Author Topic: France ...classic again..wtg!!! (Read 1965 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #15 on:** March 28, 2004, 10:35:05 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
No problem, your choice.

Your man has produced an unnecessary war, thousands of casualties, billions of costs, alienated most of your allies, consolidated terrorist ranks and produced profits for his clique.

All based on false or never proven accusations.

Judge by yourself.

How about I judge you incorrect on every count?

Hristo · « **Reply #16 on:** March 28, 2004, 10:36:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
How about I judge you incorrect on every count?

Please do. Got some unknown facts ?

Capt. Pork · « **Reply #17 on:** March 28, 2004, 10:38:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo

All based on false or never proven accusations.

So Saddam's status as a criminal tyrant is false?

NUKE · « **Reply #18 on:** March 28, 2004, 10:43:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
No problem, your choice.

Your man has produced an unnecessary war, thousands of casualties, billions of costs, alienated most of your allies, consolidated terrorist ranks and produced profits for his clique.

Your're talking about Saddam I see. How Ironic

Blammo · « **Reply #19 on:** March 28, 2004, 10:43:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
All based on false or never proven accusations.

Judge by yourself.

So, you are saying Saddam was not inviolation of UN resolution 1441 (and a score of others). Are you saying he was not in violating the ceasefire agreement from the first Gulf war? Are you saying that He was not a threat to his neighbors? Are you saying he is not guilty of countless human rights violations?

By the way, the phrase about "history being written by the victor" don't make a lot of sense. We are living it now, not reading it later.

Just cause you have an axe to grind and hate America don't make what you say valid.

Oh, and as far as consolidating the terrorists...great...let them consolidate...easier to get them that way.

Don't know about you, but I would rather live in a world with no allies and no terrorists than in one with both. Think about.

Hristo · « **Reply #20 on:** March 28, 2004, 10:44:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Capt. Pork
So Saddam's status as a criminal tyrant is false?

So you tell me that US invaded Iraq because Saddam was unkind to his own people ?

Wow, why didn't they invade most of Africa, good deal of Asia and a whole lot of US allies ?? In fact, not only US didn't invade, they actually installed and supported dictators and tyrants of their own !

WMDs and Al Qaida ties were the official reason. This has never been proven.

Hristo · « **Reply #21 on:** March 28, 2004, 10:49:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Blammo
So, you are saying Saddam was not inviolation of UN resolution 1441 (and a score of others). Are you saying he was not in violating the ceasefire agreement from the first Gulf war? Are you saying that He was not a threat to his neighbors? Are you saying he is not guilty of countless human rights violations?

By the way, the phrase about "history being written by the victor" don't make a lot of sense. We are living it now, not reading it later.

Just cause you have an axe to grind and hate America don't make what you say valid.

Oh, and as far as consolidating the terrorists...great...let them consolidate...easier to get them that way.

Don't know about you, but I would rather live in a world with no allies and no terrorists than in one with both. Think about.

Don't give me that "hate America" crap. It is for brainwashed idiots, you aren't one of those ? I probably like America much more than Iraq though. BUt I don't like Bush, that is true. As I see it, he cares for his own agendas, not human lives.

Saddam's violation of UN resolutions was the job of UN. US acted without UN approval. Something only country in self defense should.

Good note about world without allies and terrorists, I give ya that. But Iraq war was just bad - less allies and more terrorists.

Capt. Pork · « **Reply #22 on:** March 28, 2004, 10:52:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
So you tell me that US invaded Iraq because Saddam was unkind to his own people ?

Wow, why didn't they invade most of Africa, good deal of Asia and a whole lot of US allies ?? In fact, not only US didn't invade, they actually installed and supported dictators and tyrants of their own !

WMDs and Al Qaida ties were the official reason. This has never been proven.

I'm gonna go with Ripsnort's Sig. line on this one.

AKIron · « **Reply #23 on:** March 28, 2004, 10:56:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
So you tell me that US invaded Iraq because Saddam was unkind to his own people ?

Wow, why didn't they invade most of Africa, good deal of Asia and a whole lot of US allies ?? In fact, not only US didn't invade, they actually installed and supported dictators and tyrants of their own !

WMDs and Al Qaida ties were the official reason. This has never been proven.

Uh, no, violation of UN resolutions was the "official" reason. Some just don't seem to get it.

Hristo · « **Reply #24 on:** March 28, 2004, 10:58:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Capt. Pork
I'm gonna go with Ripsnort's Sig. line on this one.

What no "hate America" first ?

You went directly to attack the poster instead ?

WTG

Hristo · « **Reply #25 on:** March 28, 2004, 11:00:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Uh, no, violation of UN resolutions was the "official" reason. Some just don't seem to get it.

Did UN authorize US to invade ?

AKIron · « **Reply #26 on:** March 28, 2004, 11:02:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
Did UN authorize US to invade ?

Yes

Hristo · « **Reply #27 on:** March 28, 2004, 11:05:07 AM »

Now really ? What I remember was US acting on its own, despite UN.

I may be missinformed afterall then ?! Got any link to written facts or resolutions ?

straffo · « **Reply #28 on:** March 28, 2004, 11:16:05 AM »

Certainly not Iron.

And if the new trend for American is to bring democratia and freedom using bayonettes it look like they are far from half way.

AKIron · « **Reply #29 on:** March 28, 2004, 11:18:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
Now really ? What I remember was US acting on its own, despite UN.

I may be missinformed afterall then ?! Got any link to written facts or resolutions ?

How about this:

"There was a clear legal basis in existing Security Council Resolutions for the action we took last December. Security Council Resolution (SCR) 1154 made clear that any violation by Iraq of its obligations to allow UNSCOM and IAEA unrestricted access would have the severest consequences. Following Iraq's decision of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with UNSCOM, the Council, in SCR 1205, established that that decision was a flagrant violation of SCR 687 which laid down the conditions for the 1991 ceasefire. The Council also recalled that the effective operation of UNSCOM and the IAEA was essential for the implementation of the ceasefire resolution. By SCR 1205, therefore, the Security Council implicitly revived the authorisation to use force which it had given in SCR 678."

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg01194.html