The first Gulf War wasn't "one-sided". I'm sure Iraq thought it was.
If you can find the UN resolution authorizing action in Afghanistan that would be fantastic.
[quote]<strong>He asked for examples, then I give them, then it's back to avoidavoidavoid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All you provided was that we tried to buy Turkey. That's it. If you can give me a nation that we bought that is behind us now please give me an example.
[quote]<strong>we tried with turkey...they didn't bite, so we removed the offer of 15 billion...sounds like an attempted pay off...if we really were worried about turkey's economy post war with iraq we would give them the 15 billion whether they let us use their country as a launch pad or not....</strong><hr></blockquote>
So are you saying we haven't bought anyone's support? Hmm.
Surely there's an example. This is a oft-repeated anti-war sentiment. I'd hate for it to be a lie.
[quote]<strong>g'rat, i thought you told me there would be UN approval?? i take it you still support war without it....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I *did* think this was going to be a UN deal. And of course I support war outside the UN. I'm amazed that so many people act like war outside the UN is uncommon. Willful ignorance.
[quote]<strong>Your deliberate implication was that, since "France, Russia and Germany" aren't "the rest of the world", the "rest of the world" is in favour of the war. You didn't include China so as to make your point stronger. Recently this sort of thing has been your new favourite way to attack arguments with which you disagree.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't include China because I didn't think about it.
And there was no implication that the rest of the world was backing the US, if you had bothered to actually read my post you would have seen "Most nations are undecided,". Clear English, right there in the post.
Or maybe that is an "implication" that everyone is behind the US.
Reading is FUNdamental!
[quote]<strong>The domestic populations of all the "waverers", and of Spain - who are more opposed the war than the French people - are opposed to the war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) America an Britain are trying to 'pay off' Angola, Cameroon and Pakistan. The US just promised Pakistan a colossal aid package: I think this was on Friday. I don't have time to find a link. If you really believe that you're trying diplomacy to convince these waverers, whose populations are OVERWHELMINGLY opposed to this war, then you're being wilfully blind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just asked for some examples of those who are backing us that were paid off. Thanks for not providing any examples to back your argument.
Next time you want to make a statement and condescend about it make sure you have some logic or truth to back it.
[quote]<strong>2) Since when do protests determine policy? Did I say that they did? Why did you write this to support your argument? Now I'm curious.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because you try to make the argument that the majority of the world is against the war because of some scattered protests. I think this is foolish.
I believe the French population also oppossed the unjust war in 1991, correct me if I'm wrong.