Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong. - Page 2

They will not be any vote for an another UN resolution. President Bush will make a speech at 20:00 today.

There is good chances that the war will start tomorow.

[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>
Most nations certainly are opposed to the the war: or certainly, their citizens are. Like the Spanish. And these 'waverers' on the Security Council are only 'wavering' because, although their citizens are overwhelmingly opposed to action, these nations have a) have been promised all sorts of trade and aid benefits in the last three weeks or so of negotiations as 'inducements' to vote, but b) see no reason why they should put themselves in domestic political trouble in agreeing to vote as the Americans and British are asking them when France and Russia will use their vetoes anyway.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I do not agree. They are wavering because they know they are wrong.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
Can you name any military action that *wasn't* "unilateral"? </strong><hr></blockquote>

The civil war?

The first Gulf War was just fine. The attack on Afghanistan was just fine. These are recent examples.

It wouldn't matter if every war prior to this one was unjust. That doesn't mean this one, especially when a solution is close at hand, should be unjust as well.

[quote]Originally posted by Anders:
<strong>Bosnia was not wrong even if it didn´t get UN approval. And there are several people I would kill in a heartbeat even if I would get convicted for murder and most of the rest of the world would see it as a wrong act.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Okay, now detail the reasons why US military action in the Balkans was legitimate.

[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>

[quote] What nations have we paid off? I'm curious. <hr></blockquote>

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....

oh well, here comes the war...i hope for the best and that GW looks great after this...it will be a tough road ahead though...

g'rat, i thought you told me there would be UN approval?? i take it you still support war without it....

take care

my thoughts are with our troops and with all on the ground and in the air in iraq...
if the bombs must fly, may they fly true...and if people must die, please let it be few


g

?4??iginally posted by thegelding:
<strong>
Taking a brain vacation
</strong>[/QUOTE]

I think that we need both a brain vacation, in fact everybody need them from time to time

[quote]Originally posted by thegelding:
<strong>
..and if people must die, please let it be few
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
You'll also notice that I didn't mention every nation that backs the US.

When one can't argue with the logic [snip].
.</strong><hr></blockquote>

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.

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.


[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

What nations have we paid off? I'm curious.

And since when do protests determine policy? I'd hate to live in the world you seem to be advocating</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.

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.

3) I'm not "advocating" any kind of world. I'm arguing with you, because I believe your position is wrong.

[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>

I do not agree. They are wavering because they know they are wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>

They are wavering, Noah J, because their populations are overwhemingly against this unjustified war. Yet the diplomats and governments think the best way -- economically and strategically -- to protect their citizens is to side with America, to give in to the "arm twisting" and "inducements" of the US.

They are not wavering because they know they are wrong, NO MATTER how much you wish this were the case. It is just incredible, incredible, that you should really believe that.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

hahaha

Can you name any military action that *wasn't* "unilateral"? How about a Security Council resolution that *wasn't* "unilateral"?

Christ, bunge, you're a riot.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ha. He is indeed.

[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

Must be those invisible bombs, effectless bombs. Don't worry, the bombs will be dropping soone enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Eugene, what the hell do you think that B-1 dropped, purely out of interest? Your oh-so-cute "invisible bombs?"

You do hear about these bombing raids in America don't you? Or is it just every other country in the world that gets to hear about the raids New was talking about?

[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>

Eugene, what the hell do you think that B-1 dropped, purely out of interest? Your oh-so-cute "invisible bombs?"

You do hear about these bombing raids in America don't you? Or is it just every other country in the world that gets to hear about the raids New was talking about?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Perhaps we bomb them because they target our aircraft? Hmmm.

[quote]Originally posted by Harald:
<strong>

They are wavering, Noah J, because their populations are overwhemingly against this unjustified war. Yet the diplomats and governments think the best way -- economically and strategically -- to protect their citizens is to side with America, to give in to the "arm twisting" and "inducements" of the US.

They are not wavering because they know they are wrong, NO MATTER how much you wish this were the case. It is just incredible, incredible, that you should really believe that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think we should add "unjust, IN YOUR OPINION". Just because you call it so doesn't mean it is. Oh wait...I suppose you are not the only one calling it this. There is Fomer President Carter, after all. Of course, he was one of the most ineffective Presdients in history, particularly with the military.

[quote]The US just promised Pakistan a colossal aid package: I think this was on Friday. <hr></blockquote>

That's for a variety of reasons, mostly their support in the war on Al Queda. Musharraf's govt has put a lot on the line in their support for the war on terrorism. And they could use all the propping up that they can get, pseudo-dictatorship or not. Especially when you consider that they have nukes. Pakistan has an immense capacity to mess things up bigtime- perhaps more so than any other country in the world- for US, for the West, for India, for Afghanistan etc.

Unfortunately the Bush administration ****ed them in the first textiles "negotiations" so that Bush didn't have to lose a few voters in the Carolinas textiles industries.

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>

I think we should add "unjust, IN YOUR OPINION". Just because you call it so doesn't mean it is. Oh wait...I suppose you are not the only one calling it this. There is Fomer President Carter, after all. Of course, he was one of the most ineffective Presdients in history, particularly with the military.</strong><hr></blockquote>

1) Nice side step of two issues we're discussing. Typical.

2) No, I'm not the only one calling it this. To be more accurate, this action has public support in the US. And no-where else. Not in the UK and CERTAINLY not in Spain (otherwise known as 'your allies,' numbnut). Not in Kuwait, not in Saudi, not in Iran, not in Turkey.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

Trust me, they both exist. They're not figments of your immagination.</strong><hr></blockquote>

*closes eyes really hard* NO! THEY! DON'T!

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>

Ha. He is indeed.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, a riot indeed. He asked for examples, then I give them, then it's back to avoidavoidavoid.

Yes, a riot indeed.

bunge:

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.


Inform yourself.

[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.

------

gelding:

[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.

-------

Hassan:

[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>

ok

[quote]<strong>
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.

A general question for anyone who wishes to answer it:
Does a UN stamp of approval make a war any more just or unjust?

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
I believe the French population also oppossed the unjust war in 1991, correct me if I'm wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>

1) this war was not unjust, (OK it's a sarcasm not intended for me )

2) the overall majority of french people where for it. Only a small minority including Le Pen and Chevenement where agaisnt it. The 1991 war was almost as popular that the 2003 war is unpopular in France.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

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.

Inform yourself.

...

All you provided was that we tried to buy Turkey. </strong><hr></blockquote>

First, since you've obviously crossed posts, should I make a snide "rolleyes", a LOL, tell you to learn how to read and inform yourself, and any other possible forms of childish avoidance I can come up with?

I never said anything about turkey. I gave the recent examples of Iraq & Afghanistan for wars that had UN support.

The first Iraq war was multilateral. That supports my point.

As for action against Afghanistan, on 9/12/2001, the U.N. reaffirmed the U.S.' right to defend herself against the perpetrators of the 9/11 massacre.

I do not care about opinion polls. If the world were suddenly run by opinion polls it would fall to crap.

doc:

I must not recall correctly (I was young at the time), but Bush41 didn't have an easy time convincing the world community (an oxymoron) that '91 Gulf War was the right thing to do.

tonton:

[quote]<strong>And even if governments of certain countries claim support for the US, is this not most likely because of politics and economics, and not because they think the time for war is right?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Every government's stance on anything is because of politics and economics to a large extent. Are you foolish enough to believe that France's stand is based solely on ideals?

I asked who was bought off, that's all. People shouldn't be angry with me because they can't find facts to back their argument.

[quote]<strong>WOMD will be planted. They will. Period.

Even if some WOMD are found, more will be planted. Bush and Blair cannot take the chance of being honest here. they will not be honest here.</strong><hr></blockquote>

What if the weapons outlined in the 173 page UN "Cluster" report are found?

You have been silent on this board on this issue for a while. I'm starting to see why.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

--

bunge:

[quote]<strong>I never said anything about turkey. I gave the recent examples of Iraq & Afghanistan for wars that had UN support.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If you could find for me the UN Security Council resolution authorizing the overthrow of the Taliban that would be great. Thanks.

[quote]<strong>As for action against Afghanistan, on 9/12/2001, the U.N. reaffirmed the U.S.' right to defend herself against the perpetrators of the 9/11 massacre.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If you could point me to the UN decision for war in Afghanistan it would be greatly appreciated.

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>

Perhaps we bomb them because they target our aircraft? Hmmm.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Perhaps they target your aircraft because you bomb them.

[quote]
<strong>
Me:

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.

Groverat:
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.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I did provide you with an example. In the very sentence above yours in your needlessly aggressive post. Pakistan was my example.

And I repeat, if you believe that America is trying to convince Cameroon and Angola, both among the poorest nations in Africa, both of whose populations are opposed to the war (especially the Angolans who are vehemently anti-American following the civil war and the American funding of UNITA) then you are wilfully, and with determination, ignoring the contingencies of modern crisis diplomacy. No, I'm not an expert.

Here is a quote from Business Week about American negotiation with Turkey and the Turkish vote to refuse passage to American troops:

[quote] The most naked example of haggling came in the U.S.-Turkey base talks. With Turkish public opinion strongly antiwar and their economy on the ropes, the Turks sought upward of $35 billion in U.S. assistance for the right to station American troops on Turkish soil for use in a pincer move against Saddam. After bitter negotiations, Ankara came away with a package that includes up to $20 billion in cash and loans, some NATO military gear, and assurances that Iraq's Kurdish nationalists will be kept in check. Says Mehmet Simsek, a London-based analyst with Merrill Lynch & Co.: "The bottom line is, it will give Turkey some breathing room."
<hr></blockquote>

If you think that things are any different with Angola and Cameroon then I admire your patriotism and your optimism, but not your dogmatism.

And no, Groverat, I'm not using "some scattered protests" (if you can call the largest peace-time assembly of people in London and a general strike in Pakistan) as evidence that the world is opposed to the war. Er, no, there have been opinion polls and all sorts of diplomatic protests, and America and Britain withdrew from the UN route after failing to secure a majority vote in the Security Council, an international body of some influence I believe. Maybe you read in in the news.

Good habit, that, actually. You can say all sorts of borderline personal attack-type stuff and then use a smilie. Apparently it makes it alright!

Look:

Groverat is sleeping with Scott_h_Phd.



I'm sure this could get to be annoying. What do you think, Groverat?

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>If you could point me to the UN decision for war in Afghanistan it would be greatly appreciated. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Read the U.N. Charter. It clearly states that a nation can respond to a military attack.

Inform yourself.

Groverat, sometimes it's like you've a great big turnip stuck up your arse!

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

Read the U.N. Charter. It clearly states that a nation can respond to a military attack.

Inform yourself.</strong><hr></blockquote>

How were the events of 9/11 a military attack? Did the Taliban government launch the attack? No.

Democracy is NOT a popularity contest in and of itself. God, what a scary thought. We already have the most popular kid in his class as President, are you sure you want more of this? Besides, this is a republic.

tonton:

[quote]<strong>That's democracy, baby. Move to China if you don't like it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Democratic states are run by opinion polls?

Tell you what, tonton, get your Democrat representatives to try and buck the evil Republicans. Oh wait, they voted to give Bush power to do whatever he wanted. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Silly partisan folks.

--

Hassan:

[quote]<strong>I did provide you with an example. In the very sentence above yours in your needlessly aggressive post. Pakistan was my example.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Is Pakistan "supporting" us? I didn't think they were with regard to war in Iraq.

We have been paying them for a while for their help in Afghanistan. If I see some Pakistani armored divisions or military actions based out of Pakistan I'll agree with you.

[quote]<strong>And I repeat, if you believe that America is trying to convince Cameroon and Angola, both among the poorest nations in Africa, both of whose populations are opposed to the war (especially the Angolans who are vehemently anti-American following the civil war and the American funding of UNITA) then you are wilfully, and with determination, ignoring the contingencies of modern crisis diplomacy. No, I'm not an expert.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The US isn't trying to convince Cameroon and Angola of anything now. Didn't you hear the news?

[quote]<strong>Here is a quote from Business Week about American negotiation with Turkey and the Turkish vote to refuse passage to American troops:</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm well aware of American haggling with Turkey. But it fell through, how is it pertinent to the statement that America bought the support it now has?

You can't make the accusation that the support the US has was bought without providing an example of a current supporter who was bought. It is not germane to the topic. What current allies were bought? Simple question.

I'll be nice to you when you read my posts and address what I actually say. Until then I'm not going to be nice to you. I respect people who make an attempt at honest debate. I'm not inclined to suffer fools who try to place my opinion in a box "oh he's pro-war so he must be a Republican."

--

bunge:

[quote]<strong>Read the U.N. Charter. It clearly states that a nation can respond to a military attack.

Inform yourself.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The people of Afghanistan attacked us? Afghanistan's army attacked us?

You've got some information you should get to the press ASAP!

[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>Groverat, sometimes it's like you've a great big turnip stuck up your arse! </strong><hr></blockquote>

I like you now!

*hugs Hassan*

Let's be friends, you make tea and I'll go get some cookies...errr biscuits!

[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>
No. We don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>

He comes from money. He has legacy on his side. I bet he was pretty popular in school.

[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>
No. We don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes. We do. I'm not talking about the 2000 election. He is a popular frat boy.

Geez, we can't even agree to diss the guy?

[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>

[quote]The people of Afghanistan attacked us? Afghanistan's army attacked us?

You've got some information you should get to the press ASAP!<hr></blockquote>

REEHEEEHEEHEEHEEHEE

[quote]Groverat is sleeping with Scott_h_Phd.<hr></blockquote>

[quote]Groverat, sometimes it's like you've a great big turnip stuck up your arse! <hr></blockquote>

Can we safely deduce from these statements that Scott's phallus is shaped like a great big turnip?

[quote]Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath:
<strong>

Can we safely deduce from these statements that Scott's phallus is shaped like a great big turnip?</strong><hr></blockquote>

That reasoning is a bit of a stretch (fnarr fnarr), but we can all have a laugh about it anyhow.

[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: audiopollution ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah:
<strong>Groverat is sleeping with Scott_h_Phd.



</strong><hr></blockquote>

But whats your excuse Hassan? We all know Saddam has a sexy mustache, but you do realize thats really his sadistic way of giving them French whores in Paris the carpet burn. You think Saddam takes much for hairy Iranian girls?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot..