or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong. - Page 8

post #281 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
It's not against a mandate, that's true. It is clearly against the U.N. Charter though. Hopefully Bush will be held responsible for the breach.

I know you have posted many well thought out reasons for it to be against the UN charter, but could you refresh my memory how it does so? I believe the US and other nations still retain the right to wage war.

As far as hold Bush accountable. I don't think there is any breach to hold him accountable for, but if there is, if the UN can't hold Saddam accountable, how can the hope to hold the leader of the sole superpower accountable?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #282 of 369
I should also point out that the citizens of both Britain and Spain, our two primary supporting 'nations,' has been firmly against a war in Iraq, with spanish opposition in the 70-80% range.

Which brings up the question of what you think a nation is. Is it the people? Here in democratic America, we tend to think it is, or at least should be.

Yet even though we hardly have the support of a few national leaders, those few national leaders do not have the support of the citizens. What you are praising is the leaders of a country making major political decisions that are opposed by the vast number of their citizens!

Regardless, a country anonymously allowing access to airspace is far from political support. You have no idea why these national leaders are making these decisions and to say their motives are in line with our mission is naive in the extreme.

It is highly unrealistic to think that the world's only superpower is going to take such a massive unilateral step without a few other nations offering token support. Nations dependent on the US (or wanting to be) are going to put themselves in a bene...

you know. I just realized how elementary this shit is. If you really are so behind in life that this is news, it's not really worth my time to try to explain it to you. Go back to college (or go for the first time) and this time pay attention.

And here's a little hint: these national leaders are pushing for it because the US want it, not because their citizens want it. What more is there really to say?
post #283 of 369
Thread Starter 
"White House spokesman Sean McCormack said the language refers to the administration's belief that there are links between al-Qaida and Iraq, and that Bush was not accusing Iraq of being involved in the attacks."

???

"I have the right to start this war because of the 9/11 attack."
"I believe there is a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
"I am not accusing Iraq of being involved in the attacks."

???
post #284 of 369
Quote:
I should also point out that the citizens of both Britain and Spain, our two primary supporting 'nations,' has been firmly against a war in Iraq, with spanish opposition in the 70-80% range.

British citizens are firmly against war?
Last I checked 50% support war sans UN.

Firmly against war? Hmm indeed.

Quote:
Which brings up the question of what you think a nation is. Is it the people? Here in democratic America, we tend to think it is, or at least should be.

The government is made up of representatives voted for by the people. Democratic republics aren't governed by public opinion polls. If that were the case be prepared for socialized everything and no taxes. Laws in the midwest requiring open-carry of handguns, illegal abortion and mandatory prayer in school.

8 years of Clinton-politick left you in serious need of a re-education in the basic function and make-up of our federal government.

Quote:
What you are praising is the leaders of a country making major political decisions that are opposed by the vast number of their citizens!

What you are doing is making things up because you don't have enough real facts to constitute a real argument!

The masses aren't as anti-war as you like to make it seem. Not even close.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #285 of 369
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
British citizens are firmly against war?
Last I checked 50% support war sans UN.

Firmly against war? Hmm indeed.
...
The masses aren't as anti-war as you like to make it seem. Not even close.

Check Again.

"The poll showed a serious disconnect between Americans and their traditional allies. While 59 percent of Americans supported a war to remove Saddam Hussein, only 39 percent of Britons favored military action, with the other nations voicing even less support."
post #286 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton


???

"I have the right to start this war because of the 9/11 attack."

9/11 changed the way potential threats are viewed...imagine that.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton

"I believe there is a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

An opinion based on intelligence information. Has been disputed. Some say yes, some say no. But if one believes it, it seems a pretty strong reason for action.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton

"I am not accusing Iraq of being involved in the attacks."

???

If they are involved together, that doesn't mean Iraq was involved in 9/11. Is that really a difficult concept?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #287 of 369
Thread Starter 
Actually, what the Presidential mandate says Bush can do is attack all parties involved with the 9/11 attacks. And that is the mandate that Bush is trying to stand behind to justify his actions. So yes, he apparently is saying Iraq was involved with 9/11.
post #288 of 369
Pick your source. I like mine.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #289 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Actually, what the Presidential mandate says Bush can do is attack all parties involved with the 9/11 attacks. And that is the mandate that Bush is trying to stand behind to justify his actions. So yes, he apparently is saying Iraq was involved with 9/11.

Actually, states and nations harbouring or aiding Al Qaeda is what the mandate says. Just as Afganistan wasn't part of 9/11, they were responsible for providing safe have and a base of operations for Al Qaeda. Keep trying.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #290 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
I know you have posted many well thought out reasons for it to be against the UN charter, but could you refresh my memory how it does so? I believe the US and other nations still retain the right to wage war.

Thanks for the compliment!

Defensive wars are A.O.K. Pre-emptive wars are A.O.K. if there is an imminent threat.

An attack on a soverign nation without direct provocation is not A.O.K.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #291 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I should also point out that the citizens of both Britain and Spain, our two primary supporting 'nations,' has been firmly against a war in Iraq, with spanish opposition in the 70-80% range.

Which brings up the question of what you think a nation is. Is it the people? Here in democratic America, we tend to think it is, or at least should be.

Yet even though we hardly have the support of a few national leaders, those few national leaders do not have the support of the citizens. What you are praising is the leaders of a country making major political decisions that are opposed by the vast number of their citizens!

Regardless, a country anonymously allowing access to airspace is far from political support. You have no idea why these national leaders are making these decisions and to say their motives are in line with our mission is naive in the extreme.

It is highly unrealistic to think that the world's only superpower is going to take such a massive unilateral step without a few other nations offering token support. Nations dependent on the US (or wanting to be) are going to put themselves in a bene...

you know. I just realized how elementary this shit is. If you really are so behind in life that this is news, it's not really worth my time to try to explain it to you. Go back to college (or go for the first time) and this time pay attention.

And here's a little hint: these national leaders are pushing for it because the US want it, not because their citizens want it. What more is there really to say?


Why wouldnt someone want to get rid of a leader like Saddam? I know why the French government doesnt. I can also rationalize why the German government doesnt. But why wouldnt you? You are an American. Or are you? Are the reasons really rational, or really just emotional at their core? You dont think this will be a better world without Saddam? You dont think this will a better world if American values are implanted everywhere on the globe. America turned around many evil and despotic regimes. Why not Iraq? Whats so special about Iraq?
post #292 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Why wouldnt someone want to get rid of a leader like Saddam?

Just to speak for myself, I do want him gone. But I also want Bush gone. There are legitimate ways and not-so-legitimate ways to change leadership though.

I'm not saying Iraq should vote him out of office because obviously that can't happen. But, a war based on U.N. Resolutions without U.N. backing, or a war based on seriously suspect refuted evidence, is no better to me.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #293 of 369
bunge,
Weve already gone through that before. Any organization that gives legitimacy and cover to such regimes as Saddam's, itself should be regarded as VOID and illegitimate. Given that, referring to the UN as though it carries some kind of moral legitimacy is the height depravity.
post #294 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by mika_mk1984

Any organization that gives legitimacy and cover to such regimes as Saddam's, itself should be regarded as VOID and illegitimate.

But what about the Bush administration (and Clinton's before him) giving aid to North Korea?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #295 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
Actually, states and nations harbouring or aiding Al Qaeda is what the mandate says. Just as Afganistan wasn't part of 9/11, they were responsible for providing safe have and a base of operations for Al Qaeda. Keep trying.


So where's the proof? Or is this like the info we can't share on WOMD?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #296 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
So where's the proof? Or is this like the info we can't share on WOMD?

very possibly. Sometimes intelligence sources and material are kept secret, fact of life.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #297 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
But what about the Bush administration (and Clinton's before him) giving aid to North Korea?

Ive already spoken to that in my previous post. (In the other thread) That was a political capitulation, and it has only encouraged that man-child in Pyongyang in his mischief, and others like him.
post #298 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
That was a political capitulation, and it has only encouraged that man-child in Pyongyang in his mischief, and others like him.

So you agree the Bush administration is "VOID and illigitimate"? Don't cave in so easy, at least put up a fight just for the sake of appearances. And that's without me bringing up American support for Saddam over many years.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #299 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Any organization that gives legitimacy and cover to such regimes as Saddam's, itself should be regarded as VOID and illegitimate.

What about the Bush Admin giving legitimacy and cover to pakistan, the very nation who's leadership holds direct responsibility for 9/11 (we've already had a token resignation of the ISI director after it was revealed that he wired $100,000 to Atta) and the nation that has supplied NOKOR with much of its nuclear tech? Not to mention that Al-Qaeda is part of the ISI. I guess the American government is now void and illegitimate.

Unless of course, you mean benign dictorial regimes like Saddam's, in which case your view is quite lacking in the logic sector.

In fact, the only logical way you could mean 'regime's like saddam's' is 'regimes that stand in the way of the the US goals in a particular region.' In which case your view towards the UN is shared by the Admin and you would be right on track to entering the actual debate going on in internally between various US officials, advisors and scholars.

Quote:
mika:
Why not Iraq? Whats so special about Iraq?

What is so special about Iraq? Many more people are suffering in Africa. Wouldn't it do more good for more people if the focus, funds and energy were directed at improving lives on that continent?

But of course, improving the lives of Iraqis is not the concern of the Bush Admin, as the current Bush officials have explained time and time again for the past 25 years in countless study groups and strategic reports. In fact, they have been more than clear in Rebuilding America's Defences that the US's goals globally should always put US interests first.
post #300 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
What about the Bush Admin giving legitimacy and cover to pakistan, the very nation who's leadership holds direct responsibility for 9/11 (we've already had a token resignation of the ISI director after it was revealed that he wired $100,000 to Atta) and the nation that has supplied NOKOR with much of its nuclear tech? Not to mention that Al-Qaeda is part of the ISI. I guess the American government is now void and illegitimate.

Unless of course, you mean benign dictorial regimes like Saddam's, in which case your view is quite lacking in the logic sector.

In fact, the only logical way you could mean 'regime's like saddam's' is 'regimes that stand in the way of the the US goals in a particular region.' In which case your view towards the UN is shared by the Admin and you would be right on track to entering the actual debate going on in internally between various US officials, advisors and scholars.

The US will deal with Pakistan, Saudia, Korea, and the others. Let's do this one at a time, and with a little brain, shall we. Iraq will finance the next domino to fall: Saudia. Saudia the next domino. Etc.


Quote:
But of course, improving the lives of Iraqis is not the concern of the Bush Admin, as the current Bush officials have explained time and time again for the past 25 years in countless study groups and strategic reports. In fact, they have been more than clear in Rebuilding America's Defences that the US's goals globally should always put US interests first.

And youre arguing that those interests should be to turn a blind eye to regimes such as Saddams. Therefore, I cannot but infer that theres an emotional attachment that you hold for such regimes.
post #301 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
The US will deal with Pakistan, Saudia, Korea, and the others. Let's do this one at a time, and with a little brain, shall we. Iraq will finance the next domino to fall: Saudia. Saudia the next domino. Etc.

You're in israeli, aren't you? BTW: I have a feeling that Americans won't allow the war-mongering to go on that long. I think you might be underestimating the anti-war movement in the US. Polls don't do it justice. As I pointed out, here at conservative NU the faculty is somewhere around 95% against the war. That kind of thing doesn't show up in random polls.

Quote:
And youre arguing that those interests should be to turn a blind eye to regimes such as Saddams. Therefore, I cannot but infer that theres an emotional attachment that you hold for such regimes.

It seems you want to turn a blind eye toward the whole of africa, which is approaching another major continental war. If we ignore the AIDS situation and focus just on deliberate acts carried out by ruling regimes, you still have a vastly larger problem than Iraq. I highly doubt that Saddam and Iraq under intense inspections will cause a million deaths. If you want to find the land of corrupt regimes, africa is the place to look.

Or are a few million black lives not as important as 'US and Israeli interests,' since that's what we are really talking about?
post #302 of 369
Quote:
...benign dictorial regimes like Saddam's...

Sweet merciful Christ.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #303 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Sweet merciful Christ.

Maybe you missed the paragraph above where I described a dangerous dictorial regime that has already been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. In comparison, Saddam's is extremely benign.
post #304 of 369
I was trying to prepare a point by point argument...and then I just kept laughing my ass off at the ludicrous reasoning I keep seeing. I'll try to keep it together:

giant:

"As I pointed out, here at conservative NU the faculty is somewhere around 95% against the war. That kind of thing doesn't show up in random polls."

"conservative faculty"

tonton:

"We were in the UN to seek the moral and unambiguously legal right to go to war. We didn't get it. "

You are assuming it is needed. Historically, it hasn't always been sought. Secondly, there is no question that the UN security council has proved itself totally ineffective in these matters. They have stood idly by and watched slaughters. They are toothless.

Bunge:

"The United States, or Bush, has made a unilateral decision to attack Iraq outside of the U.N. Charter and our own Constitution. The number of countries doesn't matter. That's not how 'unilateral' is defined."



1. Your argument that this is unilateral is totally without merit. You accuse Bush of "pushing one side". WTF else would he do? I'm sure he "cares" that some other nations don't support the action....but he is going to do it anyway because he believes it has to be done. The man has an opinion and he made very effort to convince the UN of that opinion. Due to France's position, he couldn't get explicit authorization. That doesn't make it immoral. By your reasoning, anyone with an opinion that acts upon it is acting unilaterally. If anyone was acting unilaterally, it was FRANCE. The final estimate was that we would have gotten TEN VOTES. Who was being unilateral, again? Let's see...the US with 30-45 nations on board. Or, France with itself. Hmmmm.


2. The UN charter is not being violated. The United States is acting in the national security interests of itself and its allies. The UN didn't pass a resolution forbidding military action, bunge.

3. OUR CONSTITUTION How? Where? The President has explicit authority under the congressional resolution. We went through 6 months (not to mention 12 years) of diplomacy. He has submitted the required notice to Congress that he must now use the military. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids military actions when the President and his administration determine there is a threat. Nothing. What a ridiculous, assasine statement.


giant again:

"You know. I just realized how elementary this shit is. If you really are so behind in life that this is news, it's not really worth my time to try to explain it to you. Go back to college (or go for the first time) and this time pay attention."

Typical.



I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #305 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
You're in israeli, aren't you? BTW: I have a feeling that Americans won't allow the war-mongering to go on that long. I think you might be underestimating the anti-war movement in the US. Polls don't do it justice. As I pointed out, here at conservative NU the faculty is somewhere around 95% against the war. That kind of thing doesn't show up in random polls.

Yes I am.

When its your survival you find the energy. If you think you can lay passive and the threat will go away, you either have an interest in making such claims, or youre too stupid for me to even carry a conversion with you. I give you the benefit of the doubt that its the former.


Quote:
It seems you want to turn a blind eye toward the whole of africa, which is approaching another major continental war. If we ignore the AIDS situation and focus just on deliberate acts carried out by ruling regimes, you still have a vastly larger problem than Iraq. I highly doubt that Saddam and Iraq under intense inspections will cause a million deaths. If you want to find the land of corrupt regimes, africa is the place to look.

Or are a few million black lives not as important as 'US and Israeli interests,' since that's what we are really talking about?

The Problems in Africa are interlinked to this issue. The Islamization of that continent is at the root cause of the conflicts there, the disinvestment and the starvation. But you never hear that perspective in your media. What you do hear is that talentless monkey Geldof and others like him yabering in self-promotion.
post #306 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Yes I am.

So you're a little biased about what the US should do in the region. Thanks for the input, and it will be considered when Americans make decisions about their own county. In the meantime, prepare to not have US fight your battles forever.

Quote:

The Problems in Africa is interlinked to this issue. The Islamization of that continent is at the root cause of the conflicts there, the disinvestment and the starvation

Funny. First you ignore colonialism and the slave trade, then you call starvation a "root cause." This is right after an insult. You're a teenager, too, right? I sure hope so.
post #307 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
So you're a little biased about what the US should do in the region. Thanks for the input, and it will be considered when Americans make decisions about their own county. In the meantime, prepare to not have US fight your battles forever.

I think you have that backwards.

Quote:
Funny. First you ignore colonialism and the slave trade, then you call starvation a "root cause." This is right after an insult. You're a teenager, too, right? I sure hope so.

Yeah, that must be it. Keep spewing that leftist garbage. Too bad its completely negated by facts on the ground. If it werent for colonialism and the investment in infrastructure that it brought, these people would still be eating each other, rather than endangered guerrillas.
post #308 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Maybe you missed the paragraph above where I described a dangerous dictorial regime that has already been responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. In comparison, Saddam's is extremely benign.

Saddam's regime is responsible for far more than "thousands" of deaths. American deaths are more powerful to me, but when it's 3,000 versus... oh, I don't know, roughly a million foreign deaths I'll go ahead and say the ~1mil is worse.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #309 of 369
Giant, not exactly playing fair either.

As usual, I find myself on neither side, and agreeing with some of what you say, but ultimately I have to wonder about the wilfull simplicity of which you accuse others but, nonetheless, you yourself display.

There are no innocents when you explore the motivations of any nation/state, self interest rules.

Iraq is more dangerous than the picture you propose, guaranteed, you can choose to see it, or not. Is it related to 9-11? Mebbe, mebbe not. But securing Iraqi oil will allow America to keep Saui Arabia and others honest for another 20 years, and that absolutely must be the case. Saudi money will buy Al Queda a nuke as soon as such a weapon comes to market (if it hasn't already, but for lack of delivery).

We need to start squeezing a few of those twitching princes untill their eyeballs pop out of their sockets, but hey...
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #310 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
...

I can never be proud of being American again. Every time someone asks where I'm from I'll be hesitant to tell them the truth (incidentally, 99% of the people I meet are not American and 90% of those will hate Americans after this). I am ashamed to be associated with a country that thinks it IS God.

A friend of mine is married to a girl from Iraq. and she has a lot of family in iraq and they happy about this war. She says that their family says that if no more than half of them die it will be worth it to get rid of Sudan.
None of us have no idea what it is like fora commom person to live under an evil ruler. in the past decade millions of iracs own people have been killed with gas and other more horriable ways. Including torture such as forceing parents to watch their children eaten alive by wild dogs.
their are no disabled people in irac because if you become disabled you are shot. I could go on and on and on and on.

terroririst are not these poor people that have been oppressed by the U.S.
they are the elite and the rich. most of them are highly educated. the oppressed are the poor starving people living in iraq under an evil rule.

OIL OIL OIL how i am tired of hearing about how bush wants oil. I remember they said the same thing about the gulf war. well, in 1991 we won a war and got the oil. So if we were after oil wouldn't we have kept it instead of giving it back to the people after the fighting was over, The Oil belogs to the people of irac instead of putting billions in saddamms bank account the money could be paying for schools and medicine, etc. and we are going to give the people of iraq their oil.

We are going to liberate the people of Irac. I am proud to be an american. We are the only country that comes to the aid of others. Sudan is a hundred times worse than hitler. every year he is responsible for more deaths than hitler ever did. 45 countries are supporting us now. when all is said and done americanism will be improved

I am proud that we are doing whats right. Bush is actually telling you the truth, evidence supports this
Show your art for free at my online gallery
http://www.thegivinggallery.com/
Reply
Show your art for free at my online gallery
http://www.thegivinggallery.com/
Reply
post #311 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by mika_mk1984

The Problems in Africa are interlinked to this issue. The Islamization of that continent is at the root cause of the conflicts there, the disinvestment and the starvation.

Seriously Mika, if there were a Muslim or a Christian here as staunchly against Judiasm as you are against Muslims, there'd be no end to the Nazi accusations.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #312 of 369
Aggressors be damned.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. Putts Law
Reply
post #313 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Seriously Mika, if there were a Muslim or a Christian here as staunchly against Judiasm as you are against Muslims, there'd be no end to the Nazi accusations.

If those Christians or Muslims had Jews trying to kill them daily soley because they were Christian or Muslim, those accusations might not be as forth coming as you think.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #314 of 369
By SDW,

" The UN charter is not being violated. The United States is acting in the national security interests of itself and its allies. The UN didn't pass a resolution forbidding military action, bunge. "


Tell me how this statement translates into reality. None of the supposed WOMD have been found and he certainly has no ability to deliver them to the U.S.

Also if he does he's under attack why hasn't he used them? Where's this big threat you're talking about?

I don't like Sadaam any more than you do but, there are other countries that pose more of a threat. So where's the justification?

Another thing won't this breed distrust and anger among some of those other countries that we know have these weapons and can deliver them?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #315 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac


None of the supposed WOMD have been found and he certainly has no ability to deliver them to the U.S.

Not found doesn't mean they don't exist. 4 years is plenty long enough to hide materials. Can't delivery them to the US? Maybe not on a missle, but it's naive to think there aren't numerous ways to deliver them.

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac

Also if he does he's under attack why hasn't he used them? Where's this big threat you're talking about?

Hopefully he won't use them. But, since the air war just barely begun, it would make sense that he might wait till US troops are actually on the ground. Chem and Bio weapons aren't much good against jets and bombers.

Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac

Another thing won't this breed distrust and anger among some of those other countries that we know have these weapons and can deliver them?

Hopefully. Maybe they might learn a lesson or two as well.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #316 of 369
The war begin, against the peaceloving people will.

I want peace, and this is just not right.

Action is needed, but not that way.

<a href="http://www.votetoimpeach.org/"><img src="http://www.votetoimpeach.org/img/vti_button.gif" width="250" height="100" border="0"></a>
post #317 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
Not found doesn't mean they don't exist. 4 years is plenty long enough to hide materials. Can't delivery them to the US? Maybe not on a missle, but it's naive to think there aren't numerous ways to deliver them.


Hopefully he won't use them. But, since the air war just barely begun, it would make sense that he might wait till US troops are actually on the ground. Chem and Bio weapons aren't much good against jets and bombers.


Hopefully. Maybe they might learn a lesson or two as well.

But there's that proof thing again. We're talking justifaction here.


" Chem and Bio weapons aren't much good against jets and bombers. "

This just reafirms what I've been talking about.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #318 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
[B]I think you have that backwards.

If it weren?t for colonialism and the investment in infrastructure that it brought, these people would still be eating each other, rather than endangered guerrillas.

A bit like saying "If the Nazis hadn't murdered millions of Jews then they'd still be money-grubbing liars." Just as accurate, and just as offensive.

By the way, a "guerrilla" is someone who fights using a particular set of loose tactics. A "gorilla" is an endagered mammal with slightly more capacity for ordered thought then you.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #319 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by Tulkas
If those [Palestinians] had Jews trying to kill them daily soley because they were [Palestinians], those accusations might not be as forth coming as you think.

You're right. But this should probably be in a different thread (that I'm sure some day will resurface....)
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #320 of 369
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
But there's that proof thing again. We're talking justifaction here.


" Chem and Bio weapons aren't much good against jets and bombers. "

This just reafirms what I've been talking about.

Well, you seem to desire proof on the battlefield. I would prefer proof be found, not provided during at battle at this point.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong.