- all this waste of time, money and mostly men in Iraq doesn't hurt Al-Quaeda, to the contrary it fills the agenda of the terrorists and opens a wide recruiting area to them...
Hence being against this useless Iraq war isn't supporting Al-Quaeda.
Europe was 100% behind the USA after 9/11 and supported in its majority the operations in Afghanistan.
I won't say that Iraq under SH was no threat at all, but it was a low priority one far behind Al-Quaeda and NK.
Now SH is gone, good riddance, but the country is far from stable and risks are high that it falls under a fundamentalist muslim tyranny.... and what will it really been achieved then?
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Btw your argument that the Iraq war is simply part of the Gulf War is erroneous - Gulf war had international support in terms of troops and perhaps more importantly money and most importantly UN support.
The Iraq war has no UN support, US is paying all the bills to the tune of $1 billion a week and from what I can see is currently taking all the casualties - I'll dig out the casualty lists if you like am sure they're posted somewhere on the net.
Interesting opinion, even if it's wrong. The U.S. acted on U.N. mandates that were written in response to Iraq failing to comply with previous mandates that were enacted (the initial measures) at the time of cessation of hostilites during Desert Storm. You can't spin away that paper trail. But you can try. ;)
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Apart from Britain's 8,000 troops could you give details of the actual numbers of boots and bayonets on the ground that those 26 nations have provided? If it averages out at a 1000 men per state - ie 26,000 troops I will be very surprised.
When you take into account that the numbers of front line troops to remfs is like 10 or 15 to 1 then it's easy to see why there is a manpower shortage in Iraq.
Why dont we let the US president answer that one shall we...
THE PRESIDENT:
John, my response is, I don't think people ought to demean the contributions of our friends into Iraq. People are sacrificing their lives in Iraq, from different countries. We ought to honor that, and we ought to welcome that. I'm proud of the coalition that is there. This is a -- these are people that have -- the gut leaders have made the decision to put people in harm's way for the good of the world. And we appreciate that sacrifice in America. We appreciate that commitment.
I think -- one of the things you're seeing is more involvement by the United Nations, in terms of the political process. That's helpful. I'd like to get another U.N. Security Council resolution out that will help other nations to decide to participate.
One of the things I've found, John, is that in calling around -- particularly during this week, I spoke to Prime Minister Berlusconi and President Kwasniewski -- there is a resolve by these leaders that is a heartening resolve. Tony Blair is the same way -- he understands, like I understand, that we cannot yield at this point in time; that we must remain steadfast and strong; that it's the intentions of the enemy to shake our will. That's what they want to do -- they want us to leave. And we're not going to leave. We're going to do the job. And a free Iraq is going to be a major blow for terrorism. It will change the world. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is vital to future peace and security.
- - -
The legacy that our troops are going to leave behind is a legacy of lasting importance, as far as I'm concerned. It's a legacy that really is based upon our deep belief that people want to be free and that free societies are peaceful societies.
Some of the debate really center around the fact that people don't believe Iraq can be free; that if you're Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can't be self-governing and free. I strongly disagree with that. I reject that, because I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul, and, if given a chance, the Iraqi people will be not only self-governing, but a stable and free society.
-
The Emperor has no clothes...look the Emperor has no clothes....
-
:mad: <-- my initial reaction upon reading the news.
It's not possible to negotiate with terrorists, criminals and murderers like AQ. I even had to swallow hard when I saw pictures of the Blair/Gaddafi handshake. (But that Blair visit to Libya was just a put up job to draw justification to the war in Iraq.)
Shortly after 911, Tomato gave me two paperback books all about AQ and their terror campaign. One included a fascinating piece of detective work carried out by the FBI in New York in identifying the culprits of the 1993 WTC bombing. The mastermind and explosives expert was a guy who called himself Ramsey Youssef. He had been linked to an earlier attempted bombing of an airliner in the vicinity of Indonesia. (I think the bomb did go off, killing one passenger - I forget the exact details) When Youssef was sentenced to life imprisonment in the US (high security facility near CO Springs, where he will die), the judge remarked that AQ's claims defending Islam in their actions was flawed. He went on to say that with Indonesia being a Muslim stronghold, it followed that there would have been many muslims on board the plane that Youssef tried to blow up. AQ does not respect other muslims or the Koran. Their god is Death. They don't care who they kill. Some of the 911 suicide crew did not know until that morning that they were to die in the incident. OBL was tickled pink about that. Think OBL would honour any deal made with Europe? Think that the deal would be set in tablets of stone with no new demands at a later date? Think that the killing would stop?
Think again.
No deals with OBL or AQ. Ever.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Interesting opinion, even if it's wrong. The U.S. acted on U.N. mandates that were written in response to Iraq failing to comply with previous mandates that were enacted (the initial measures) at the time of cessation of hostilites during Desert Storm. You can't spin away that paper trail. But you can try. ;)
It's very simple - if the world is supporting your actions in Iraq today please show me in terms of troops and money the extent of that support. The answer is very, very little and the only spinning that is being done is by the current US administration who have no answers to the mess they have put your country in.
I have to agree with the Indiana Star
http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/137816-1462-021.html
but he's probably a communist anyway.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
It's very simple - if the world is supporting your actions in Iraq today please show me in terms of troops and money the extent of that support.
So the only support that exists in your head is troops and money?
-
*closing eyes and counting to 10*
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
I have to agree with the Indiana Star
http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/137816-1462-021.html
but he's probably a communist anyway.
I dunno if Dan Carpenter is a communist or not, but he is obviously a moron.
And if you sign up for the National Guards "to pay for your education" you'd better be prepared to pack your gear and head to war in case war comes. That kinda comes with the territory when you sign up for guard service.
Its disgusting really to see how the pacifists try to spin the death of a serviceman (woman) to serve their own agenda.
She herself knew why she was in Iraq, in her own words
"She felt that she had made a difference in that culture and that there was a liberation that went on."
Shame to see you and mr Carpenter disgrace her death with your own disgusting opinions.
-
Its disgusting really to see how the pacifists try to spin the death of a serviceman (woman) to serve their own agenda.
You are a pacifist Hortlund.
-
You must have a really odd definition of pacifist.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
So the only support that exists in your head is troops and money?
Difficult to run a war without troops and money I would have thought.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
It's very simple - if the world is supporting your actions in Iraq today please show me in terms of troops and money the extent of that support. The answer is very, very little and the only spinning that is being done is by the current US administration who have no answers to the mess they have put your country in.
Just to put the numbers in perspective, of the foreign troops in country the USA provided 75% of the troop strength in a 15 nation strong coalition. Americans suffered 94% of the deaths, and 89% of the wounded of the coalition.
Wait... that was Korea, 1950-53. Seems like Americans are used to carring the load.
-
Maniac I think you're mixing words retard and pacifist :)
-
Holden
"Seems like Americans are used to carring the load."
Iits how it should be when you decide to start the fun i the first place isnt it ? :)
-
Heh...so now Korea was a war of Imperialist Yankee aggression too huh?
-
You must have a really odd definition of pacifist.
My defenition of a Pacifist : A man sitting in the safety of his home screaming for war, but would never take part in the war "first hand".
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Interesting opinion, even if it's wrong. The U.S. acted on U.N. mandates that were written in response to Iraq failing to comply with previous mandates that were enacted (the initial measures) at the time of cessation of hostilites during Desert Storm. You can't spin away that paper trail. But you can try. ;)
The requirement for any UN sanctioned invasion is a resolution sanctioning said invasion to be passed by the UN Security council. With no such sanction for the Invasion of Iraq, you can't use the UN as justification. You'll have to look elsewhere for the casus belli: the UN dog won't hunt.
Bellyache all you like about the UN - right or wrong, it did not sanction the invasion at all.
The best you can get off the UN is 1441's provision of "serious consequences" a threat tempered with the reaffirmation of "the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States".
Both the US and UK ambassadors to the UN stressed that these "serious consequences" were not an automatic validation of an invasion:
"As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. " - Ambassador John Negroponte of the US.
"We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12." - Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of the UK
The other veto powers make it equally clear:
The French said this: " in the event the executive president of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission or the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency reports to the Security Council that Iraq has not complied with its obligations, the Council would meet immediately to assess the seriousness of these violations and draw the consequences. France welcomes the fact that all ambiguity on this point and all element of automaticity have disappeared from the resolution."
The Russians: "At all stages of this work, we were guided by the need to direct the process of a settlement onto a diplomatic and political path and not to allow a military scenario. As a result of intensive negotiations, the resolution just adopted contains no provisions for the automatic use of force. It is important that the resolution’s sponsors today officially confirmed in the Security Council that that is their understanding and that they provided an assurance that the resolution’s objective is the implementation of existing Security Council decisions concerning Iraq through inspections by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That is an objective shared by all members of the Council.
In that connection, it is of fundamental importance that the resolution clearly confirms that all Members of the United Nations respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and of all other States in the region. It is also confirms the need for full implementation of resolution 1382 (2001), whereby members of the Security Council undertook to seek a comprehensive settlement of the Iraq problem, which assumes the lifting of sanctions. "
The Chinese: "As the co-sponsors pointed out during their statements, the purpose of the resolution is to achieve the disarmament of Iraq through effective inspections. The text no longer includes automaticity for authorizing the use of force. According to the resolution, only upon receipt of a report by UNMOVIC and the IAEA on Iraq’s non-compliance and failure to cooperate fully in the implementation of this resolution shall the Security Council consider the situation and take a position.
We are also pleased to note that at the request of many members, including China, the resolution has now included some important elements, e.g.'reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighboring States,' ”
It's also worth noting that all further Security Council Resolutions on Iraq prior to the invasion (1443, 1447, 1454) reiterate "the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq" but none mention the "serious consequences".
And finally, the US,UK & Spain did draw up this resolution proposal: http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/res-...ar03-en-rev.pdf but it was withdrawn due to lack of support.
-
who said that Hortlund? the little voices in your head?
time for your medication again Hortlund... you really should get some kind of timetable setup by your "doctor"
-
Originally posted by Maniac
My defenition of a Pacifist : A man sitting in the safety of his home screaming for war, but would never take part in the war "first hand".
Well, I'm in the national guards, so if war comes I know what I'll be doing. How about yourself?
-
Hortlund your right wing leanings have so warped your brain that you seem unable to consider any opinion that does not fall into step with your preconceived ideas.
The writer in the piece posted was merely reiterating an old opinion that whilst old men start wars - from the safety of their desks, it is young men and in this case woman who actually go and do the fighting and dying.
The Right Wing wish everyone to believe that the world is a better and safer place due to the current Iraq war and therefore the sacrifice and the loss of good men and women and the loss for their families is somehow "worth it"
Others however think it is a waste of people and lives and money, it is a fraud driven by greed and revenge by incompetent men.
If America remains in Iraq for another 3 to 5 years and it becomes another Lebanon - it will be interesting to see how it turns out.
-
Well, I'm in the national guards, so if war comes I know what I'll be doing. How about yourself?
Ya, If Norway, Denmark or Finland decides to invade us then i will be defending against the invasion... But i aint in the National Guard...
But im not talking about that... Djust because your in the National Guard it dont make you any less pacifist in terms of the Iraq war...
You djust sit there and make rabid comments about the Iraq war in the safety of your home...
Im sure there are ways that would enable you to fight in Iraq...
-
Originally posted by Maniac
My defenition of a Pacifist : A man sitting in the safety of his home screaming for war, but would never take part in the war "first hand".
Actually this is the definition of a retard I think :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Interesting opinion, even if it's wrong.
No you are wrong and apparently haven't actually even read any of the applicable Security Council resolutions.
The U.S. acted on U.N. mandates that were written in response to Iraq failing to comply with previous mandates that were enacted (the initial measures) at the time of cessation of hostilites during Desert Storm. You can't spin away that paper trail. But you can try. ;)
A paper trail which you conveniently fail to provide. Can you please tell me exactly which UN Security Council resolution the US is acting under?
Here is some of the text on the last resolution adopted by the Security Council regarding Iraq (1441).
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"
"2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,863569,00.html
Bear in mind that this resolution was written by the US government and the US government voted for it's implementation.
So the UN Security Council reaffirmed the sovereignty of Iraq, and then the US invaded it.
And although Iraq was in material breach the Security Council decided to "afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;", following the system as sponsored by the US. Then the US decided to ignore it's own system and invade Iraq.
The US is itself in violation of UN resolutions, the same crime it accused Iraq of. And is also in violation of the UN Charter.
Arlo, next time you want to tell people they are wrong regarding UN "mandates" it might help if you had a passing knowledge of them.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
My defenition of a Pacifist : A man sitting in the safety of his home screaming for war [...]
Oh and by the way...back to school...
-
Nilsen
All I was drawing was a parallel to relative troop strength of the two conflicts. The commitment of smaller contingents is greatly appreciated and should not be overlooked.
I was not attempting to comment on the righteousness of either conflict.
-
Oh and by the way...back to school...
Nice comeback, pacifist.
-
Well atleast HE has been educated Hortlund...
I know Holden....
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Just to put the numbers in perspective, of the foreign troops in country the USA provided 75% of the troop strength in a 15 nation strong coalition. Americans suffered 94% of the deaths, and 89% of the wounded of the coalition.
Wait... that was Korea, 1950-53. Seems like Americans are used to carring the load.
Obviously that wopuld make Great Leader Kim Il Sung and of course by extension Dear Leader Kim Jong Il a modern day freedom fighter battling aginst yankee imperilaism!!!
Glory to all fredome fighters battling evil yankee unilateralist agression!!! NO WAR FOR KOREAN CABBAGE!!!
(http://vision.york.ac.uk/articles/147/politics/images/korea.jpeg)
Thjanksfully cooler heads will prevail this novermber as we know who all the worlds freedom fighters prefer in the election.
Is is any surprse then that Kim Jong Il has said that he supports Jong Ke-Rhee for the premiership, I mean presidency this year?
-
Hey Grun!!
"The Iran hostage crisis was a 444-day period during which the new government of Iran held hostage 66 citizens of the United States. It caused the President of the United States to lose his re-election attempt, and punctuated the first fundamentalist Islamic revolution of modern times. It began on November 4, 1979 and lasted until January 20, 1981."
As you know during that period Carter lost a Presidential election to Regan.
So terrorists take American hostages, and the Americans vote for the other guy. Now using the logic you applied to Spain what do you make of that? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Maniac
My defenition of a Pacifist : A man sitting in the safety of his home screaming for war, but would never take part in the war "first hand".
That would be a warmonger.
-
Ok, Ok,
Description of Hortlund so far : Retard, Warmonger and Pacifist
-
Maniac, now we just need to ask Bush and Blair,
"Do you have your exit buddy?"
-
I was wondering when that would come up...
They voted out a president percieved to be weak, retreating and innefective and replaced him with a brash agressive brash reublican called Ronald Reagan who went on to win the cold war...
Carter is an increibly decent human being, perhaps too decent to be president and it showed in his weak policies...
Spain on the other hand voted in a guy whom promised to retreat from the war and give into the terrorists demands.
Plus we have to remember that in 1980 timeframe there was a much much bigger concern with the soviet union, remember the cold war? Which was a much bigger priority to the USA and the western world than islamic radicalism.
For example take the Beirut bombing where Reagan did pull out after the big attacks on our troops. I dont like that he did that, but the cold war was perhaps a priority and american people wanted out. I feel that was poor decision, maybe we could have saved lebanon and prevented many bad long term things in the region.
Now we really have one focus in the west that is the war on terror. Iraq is a central part of that in US strategy for the long run in establishing a new atmosphere of democracy in mid east. It would be unfortunate and short sighted for spain or the USA to pull out, and just let the few crazies dominate 23 million iraqis through intimidation.
-
I can agree with you Grunherz.
Jimmy Carter is man that i have a deep respect for. He is one of Americas truly great.
-edited because of major typo-
-
Edit : Why bother :D
-
Good points Grun, but consider this.
If Reagan wise wise enough to pull out of Beirut to focus on the real or perceived threat of the Cold War, shouldn't Bush consider the same tactic in the War on Terror?
Is it not possible that Iraq being a central part of his policy is flawed, in error?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Warmonger and Pacifist
Heh, you really arent that bright are you? btw its spelled "just" not "djust".
-
Why is Iraq part of war on terror?
The hope, the gamble, the long term objective of IOraq is to establish a democratic country in the middle of the mid east which is hoped to positively influence the region in the long term towards liberalization and democratization.
Remember, many people said after 911 that we should focus on the "root causes" of terrorism which were described to be opression, poverty, lack of democracy etc etc.
Saddam's UN/WMD misbehavior gave us an opening to try to change one big country and make it free, democratic and prosperous.
Iraq is a country of 23 million people. 23 million people who want to live, who want to see their kids go to school and be doxctors. Iraqis are sophisticated well educated people. They want freedom.
The vast majority of iraqis support the usa. What about the fighting, yiou ask? The usa coalition has some 150,000 soldiers
in country. Do you think that number could resistt millions of iraqis? No.
So who is ressating.
Saddam people.
Sunni crazys and Al Qaeda.
Al-Sadr people.
What are these three groups offering?
We know the saddam system and what it offers.
We know what al qaeda liked and supported in afghanstan.
Al-Sadr? He used his gangs to intimidate aid works and stop them from helping HIS OWN SUPPORTERS. Just so he could increse their misery and builkd discontent.
So all three are offering opression, poverty, and lack of democracy to the iraqi people.
Those are exactly the root causes of terror as people like to say.
Saddam offered them, and we dfeated him.
We are not going to let the current ones win eather.
Thats what we're fighting for in iraq now.
-
Heh, you really arent that bright are you? btw its spelled "just" not "djust".
You are the one thats not that bright... i typed the following :
"Description of Hortlund so far : Retard, Warmonger and Pacifist"
Whats wrong with that?
-
Will respond later..late for work.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Whats wrong with that?
Warmonger and pacifist are eachothers complete opposites, if you are one you cannot be the other. Its impossible to be both at the same time. Get it?
-
Get it?
YES I GET IT!!! But you still dont get it!!!
I typed :"Description of Hortlund so far : Retard, Warmonger and Pacifist"
You understand? like a sum of all the descriptions of You in this thread!
Get it?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why is Iraq part of war on terror?
The hope, the gamble, the long term objective of Iraq is to establish a democratic country in the middle of the mid east which is hoped to positively influence the region in the long term towards liberalization and democratization.
What gamble ?
Sorry Grünherz, but how naive can someone be ?
To get rid of Saddam is one thing, but to try to establish
a instant democracy in a for thousand years islamic region
is so laughable, sorry this is joke.
Only Iraqis itself can build this, and if at all i doubt it they are even
interested into real democracy, they are maybe happy SH is gone,
but Islam will stay Islam no matter ho long you try to bend it into
a different direction. No wonder there is 0% support from iraqis
to the US.
But if this is your country main goil you should be prepaired,
like you said "long term objective" for minimum XXX years.
Oh btw look at Israel, they still try to establish something
and how far are they away from theyr goals?
R
Gh0stFT
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
What gamble ?
Sorry Grünherz, but how naive can someone be ?
To get rid of Saddam is one thing, but to try to establish
a instant democracy in a for thousand years islamic region
is so laughable, sorry this is joke.
Only Iraqis itself can build this, and if at all i doubt it they are even
interested into real democracy, they are maybe happy SH is gone,
but Islam will stay Islam no matter ho long you try to bend it into
a different direction. No wonder there is 0% support from iraqis
to the US.
But if this is your country main goil you should be prepaired,
like you said "long term objective" for minimum XXX years.
Oh btw look at Israel, they still try to establish something
and how far are they away from theyr goals?
R
Gh0stFT
I agree islamic ragheads are incapable of democracy and freedom, we should just nuke them. :rolleyes:
In fact they are just like black people, who could never be fully responsible free citizens in America. I say string em all up!! :rolleyes:
So I ask you, how racist and ignorant can you be?
I see little has changed in the vaterland, really after all, why should it have? Germans are war mongering hun racists with no tradition of democracy and centuries of militirism... No hope for them... They could never change, they dont want democracy, why even try to help them? Kill em all..
I'm sorry to be attacking you personally now ghost but seeing such a satement coming from a post ww2 german citizen is really shocking. Are you really that lacking in perspective and a sense of just waht yiur country went through? Is it ignorance of the fcats? Is it racism towards arabs?
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
No wonder there is 0% support from iraqis
to the US.
from an ABCNEWS poll in Iraq, which was co-sponsored by the German network ARD, the BBC and NHK in Japan, with sampling and field work by Oxford Research International of Oxford, England:
U.S.-Led Invasion Views
Right: Sunni Arabs 24% Shiite Arabs 51% Kurds 87%
Wrong: Sunni Arabs 63 Shiite Arabs 35 Kurds 9
Liberated Iraq: Sunni Arabs 21 Shiite Arabs 43 Kurds 82
Humiliated Iraq: Sunni Arabs 66 Shiite Arabs 37 Kurds 11
Attacks on Coalition Forces
Acceptable: Sunni Arabs 36% Shiite Arabs 12% Kurds 2%
Unacceptable: Sunni Arabs 57 Shiite Arabs 85 Kurds 96
Coalition Should Leave Now: Sunni Arabs 29 Shiite Arabs 12 Kurds 2
Looks like you may have to rethink your premise Gh0stFT...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Looks like you may have to rethink your premise Gh0stFT...
He has many things to rethink...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
17 out of 26 NATO countries have troops in Iraq...
COALITION TROOPS IN IRAQ: TOP CONTRIBUTORS
United States: 135,000
UK: 8,700
Italy: 3,000
Poland: 2,400
Ukraine: 1,650
Spain: 1,300
Australia: 850
Japan: 550
Bulgaria: 485
Portugal: 120
From the BBC - excluding UK troops the rest of the coalition have
9,500 troops odd - less of course the Spanish from next month making it about 8,000.
-
Some nations are missing there...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I agree islamic ragheads are incapable of democracy and freedom, we should just nuke them. :rolleyes:
In fact they are just like black people, who could never be fully responsible free citizens in America. I say string em all up!! :rolleyes:
So I ask you, how racist and ignorant can you be?
well i knew you would come up with something.
Where do i said something racist ?
read my post again, i said "Only Iraqis itself can build democracy"
And i still say your Idea or how you say "gambling" is an big Utopia.
I must have hit some nerv Grünherz, otherwise you wouldn attack me personaly. But i know the truth hurts sometimes.
And btw. talking about Vaterland, i have the same roots like you,
croatia. But i live all my live in germany, and i'm proud to live in
germany :)
Holden McGroin, numbers, nothing more. Have you talked to some
Arabs on the street ? or do you have some arabic friends, you cant
find a better source.
R
GhostFT
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Some nations are missing there...
Yes I really thought there was a Hungarian contingent ....
-
Ok Ghost, ytou seem pretty lost here...
However I am a hopeful guy so I will try again:
Germnay was made a prosperous free, liberal democracy, within a a decade of WW2. Before that time Germany had little wish for or experience with democracy. In fact germans turned away from democracy and voted in Hitler party just a few years before. Personal freedoms were not too high. The country was militaristic and autocratic for centuries. Yet it quickly became a democacy under US gudiance.
Japan too, had nealy 2,000 years of either Imperial or miliraty rule with no democracy, few freedoms, a miliratistic spirit, staunch undeomcratic religion. Yet within a few years of ww2 it became a democracy under US guidance.
I see no reason why Iraq is differet. In fact i'm shocked that you as german is not able to see the paralels.
Thats all I can say, the rest is up to you. Chose ignorance, or chose reason, but choose...
Also I must ask are you really saying that your informal anecdotal chats with various arabs on the strrets in germany GERMANY!! is more representative of IRAQI people feelings, experiences and opinins about the war than a thurough detailed scientific poll conducted in IRAQ itself?
Are you actually saying that? Seriously?
But hey its cool that you are Croatian!! :) Were you born there or in germany?
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Yes I really thought there was a Hungarian contingent ....
So why post the list if you know it is missleading?
-
Because there is a far greater chance of me being wrong when it comes to facts and figures than the hundreds of people who check these things at the BBC - the issue remains 135k Americans, 8k Brits, 8k odds and sods - it's not a coalition in any real sense just a fig leaf for the Bush administration to hide behind .
-
if OBL had total control over every crazed muslim, they'd deal with him in a second
but he doesn't- heck the raghead leader in Iraq ain't got control over his crazed nutbag followers and they are right outside his door ...
I do believe the Euros should discuss this with OBL, face to face - just let us program a cruise missile or two first with the meetings co-ordinates..
-
Listen Grünherz, forget what i have said ok.
You are right, actually everything is going very well
in Iraq. Iraqis supporting your views 100% Soon there will
be a stable democracy in Iraq. My fault i didnt see the truth.
R
Gh0stFT
edit: btw i was born in Slav. Brod, not far away from Zagreb.
-
Was Koreaqn war coalition a figleaf for Truman too? And remember, that was one of those sacred UN jobs....
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Just to put the numbers in perspective, of the foreign troops in country the USA provided 75% of the troop strength in a 15 nation strong coalition. Americans suffered 94% of the deaths, and 89% of the wounded of the coalition.
Wait... that was Korea, 1950-53. Seems like Americans are used to carring the load.
-
For the total list.....
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
Bet those 180 Mongolians are really scary dudes!!
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Listen Grünherz, forget what i have said ok.
You are right, actually everything is going very well
in Iraq. Iraqis supporting your views 100% Soon there will
be a stable democracy in Iraq. My fault i didnt see the truth.
R
Gh0stFT
You are like a ball, bouncing from one wall to the next... :)
Why are you so uncomfortable when presented with informatyion which challenges your preconcpetions?
It's fine to be opposed to the war, but that doesnt mean that you should ignore evidence that makes it seem that many Iraqis have positive opions abnout it and are hopeful about their futures...
-
Is it politically correct to call them ragheads these days? ive seen it more and more but very few or none seem to think thats bad.
-
Geesh talk about complicated!! How about just not voting in George W come Nov? It would be so much easier.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Was Koreaqn war coalition a figleaf for Truman too? And remember, that was one of those sacred UN jobs....
Yep probably was - it was mainly in America's interest to prop up the South Korean's - I'd say anytime a country provides 95% of the forces then the rest are probably just along for the ride - hell the US Marines probably fielded more troops than the rest of the world put together....
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Is it politically correct to call them ragheads these days? ive seen it more and more but very few or none seem to think thats bad.
I prefer the term "freedom fighter," myself... :)
I'd rather not call people by ethically insensitve names (except for sarcasm/ dramatization). Calling people you are taling about arabs, iraqis, muslims is sufficent..
-
"from an ABCNEWS poll in Iraq..."
When was that poll taken if I may ask?
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Yep probably was - it was mainly in America's interest to prop up the South Korean's - I'd say anytime a country provides 95% of the forces then the rest are probably just along for the ride - hell the US Marines probably fielded more troops than the rest of the world put together....
To prop up south korea????? I'm sorry but whay does it seem you are trying to doenplay the full truth of the evnts? Are you?
Are you forgeting the small matter of the North Korean invasion or the UN resolution?
Also, by your numbers there are about 155,000 troops in iraq.
135,000 US
20,000 other..
Thats not 95%. ;) Care to revise your figure lower?
-
sounds good grun, but can i refer to all american or britsh as christians in sentences instead of soldiers? :D
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
from an ABCNEWS poll in Iraq, which was co-sponsored by the German network ARD, the BBC and NHK in Japan, with sampling and field work by Oxford Research International of Oxford, England:
Nice try westy.... Notice how he was trying to make it seem the poll is solely from a US source...
Still a good question, when was this US, German, Japanese, English poll taken?
-
just a minor technicality that globalsecurity.org has gotten wrong.
the 104 Norwegian TB fellas are officially not part of the coalition.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Is it politically correct to call them ragheads these days? ive seen it more and more but very few or none seem to think thats bad.
that's what i call these types & their followers:
(http://www.foxnews.com/images/122553/0_41_bin_laden_100.jpg)
(http://24ur.com/media/images/large/Oct2003/2031060.jpg)
(http://www.versii.com/image/arafat.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
sounds good grun, but can i refer to all american or britsh as christians in sentences instead of soldiers? :D
If yiu are reffering to the soldiers religions, and they are indeed christans, then yes call them christans.
But they should not be characterized as chrsitans generally unless it is appropriate to the context.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
just a minor technicality that globalsecurity.org has gotten wrong.
the 104 Norwegian TB fellas are officially not part of the coalition.
when one gets his head sliced off by one of those brave "freedom fighters", I don't think that point will matter
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Geesh talk about complicated!! How about just not voting in George W come Nov? It would be so much easier.
How about you vote in your election and we vote in ours and you keep your face out of ours and we keep ours out of yours?
In other words, I'm a citizen of the United States who votes. You are not. So do not tell me who I should vote for. I neither need nor want your advice.
Oh, and if you WANT Kerry, we'll be quite willing to send him over. But if he sells you out to the French and the UN and you forfiet all of your sovereignty, well, tough.
Talk about simple. That's how easy it is, keep your face out of our election, and keep your pie hole shut.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Geesh talk about complicated!! How about just not voting in George W come Nov? It would be so much easier.
Capitulation and appeasement usually are easier...but not right.
-
"Nice try westy.."
Nice try for what? I quoted from *his* post and I asked for when it was taken. IMO it would be pretty hard for even a radical such as yourself to read anything subliminal in that.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
:mad: <-- my initial reaction upon reading the news.
It's not possible to negotiate with terrorists, criminals and murderers like AQ. I even had to swallow hard when I saw pictures of the Blair/Gaddafi handshake. (But that Blair visit to Libya was just a put up job to draw justification to the war in Iraq.)
Shortly after 911, Tomato gave me two paperback books all about AQ and their terror campaign. One included a fascinating piece of detective work carried out by the FBI in New York in identifying the culprits of the 1993 WTC bombing. The mastermind and explosives expert was a guy who called himself Ramsey Youssef. He had been linked to an earlier attempted bombing of an airliner in the vicinity of Indonesia. (I think the bomb did go off, killing one passenger - I forget the exact details) When Youssef was sentenced to life imprisonment in the US (high security facility near CO Springs, where he will die), the judge remarked that AQ's claims defending Islam in their actions was flawed. He went on to say that with Indonesia being a Muslim stronghold, it followed that there would have been many muslims on board the plane that Youssef tried to blow up. AQ does not respect other muslims or the Koran. Their god is Death. They don't care who they kill. Some of the 911 suicide crew did not know until that morning that they were to die in the incident. OBL was tickled pink about that. Think OBL would honour any deal made with Europe? Think that the deal would be set in tablets of stone with no new demands at a later date? Think that the killing would stop?
Think again.
No deals with OBL or AQ. Ever.
(http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/clap.gif)(http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/punk.gif)(http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/worshippy.gif)
Excellent post Beetle.
-
You are very slow guys...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040415/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_bin_laden_tape
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
How about you vote in your election and we vote in ours and you keep your face out of ours and we keep ours out of yours?
In other words, I'm a citizen of the United States who votes. You are not. So do not tell me who I should vote for. I neither need nor want your advice.
Oh, and if you WANT Kerry, we'll be quite willing to send him over. But if he sells you out to the French and the UN and you forfiet all of your sovereignty, well, tough.
Talk about simple. That's how easy it is, keep your face out of our election, and keep your pie hole shut.
(http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/worshippy.gif) Another excellent post! Right on dude!
-
"Britain, Germany and Italy quickly spurned what appeared to be an attempt to drive a wedge between Europe and America. Spain said it would consider the offer during the next presidential election."
-
Good afternoon Straffo! Hope all is well with you and yours..
-
so you guys are saying that your countries are so weak and insignificant that one terrorist group planting bombs in your country is enough for you to knuckle under and hope the bad men go away?
Hope it's just the sissies on this BB and not their whole countries
lazs
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
"Britain, Germany and Italy quickly spurned what appeared to be an attempt to drive a wedge between Europe and America. Spain said it would consider the offer during the next presidential election."
(poorly) playing the spin doctor?
The real text is:
Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain quickly spurned what appeared to be an attempt to drive a wedge between Europe and America.
Lame try...
-
On a side note Lazs, and regarding the way you value the people of the other gender, I wonder why you're supporting a Prez who put a (yikes!) woman in charge of the national security of your country... ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Good afternoon Straffo! Hope all is well with you and yours..
Thanks :)
All is fine except if my son keep playing sick each night I'll end on my knees pretty fast
-
Eagler:
when one gets his head sliced off by one of those brave "freedom fighters", I don't think that point will matter
They will still be dead if that was your point, but it still matters ALOT.
-
The poll was taken between February 9-28.
-
"On a side note Lazs, and regarding the way you value the people of the other gender, I wonder why you're supporting a Prez who put a (yikes!) woman in charge of the national security of your country... "
you know" the way I value the people of the other gender."?
lazs
-
I found it thanks. Very interesting.
abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/ iraq_poll_040317.html
-
Originally posted by lazs2
[Byou know" the way I value the people of the other gender."?
[/B]
Do you mean that I missed the irony in all your references to Dem's, women and Euros (always going by 3 in your posts) on this BBS? AAAAhhh sorry then....
So I guess that you have some hidden affection to Dems and Euros too?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
To prop up south korea????? I'm sorry but whay does it seem you are trying to doenplay the full truth of the evnts? Are you?
Are you forgeting the small matter of the North Korean invasion or the UN resolution?
Also, by your numbers there are about 155,000 troops in iraq.
135,000 US
20,000 other..
Thats not 95%. ;) Care to revise your figure lower?
Gosh got to be really careful with percentages in here - would a statement containing "The vast majority of combat troops" be acceptable? Of course since you've served in the military you'd realise that 200 men do not in any way form a coherent combat formation when trying to integrate a fighting force.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
How about you vote in your election and we vote in ours and you keep your face out of ours and we keep ours out of yours?
In other words, I'm a citizen of the United States who votes. You are not. So do not tell me who I should vote for. I neither need nor want your advice.
Oh, and if you WANT Kerry, we'll be quite willing to send him over. But if he sells you out to the French and the UN and you forfiet all of your sovereignty, well, tough.
Talk about simple. That's how easy it is, keep your face out of our election, and keep your pie hole shut.
ahem, I do have a small financial interest in the election and since free speech is something you Americans are so keen on I will continue to express my lowly opinion.
How's the poll numbers looking today anyway?
-
Long thread short...
There's only one thing the world loves more than a winner.
A whiner.
-
Shhh!!, this is where we fake him out. " Ok, you can come out of your hole, we won't bomb you, all is forgiven"..........
BOOM!!!
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Shhh!!, this is where we fake him out. " Ok, you can come out of your hole, we won't bomb you, all is forgiven"..........
BOOM!!!
Who you talking about...Schadenfreudian_??
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Shhh!!, this is where we fake him out. " Ok, you can come out of your hole, we won't bomb you, all is forgiven"..........
BOOM!!!
He won't come out of his hole. He'll be busy planning his next punishment for us for being stupid enough to trust him.
-
He's scared!!!
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
No you are wrong and apparently haven't actually even read any of the applicable Security Council resolutions.
Read them yourself. I've posted the link often enough.
http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/iraq_unres.html#687
Originally posted by Thrawn
A paper trail which you conveniently fail to provide. Can you please tell me exactly which UN Security Council resolution the US is acting under?
And again.
http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/iraq_unres.html#687
Originally posted by Thrawn
Here is some of the text on the last resolution adopted by the Security Council regarding Iraq (1441).
"Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,"
"2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,863569,00.html
Bear in mind that this resolution was written by the US government and the US government voted for it's implementation.
So the UN Security Council reaffirmed the sovereignty of Iraq, and then the US invaded it.
It's quite simple, actually. The U.N. has reaffirmed the sovereignty of all nations since it's formation. In your mind that means the U.N. has never once supported the use of force. It didn't support it in Korea. It didn't support it in Viet Nam. And, of course, it sure as hell doesn't support it in any region of the Middle East. And we all know the term "strong consequences" simply means sticking out your tongue and/or flipping the bird.
http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/iraq_unres.html#687
Originally posted by Thrawn
And although Iraq was in material breach the Security Council decided to "afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;", following the system as sponsored by the US. Then the US decided to ignore it's own system and invade Iraq.
The US is itself in violation of UN resolutions, the same crime it accused Iraq of. And is also in violation of the UN Charter.
Again ...
It's quite simple, actually. The U.N. has reaffirmed the sovereignty of all nations since it's formation. In your mind that means the U.N. has never once supported the use of force. It didn't support it in Korea. It didn't support it in Viet Nam. And, of course, it sure as hell doesn't support it in any region of the Middle East. And we all know the term "strong consequences" simply means sticking out your tongue and/or flipping the bird.
http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/iraq_unres.html#687
Originally posted by Thrawn
Arlo, next time you want to tell people they are wrong regarding UN "mandates" it might help if you had a passing knowledge of them.
Irony can be funny.
http://www.csis.org/mideast/reports/iraq_unres.html#687
Originally posted by -dead-
The requirement for any UN sanctioned invasion is a resolution sanctioning said invasion to be passed by the UN Security council. With no such sanction for the Invasion of Iraq, you can't use the UN as justification. You'll have to look elsewhere for the casus belli: the UN dog won't hunt.
Bellyache all you like about the UN - right or wrong, it did not sanction the invasion at all.
The best you can get off the UN is 1441's provision of "serious consequences" a threat tempered with the reaffirmation of "the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States".
Again ...
It's quite simple, actually. The U.N. has reaffirmed the sovereignty of all nations since it's formation. In your mind that means the U.N. has never once supported the use of force. It didn't support it in Korea. It didn't support it in Viet Nam. And, of course, it sure as hell doesn't support it in any region of the Middle East. And we all know the term "strong consequences" simply means sticking out your tongue and/or flipping the bird.
08 November 2002
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990 (to) 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
(Look at all the cooperation, would ya?) :D
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat[/i] Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area[/i],
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations [/i]on Iraq
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 [/i]
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687[/i]
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people[/i],
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq[/i],
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein[/i],
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance[/i],
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
(Which pretty much means Iraq, Kuwait and the neighboring states need to stay within their own borders and not invade each other. THAT MEANS YOU, IRAQ!)[/i]
Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,[/i]
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)[/i];
2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity (this means "last chance") ;) to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences (Which doesn't REALLY mean ... just sticking out a tongue and/or flipping the bird)as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
-
-Dead- is right Arlo. Res. 1441 was not a license nor in any way, shape, or form a directive for any country, or group of, to invade Iraq. And I'll add that neither you, nor GWB, were empowered by the UN to interpret on your own and to your satisfactions what any part(s) of a resolution meant. ex/ "this means "last chance" and "doesn't REALLY mean ... just sticking out a tongue and/or flipping the bird"
The UN never reached "on your mark" let alone "get ready" but more importantly they most definitely never said "GO!" The only ones who heard the starting gun go off were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Blair. Continuing in true the Keystone Cop fashion the group of them continue to maintain that the ref fired the gun. But instead of just stopping their to cover all thier bases they've vainly tried to convince the increasing number of skeptics by spinning up other excuses as to why they acted.
-
Sorry, Westy but that was pretty much QUOTED text. The comments were inserted due to all the reinterprtation already going on. We've got people saying:
- "Serious consequences" doesn't mean anything.
- "Final opportunity" isn't final.
- "Territorial integrity" keeps the UN from enforcing it's resolutions.
We've also got them claiming that the U.S. drafted the proposal but couldn't figure out a way to draft it correctly since they planned to invade anyway.
All very silly stuff, actually.
:D
-
deselys... I am fond enough of europeans and democrats so long as they are fairly quiet and have no effect on my life.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Arlo
In your mind that means the U.N. has never once supported the use of force.
You're wrong. It's quite easy not to make that error by not telling someone what they think and asking instead. ;)
The UN certainly has supported the use of force.
The Gulf War.
Resolution 678 (1990).
"Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements as set forth in paragraph 1 above the foregoing resolutions to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"
And Korea.
Resolution 82 (1950).
"Determines that this action constitutes a breach of the peace; and
I
Calls for the immediate cessation of hostilities;
Calls upon the authorities in North Korea to withdraw forthwith their armed forces to the 38th parallel;
II
Requests the United Nations Commission on Korea:
(a) To communicate its fully considered recommendations on the situation with the least possible delay;
(b) To observe the withdrawal of North Korean forces to the 38th parallel;
(c) To keep the Security Council informed on the execution of this resolution:
III
Calls upon all Member States to render every assistance to the United Nations in the execution of this resolution and to refrain from giving assistance to the North Korean authorities"
I'm not sure why you post 687, 1441 trumps it. Kind of like your Constituational Amendments, if I can make a comparison.
The 18th Amendment enacted prohibition and 21th repealed it.
Resolution 687 said "You will do this.". Resolution 1441 said, "You have not done as told, but we will give you a final chance.".
1441 setup an inspection system and a method by which the Security Council could determine wether or not Iraq was following precedure. If it was determine wasn't than action could be taken on the "serious consequences". Heck even the Bush administration knew it needed a second resolution after 1441 and were pushing hard for it.
Geez, Bush didn't want 1441 he want a carte blanche resolution but France and Russia wouldn't give it to him.
Unfortunately France screwed up and killed the diplomacy by saying it veto any second resolution. But they were perfectly within thier right to exercise it's veto (as certainly the US has many a time) under the UN Charter.
Now there was an inspection process in place and it was working. The Bush administration decides not to let the process finish and to invade Iraq. Why? Why couldn't they wait until the process was completed?
-
Hey Grun!!
The US has pulled most, of it's military out of Saudi much like Al-Quaeda demnaded. And is now is pulling out non-essential diplomatic staff (in light of an apparent terrorist threat).
In light of your views on Spain, how would you describe this?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
1.Resolution 687 said "You will do this.". Resolution 1441 said, "You have not done as told, but we will give you a final chance.".
2.1441 setup an inspection system and a method by which the Security Council could determine wether or not Iraq was following precedure. If it was determine wasn't than action could be taken on the "serious consequences". Heck even the Bush administration knew it needed a second resolution after 1441 and were pushing hard for it.
3.Now there was an inspection process in place and it was working. The Bush administration decides not to let the process finish and to invade Iraq. Why? Why couldn't they wait until the process was completed?
1: They didn't. And they didn't even after given a final chance to do it.
2. If the Bush administration thought it needed a second resolution before it could act ... how do you explain the Bush administration acting in regards to the first one? I won't even give what I suspect your answer will be this time. Go ahead.
3. No ... it wasn't. The Bush administration had nothing to do with why it wasn't. The process would have never been completed. Do a search on what the UN inspectors themselves said about this.
-
The ONLY reason ANY of the inspection process even came CLOSE to working at all was that the coalition finally stationed 100K plus troops right across the border from Saddam. But it never REALLY worked.
IF Saddam DID NOT have any WMD's, then WHY was he so bent on making the verification of same so difficult? Ever wonder about that? IF he had actually been fully cooperative, Bush would not have had ANY basis on which to invade. IF Saddam didn't have the items in question, all he had to do to remain in power was to PROVE it in an upfront and honest manner, instead of making every effort to hinder the process. If Saddam was so innocent, and the weapons did not exist, ever, he had everything to gain by full and complete disclosure and cooperation, and nothing to lose.
Of course, given all that time to dispose of, hide, sell, or otherwise move them, it is no surprise they have not been found. Who is to say they are not in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, or hidden away in some hole in the wall somewhere in the world? They may not have ever existed (if not, then why not prove it?), then again he may have sold them to a country or group, and hoped he could escape with the proceeds in all the confusion.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Hey Grun!!
The US has pulled most, of it's military out of Saudi much like Al-Quaeda demnaded. And is now is pulling out non-essential diplomatic staff (in light of an apparent terrorist threat).
In light of your views on Spain, how would you describe this?
Yea, they all left Saudi arabia... Fleeing from the evil Al Qaeda. They ran so far, and promised not to bother Bin Lade, now they are all in Afghanistan and Iraq and not making any fuss for the terrorisrs...
The non essiential staff was told to leave because of safety concerns...
Nice try tho... The USA aint no grapefruit euro terror appeaser... Remember Bin Laden didnt offer thje USA any truce, he not like us - not like he dies europe.. :)
-
Hilts! Avatar! Good! :aok Hiya!
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
Holden McGroin, numbers, nothing more. Have you talked to some Arabs on the street ? or do you have some arabic friends, you cant find a better source.
R
GhostFT
Through the poll I quoted I virtually spoke to many thousands of Iraqis, and a much better sample of attitudes in country than you talking to a few friends.
If you think numbers do not mean things, perhaps you'll scribble out a few on a piece of paper you get from your bank and send it to me... It'll be just numbers, nothing more
-
g' morning Holden McGroin so with your numbers in mind,
with all the support i'm sure your next holiday trip will be Iraq.
1:0 for you :p
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hilts! Avatar! Good! :aok Hiya!
Thought you'd like that one. It's about the only one I can get down to size, and I had to crop that one to death. There's a little of the hair and the chin gone. It's from the poster for the movie. Nothing else I've got in the way of pictures of Hilts will even come close to the 64x64/3000 limit. Shame too, cause I got some great ones, like "baseball in the cooler", or possibly one of your favorites, the "Yankee Doodle Moonshine" scene .
-
A BIG
to those nations who declined the truce offer from Bin Laden.
I have something to offer him, it comes in 750 grain copper jacketed packages.
-
That character was a Hollywood invention to give American audiences someone to root for in the film. Couldn't have a film about WW2 that didn't have Americans in it, could we? Fortunately he didn't detract from the real story too much.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
1: They didn't. And they didn't even after given a final chance to do it.
Well according you. But according to the people actually performing the inspections (UNMOVIC) the system was working. And SH did concede to all the requirments.
But it wasn't up to you, me, the UNMOVIC inspectors, or even up to the US government to make that determination. At least not up to the US government alone.
But up to the Security Council as whole. As laid out in resolution 1441. And I will remind you again that this is a resolution written by, sponsored by and vote for by the US goverment.
"12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;"
2. If the Bush administration thought it needed a second resolution before it could act ... how do you explain the Bush administration acting in regards to the first one? I won't even give what I suspect your answer will be this time. Go ahead.
In regards to fast tracking the invasion? Domestic approval. If you look at polling information...
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq7.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq6.htm
... you will find that up to about month before the war most Americans did not support the US invading Iraq without UN approval. About a month before the war most people realised it was pretty much inevitable and got in line behind the President.
Bush's approval rating was in a constant decline from 9/11 up to the invasion.
(nifty scatter graph for Bush approval rating) http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/image001.gif
He was pretty much in do or die sitution. If he had to wait a few months there was an excellant chance that the public would be irrecovably against the invasion, and with it Congressional approval for the invastion as well.. On top of that, it would be a few more months of inspections with no WMD being found!
Now one might say, "Yeah but Bush didn't know there wouldn't be any WMD being found.". And they might be right. But during the inpection process the CIA was giving UNMOVIC tons of intell on where they thought the WMD were hidden. And not once did they find any. That must be some sort of indicator that the intel the US was using wasn't any good anymore, after all it was five years old.
Do a search on what the UN inspectors themselves said about this.
I have. You can find the text of the UNMOVIC briefings to the Security Council here.
http://www.unmovic.org/
I suggest you look it over because what you are saying seems to be in contridiction with what UNMOVIC said.
I find no quote by UNMOVIC that indicates that they would never finish the inspection process.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Nice try tho... The USA aint no grapefruit euro terror appeaser... Remember Bin Laden didnt offer thje USA any truce, he not like us - not like he dies europe.. :)
Grun!! Nice equivocations. ;)
I think OBL might have accomplished exactly what he wanted to by merely making the offer of truce with no one accepting. He's already further separted at least one American from the Europens.
You are letting the terrorists win Grun!
NEVAR FORGIT MOST YUROPEANS GOTS TEH US BACK IN TEH WAR AGINST TERRAR!! :mad:
-
lol Thrawn
Shame on you Grunherz for falling for OBL's ruse.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Thought you'd like that one. It's about the only one I can get down to size, and I had to crop that one to death. There's a little of the hair and the chin gone. It's from the poster for the movie. Nothing else I've got in the way of pictures of Hilts will even come close to the 64x64/3000 limit. Shame too, cause I got some great ones, like "baseball in the cooler", or possibly one of your favorites, the "Yankee Doodle Moonshine" scene .
Send em to me. I'll doctor them. :)
-
wow...schaden guy..you are a HAnoi Jane
you are spew soi much crap it seems good to let u run circles and pee on ur self..
BUSH IS SATAN!!
btw..NO FRIKN WAY WE WILL BE TAKING Casualties like now in 3-5 years..
THeY will be dead in another year! ya!!:aok
btw thsi is going to be one of the QUICKEST librerations in History
America...We sure do save alot of tulips around the world..Thank god more good then bad..
and yes..OBL..days are numbered....
Love
BiGB
xoxo
P.S. Try to wave when the Ac-130 takes ur picture.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Again ...
It's quite simple, actually. The U.N. has reaffirmed the sovereignty of all nations since it's formation. In your mind that means the U.N. has never once supported the use of force. It didn't support it in Korea. It didn't support it in Viet Nam. And, of course, it sure as hell doesn't support it in any region of the Middle East. And we all know the term "strong consequences" simply means sticking out your tongue and/or flipping the bird.
You go for it against that straw man. When you're done, try reading my post again. I didn't posit the UNSC has never supported the use of force.
I'm not quite sure how you can dismiss the affirmation of Iraqi sovereignty by saying "The U.N. has reaffirmed the sovereignty of all nations since it's formation." Seems to me that maybe they're trying to make and reinforce a point - you know, like you were in that post when you were using the same phrase again and again. Your stance appears to be rather like trying to prove god doesn't exist by arguing "God? Huh! The bible's always going on about that god fella."
I didn't posit what was meant by "serious consequences" (not strong) - I simply said that according to the members of the UN Security Council, the "serious consequences" were not a mandate for automatic force as both the US & UK Ambassadors to the UN said at the meeting of the UNSC on the day 1441 was voted on (see previous post and below). The Russians, Chinese and French Ambassadors also pointed this out. What the "serious consequences" were was an issue to be decided on by the UN Security Council, not the US.
08 November 2002
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990 (to) 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
(Look at all the cooperation, would ya?) :D
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat[/i] Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area[/i],
Resolution 660 basically "Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990" so we can safely skip all mention of 660, and the dependent resolutions such as 678 if there are no Iraqi troops are in Kuwait. Move along, there's no cassus belli for you here.
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations [/i]on Iraq
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 [/i]
Resolution 687 also "Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);" Note that Iraq isn't required to implement 687's provisions - just to accept them for the cease-fire to become effective. No cassus belli here.
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687[/i]
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people[/i],
This absence was caused both directly (Butler was told to leave as a preamble to some bombing) and indirectly by the US, as well as the Iraqis. Certainly the Iraqis were refusing UNSCOM entrance to a few "national security" sites like palaces and 3C sites. Why? Because, the Iraqis claimed, UNSCOM had lots of US spies in it, a charge later confirmed by the US and UN. But that's really a BTW: there's not talk of consequences here.Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq[/i],
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein[/i],
The keyword is "acceptance", here: acceptance, not implementation.
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance[/i],
See above for 687's cease-fire condition.
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
(Which pretty much means Iraq, Kuwait and the neighboring states need to stay within their own borders and not invade each other. THAT MEANS YOU, IRAQ!)[/i]
Of course this equally applies to the USA and the UK, as "member states". Arguing against yourself there.
Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,[/i][/b]
But no mention of how...Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
Ah the UN Charter! Article 2 says
"3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
-
Originally posted by Arlo
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)[/i];
But the formal cease-fire is still in effect, as Iraq has accepted the terms of 687. 2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity (this means "last chance") ;) to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council
Last chance - but still no "or else".13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences (Which doesn't REALLY mean ... just sticking out a tongue and/or flipping the bird)as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Well US Ambassador John Negroponte said it meant "As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."
The UK said "If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12." - Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of the UK
Here's that Paragraph 12 - which you missed out:12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;
So it looks like what "serious consequences" exactly are is a matter to be decided by the UN Security Council, not individual member states (who, if you recall, are bound to uphold "the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States" by the same resolution, as well as refraining "in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations" by the UN Charter.)
All in all a bit confusing - not "quite simple, actually".
I see 1441 as meaning that it's up to the UN Security Council to decide what to do, you think it means the US can invade when it wants to.
Perhaps you could clarify things further by directing us all to the UN Security Council resolution that explicitly calls for the Invasion of Iraq by US and UK forces? Or at least to the UN Security Council meeting that decided what the "serious consequences" were and came up with "invasion by the US & UK". I can't seem to find them.
Originally posted by Arlo
We've got people saying:
- "Serious consequences" doesn't mean anything.
- "Final opportunity" isn't final.
- "Territorial integrity" keeps the UN from enforcing it's resolutions.
[/b]
No, that's just poor reading comprehension on your part.
What you have, is people saying:
- The nature of "serious consequences" were to be decided by the UN Security Council
- "Final opportunity" is final, but what happens next is up to the UN Security Council
- "Territorial integrity" keeps individual member states from invading countries without an explicit mandate from the UN Security Council
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
wow...schaden guy..you are a HAnoi Jane
you are spew soi much crap it seems good to let u run circles and pee on ur self..
BUSH IS SATAN!!
btw..NO FRIKN WAY WE WILL BE TAKING Casualties like now in 3-5 years..
THeY will be dead in another year! ya!!:aok
btw thsi is going to be one of the QUICKEST librerations in History
America...We sure do save alot of tulips around the world..Thank god more good then bad..
and yes..OBL..days are numbered....
Love
BiGB
xoxo
P.S. Try to wave when the Ac-130 takes ur picture.
Ah, the noble art of incoherence...
pursued by few, mastered by many
-
Originally posted by Dowding
That character was a Hollywood invention to give American audiences someone to root for in the film. Couldn't have a film about WW2 that didn't have Americans in it, could we? Fortunately he didn't detract from the real story too much.
That character was at least loosely based on a couple of real U.S. fighter pilots, who were at one time in that particular Stalag BEFORE the escape.
And the reason he was added is that the U.S. pilots were removed from that particular Stalag before the actual escape took place, but not before much of the work leading up to it was done. Even the British pilots said they could not have done it without the U.S. pilots.
But don't let the WHOLE truth derail your agenda. Never mind the fact that even several of the British pilots thought it was pretty cool and made the movie a little more viewable for the movie attendee that wasn't there for a strict history lesson. Geez, get a life.
-
You gotta understand Dowding, he's miffed at the USA because of the whole revolution and indeoendance thing.... :D
-
For me, it never was about "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
George W. Bush said, after 9/11/2001, "We will bring about regime change for any nation that supports terrorism or harbors terrorists."
That is why I supported the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussien.
Here's a little light reading for you regarding Saddam Hussien and terrorism:
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Capitulation and appeasement usually are easier...but not right.
so by that weird logic every American voter who votes against George W in November is guilty of capitulation and appeasement?
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
so by that weird logic every American voter who votes against George W in November is guilty of capitulation and appeasement?
Why do you care? You have allready given up....
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
wow...schaden guy..you are a HAnoi Jane
you are spew soi much crap it seems good to let u run circles and pee on ur self..
BUSH IS SATAN!!
btw..NO FRIKN WAY WE WILL BE TAKING Casualties like now in 3-5 years..
THeY will be dead in another year! ya!!:aok
btw thsi is going to be one of the QUICKEST librerations in History
America...We sure do save alot of tulips around the world..Thank god more good then bad..
and yes..OBL..days are numbered....
Love
BiGB
xoxo
P.S. Try to wave when the Ac-130 takes ur picture.
If someone had told you that thethe US would lose control of key cities in Iraq for a week, conclude a truce with gunmen and lose 80 casualties in 7 days, a year after the war started you probably wouldn't have believed that either.....
-
Shadenfreude, why does your avatar sort of resemble an Su-27, especially in the nose?
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
If someone had told you that thethe US would lose control of key cities in Iraq for a week, conclude a truce with gunmen and lose 80 casualties in 7 days, a year after the war started you probably wouldn't have believed that either.....
Conclude a truce? There is no truce. There is a temporary cease fire, for humanitarian reasons, and at the behest of several Shiite clerics to allow them to attempt to negotiate with al-Sadr. There is no permanent truce at all, and nothing concluded.
Oh, and al-Sadr is the one now attempting to broker a deal to prevent the destruction of himself and his illegal militia. He knows he is now in an untenable position because he was not able to create a popular uprising, despite help from Iranian mullahs and backing from several notorious Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbolah, who he as aligned himself with. His illfated attempt has resulted in utter failure, and he's now doing his best to save his sorry hide.
No, you are wrong, it is not the coalition that is seeking a truce to save themselves, it is al-Sadr. His fellow Shiite clerics are attempting to get him to turn himself in, not at all what he desired or expected. He is wanted for the murder of another Shiite cleric. The penalty for which is death. I don't see a good ending for him in this. And as was the case with Saddam, the coalition is NOT going to wait for him and his militia forever, they will surrender soon or they will perish.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The ONLY reason ANY of the inspection process even came CLOSE to working at all was that the coalition finally stationed 100K plus troops right across the border from Saddam. But it never REALLY worked.
IF Saddam DID NOT have any WMD's, then WHY was he so bent on making the verification of same so difficult? Ever wonder about that? IF he had actually been fully cooperative, Bush would not have had ANY basis on which to invade. IF Saddam didn't have the items in question, all he had to do to remain in power was to PROVE it in an upfront and honest manner, instead of making every effort to hinder the process. If Saddam was so innocent, and the weapons did not exist, ever, he had everything to gain by full and complete disclosure and cooperation, and nothing to lose.
Of course, given all that time to dispose of, hide, sell, or otherwise move them, it is no surprise they have not been found. Who is to say they are not in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, or hidden away in some hole in the wall somewhere in the world? They may not have ever existed (if not, then why not prove it?), then again he may have sold them to a country or group, and hoped he could escape with the proceeds in all the confusion.
Agree 100%. The US did more to allow the UN inspectors to do their job than any other country or the UN, including Hans Blix.
And the small matter of tons of WMD still not accounted for doesn't matter to the people who say we can't find them and therefore Saddam didn't have them.
Anyone ever even consider what happened to all those WMDs? Hmmmm, interesting we still can't find them, yet Hans Blix said he needed 2 more weeks. Anyone consider they could have been hidden or moved to another country?
I'm sure most opposed to the war trusted that Saddam was honest and eager to comply with the UN. Bah!
-
dowding is everything that is bad about the british... he gives em a real bad name and reafirms why we wanted our independence.
I hope that some of the euro socialist lovers on this board will look at downdings example and be persuaded to avoid voting democrat this election.
as for iraq.. who here thinks that we should have left everything as it was?
I still say that it was a great example... the sadman did have WMD programs and would have had more in the future... letting him continue would be... insane. He is a good example for the other desposts in my opinion... When the U.S. has a strong president it will protect it's interests... when it has a weak one it will have it's soldiers drug through the streets and pull out.
lazs
-
Originally posted by deSelys
And if OBL does matter so much to you, what the f%$çk are you fooling around in Iraq?
im afraid, that he is fooling around living room.
If he were fooling around Iraq, he may speak diferent way
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You must have a really odd definition of pacifist.
i would say that pacifist is guy beeing born somewhere at pacific area :D
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Shadenfreude, why does your avatar sort of resemble an Su-27, especially in the nose?
Never noticed it before but now you mention it......I picked it up when I was playing red baron online years ago in a black and silver Dr1.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why do you care? You have allready given up....
I don't actually care...well apart from the £20 bet of course, however when someone comes out with something as spectacularly stupid as the previous comment one does feel an urge to question it.
I do think Grunherz, you being a red blooded American - although of course of recent vintage that you should be heading down to the nearest National Guard office and volunteer your services.
You would then be able to serve your newly acquired country by driving a truck in Iraq.
You would also perhaps acquire a little knowledge of war and what it means.
Please go and visit this site, read all the posts and reflect on what has been lost and what has been gained in return.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
-
You have made your mind up about Iraq, you think its a lost cause, you gave up. So why even bother?
and i love how how you guys always bring up that I'm an immigrant and that, somehow, you think that makes me less pf an american... You really have no clue aboutr America do you...:rolleyes:
Every time I read one of those idiotic comments from you in lesser nations it just makes me love America more...
God bless America!
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Perhaps you could clarify things further by directing us all to the UN Security Council resolution that explicitly calls for the Invasion of Iraq by US and UK forces? Or at least to the UN Security Council meeting that decided what the "serious consequences" were and came up with "invasion by the US & UK". I can't seem to find them.
Perhaps you can clarify things by pointing us to the UN resolution against the US and UK in response to their taking action after 12 years of UN resolutions (and after the FINAL resolution)? :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You have made your mind up about Iraq, you think its a lost cause, you gave up. So why even bother?
and i love how how you guys always bring up that I'm an immigrant and that, somehow, you think that makes me less pf an american... You really have no clue aboutr America do you...:rolleyes:
Every time I read one of those idiotic comments from you in lesser nations it just makes me love America more...
God bless America!
I take it you're not volunteering then?
-
Thats not what I'm doing right now, I want to finish up school.. After that I have no clue what I want to do. One thing I'm maybe looking into will be doing some aid work, perhaps in afghanistan of all places...
But maybe I'll join the army, if you are honest with yourself and you join the terrorists....
Wouldnt you just love to put your old military skills and shoot up some imperialist evil amreekan storm troopers?
-
Grunherz you are a child and a foolish one at that. Nothing more than a little boy parroting the statements that he has heard and trying to get the adults attention.
You can't insult me - your opinion means nothing to me and your arguments and reasoning are that of a uneducated teenager with little or no experience of the world suddenly let loose in the candy shop that a 1st world consumer society offers.
You really should try to do a little reading, take a sociology or philosophy course or two and learn to think for yrself.
Now run along and go and tell Uncle Ripsnort and Mr Eagler what a nasty person I am.
-
I love the insults... WTG!!! Whats next make fun of my weight?
Why is it always the anti-war types have to resort to the "think for yourself" line when they run out of arguments?
And I have insuluted you, its obvious, just look at the angry little post you just wrote. Caertainly not the words of somebody who is indifferent about my impact on them....
Otherwise why try to put me down and lift yourself up with your attacks...
You are so transparent... And bitter...
But I am young, and there is much for me to learn as we all do, no matter how old we are and what we have seen.
So I wont hold your behavior against you, I'll just hope you grow up some too...
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Grunherz you are a child and a foolish one at that. Nothing more than a little boy parroting the statements that he has heard and trying to get the adults attention.
You can't insult me - your opinion means nothing to me and your arguments and reasoning are that of a uneducated teenager with little or no experience of the world suddenly let loose in the candy shop that a 1st world consumer society offers.
You really should try to do a little reading, take a sociology or philosophy course or two and learn to think for yrself.
Now run along and go and tell Uncle Ripsnort and Mr Eagler what a nasty person I am.
If he can't insult you and is just the child you say he is, then why do you insult him?
Do you pick on kids for kicks or is he more an adult than you will admit?
Mr Eagler
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Perhaps you can clarify things by pointing us to the UN resolution against the US and UK in response to their taking action after 12 years of UN resolutions (and after the FINAL resolution)? :D
Can't find it - I can't find one that thanks you for it either, though.
The UN caved in to the US & UK, rather than risking suicide by enforcing the UN charter. Although in doing so, it probably has done anyway.
It took a while to lift the sanctions, though, and to do so the US and UK had to admit to being occupation forces - hardly a gushing thank you, then. It's not so much an approval as letting you get away with breaking the law.
However the UN's cowardly act of giving in to the US & UK doesn't exactly help your argument that the UN's "serious consequences" meant invasion either, now does it? Not really the act of a bunch of hardliners, is it? It's also worth noting that the "12 years of UN resolutions" against Iraq were for the most part introduced by the US & UK.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I love the insults... WTG!!! Whats next make fun of my weight?
Why is it always the anti-war types have to resort to the "think for yourself" line when they run out of arguments?
And I have insuluted you, its obvious, just look at the angry little post you just wrote. Caertainly not the words of somebody who is indifferent about my impact on them....
Otherwise why try to put me down and lift yourself up with your attacks...
You are so transparent... And bitter...
But I am young, and there is much for me to learn as we all do, no matter how old we are and what we have seen.
So I wont hold your behavior against you, I'll just hope you grow up some too...
Well I will certainly continue to try to learn however we all are shaped by our experiences and see the world through the prism formed from those experiences.
Personally I think that the life experiences that shaped your views are so different to the ones that shaped mine that it is doubtful that we could ever reach agreement.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
If he can't insult you and is just the child you say he is, then why do you insult him?
Do you pick on kids for kicks or is he more an adult than you will admit?
Mr Eagler
If someone wishes to make things personal and suggesting I go and kill Americans is to me extremely personal - then they can expect to be slapped and hard.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Can't find it - I can't find one that thanks you for it either, though.
Bound to be one ... either one. Either the US and the UK are war criminals like your ilk tends to claim or the UN writes "thank you" resolutions. Right? If you want to take your stubborn stance on this to the point of sillyness (you certainly aren't debating the issue, your mind was made up to begin with and you're simply trying to "correct other peoples misperceptions") then expect those of us willing to exhibit common sense not to take you seriously. :D
-
If Bin Laden were cornered in some cave somewhere, his identify confirmed and his ability to resist used up, how many of you, if the choice were yours and yours alone, would have him killed right there?
What if you had to make that choice knowing that you could take him alive without risking the lives of your men?
What if you had to make that same choice knowing that the public was aware that you were deciding, and that your decision would be final?
Just curious.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Perhaps you can clarify things by pointing us to the UN resolution against the US and UK in response to their taking action after 12 years of UN resolutions (and after the FINAL resolution)? :D
Come on Arlo, you know better than that. Everyone knows that any draft resolution against the US, UK, France, Russia or China would be a waste of time because they would be simply be vetoed.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Well I will certainly continue to try to learn however we all are shaped by our experiences and see the world through the prism formed from those experiences.
Personally I think that the life experiences that shaped your views are so different to the ones that shaped mine that it is doubtful that we could ever reach agreement.
You would be surprised. :)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Come on Arlo, you know better than that. Everyone knows that any draft resolution against the US, UK, France, Russia or China would be a waste of time because they would be simply be vetoed.
Then it appears that the US and the UK didn't act against the will of the UN after all. They just acted. Which is simply ... out of character ... when it came to what the other members were or were not prepared to do in the case of settling Iraq's long term non-compliance with the Desert Storm cease fire agreement.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Then it appears that the US and the UK didn't act against the will of the UN after all. They just acted. Which is simply ... out of character ... when it came to what the other members were or were not prepared to do in the case of settling Iraq's long term non-compliance with the Desert Storm cease fire agreement.
Fraid not. Just because they can't face censure doesn't mean they haven't acted against the Charter and resolutions.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Fraid not. Just because they can't face censure doesn't mean they haven't acted against the Charter and resolutions.
Straw man argument. It's come down to opinion.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
If Bin Laden were cornered in some cave somewhere, his identify confirmed and his ability to resist used up, how many of you, if the choice were yours and yours alone, would have him killed right there?
What if you had to make that choice knowing that you could take him alive without risking the lives of your men?
What if you had to make that same choice knowing that the public was aware that you were deciding, and that your decision would be final?
Just curious.
What ever choice I would make, I still wouldn't have got the guy who is the probably the real brains behind Al-Qaeda and it's terror campaigns.
I would have captured/killed the guy who has no basis - no real argument to back his religious islamic claims for what he has done. Who has no real political skills, but one of the few really rich arab fighters which originally made his name, before he was quickly demonized by the media, and govts. like all the classic single sound byte symbols that we need to trasmit to the masses...
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Straw man argument.
Actually no it isn't.
You can find an excellant description of the "Straw Man" fallacy here...
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
...as well many other logical fallacies. It's an excellant site, I hope you look it over.
I'll explain my position using an example. Lets say a person commits a crime in the US and flees to another country. They can't be held accountable, but that doesn't mean a crime hasn't been commited.
It's come down to opinion.
It hasn't come down to opinion, the whole discussion was opinion. What we have been debating is the reasoning and information that we are basing our opinions on.
It seems to me that you might be tiring of the discussion. If that's the case I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts with me in such and excellant manner. I apologise for any offence and immaturity on my part. And I would like to leave off with this quote. I can't say I keep to it's message all the time but it's a ideal I try and strive for.
"I am one of those who are very willing to be refuted if I say anything which is not true, and very willing to refute any one else who says what is not true, and quite as ready to be refuted as to refute-I for I hold that this is the greater gain of the two, just as the gain is greater of being cured of a very great evil than of curing another. For I imagine that there is no evil which a man can endure so great as an erroneous opinion about the matters of which we are speaking and if you claim to be one of my sort, let us have the discussion out, but if you would rather have done, no matter-let us make an end of it."
- Socretes, from "Gorgias" by Plato.
-
BLaden is **** stirring. Not surprising (or relieving, depending on your prejudices) that no countries felt stirred by his truce, which is just that, not even a negociation, which even it wouldn't be interesting since he has no political credibility. Public masses can't be let become impressed and string-pulled by BL, his propaganda and scare tactics and **** stirring need to be debunked by the governements, there should be a closer agreement between governments and their respective people.
Islamism is a Nazi lookalike, really. Nazi fascists were fought as they deserved back then, why shouldn't they be now?
"Democracy" is probably not what people of Irak want, that's democracy with quotes, in the sense that someone upstream the thread mentionned: the only way they'll (and the rest of the muslim world) not feel agressed, is if you let them live their traditions. God knows how long they've followed them, how central it is to their lives.
If you want to really have an impact against islamist terrorism, you need to fight Islamism ideologically. IMO no one really deals with it (for ex. in important speeches etc), sort of afraid to break the stupid PC rules, to dirty their hands or something.
Either naive or careless or ignorant, but in my opinion fighting it at that root will be more effective than just using remedies after-the-fact.
Not to say that Saddam didn't merit military removal, nor that the US shouldn't defend itself when threatened as it was and still is and unfortunately still will be for a long time.
Sort of like wars on drugs, viruses and scripts and spam aren't going away anytime soon from the net with only brute scorched earth tactics.
-
I removed an OBL from the inside of my cheek. It was painful and required something very hot. Worth it in the long run.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Bound to be one ... either one. Either the US and the UK are war criminals like your ilk tends to claim or the UN writes "thank you" resolutions. Right? If you want to take your stubborn stance on this to the point of sillyness (you certainly aren't debating the issue, your mind was made up to begin with and you're simply trying to "correct other peoples misperceptions") then expect those of us willing to exhibit common sense not to take you seriously. :D
No your point got me thinking -
Why didn't the UN Security Council censure two of its veto-carrying members in the Security Council? I wondered if it had done in similar cases of charter-breaking invasions.
Strangely enough, I can't find a UN Security Council resolution censuring the USSR for the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. By your logic, I presume this mean that this invasion was also what the UN wanted.
I can't find a UN Security Council resolution censuring China's invasion of Vietnam in 1980 either. Presumably the UN approved that one too.
Call me a conspiracy nut - but I see a pattern. It's as if the UN Security Council just doesn't bother censuring veto holders because they know they'll veto the resolution.
And yes when it comes to trashing idiot spin on the Iraqi Invasion, I am stubborn - I prefer truth to advertising.
Feel free to exhibit common sense, but never forget - common sense is the thing that tells you that the sun moves round the earth and that the earth is flat. ;)
-
Ya know.. I met grun in person.. He is a cheerful and bright guy. He is in no way hostile and he listens before he speaks. Very personable guy and you would probly enjoy soending time with him.
lazs
-
Thanks lazs! I appreciate it. :)
-
And he likes Mexican food, he isn't all that bad! :) His car needs some serious detailing though....:eek: :D
-
Hmm... we all had mexican food when I met him too... his car? what was wrong with it? red mustang wasn't it? average condition?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
And he likes Mexican food, he isn't all that bad! :) His car needs some serious detailing though....:eek: :D
Yes it does, and certainly did at the time. I damn near took 1/2 of Canada's insects back home with me the front bumper of my car... :)
No worries though Rip, next time I'm up there I will gladly let you wash and polish my car. ;)
-
I think it's gonna rain piss on the neo-con and "we were acting on the UN's behalf!" parade once more...
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=WT5MDESJ0ODMACRBAEZSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=4855833§ion=news
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
g' morning Holden McGroin so with your numbers in mind,
with all the support i'm sure your next holiday trip will be Iraq.
1:0 for you :p
You said zero support. I showed a credible poll showing an actual majority of Iraqi support. With still 3/8 of the population in opposition to our action the poll results will not cause me to cancel plans for diving in Belize, but they are enough to prove you wrong.
Besides they make better margaritas on the reef.