Regardless of whether war is right, unilateral action is wrong. - Page 3

Groverat, it seems that, unable to answer my arguments, you chosen to intentionally misread them!



And where you say that the US isn't trying to convince Angola and Cameroon any more and haven't I read the news it's rather like like you've chosen to abandon logic, as if now that the US has given up on the UN the last three weeks of sordid horse-trading didn't happen. That's a slight of hand, it doesn't address my point, and if someone else came up with that you'd call them on it in a second, write something subtly bullying and then follow it up with a



And if you could show me where I object to your politics because they come out of a box marked 'Republican' I'd appreciate that too!

[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>

No, that would be a syllogism. We can't say, without inspections, whether or not Scott's phallus is turnipoid (unless Scott tells us, or posts an image, of course) and this doesn't look likely without the threat of serious consequences.

Actually it was just joke. Groverat's not really sleeping with Scott.

[quote]<strong>And where you say that the US isn't trying to convince Angola and Cameroon any more and haven't I read the news it's rather like like you've chosen to abandon logic, as if now that the US has given up on the UN the last three weeks of sordid horse-trading didn't happen. That's a slight of hand, it doesn't address my point, and if someone else came up with that you'd call them on it in a second, write something subtly bullying and then follow it up with a</strong><hr></blockquote>

My point was never that the US doesn't try to buy allies. My point was never that the US hasn't tried to buy allies. My point was to say that I didn't know of any current allies that were bought. I asked for clarification.

If you can show me a big aid package to Portugal that coincides with a "change of heart" in their policy then your point is made. That's all I ask. I only ask for people to back up their arguments with fact.

That's all. Just harmless lil 'ole me!

[quote]<strong>Actually it was just joke. Groverat's not really sleeping with Scott. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Or am I...

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>9/11 was an act of war. The US responded to that act. By the Taliban actively harboring and hiding the known instigators of that attack outright, they joined the war.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So we could justify war based on missiles being shot at US planes in the no-fly zones?

This is probably a stupid question but I was wondering...what's the protocol for surrendering?

I mean does Sadaam call up the U.N. or U.S. and say, "okay, don't shoot, I'm out of here."
I doubt it. Too much pride for him to do that.

The alternative is he leaves quietly. But then what if he's on route out of Iraq while the bombs drop?

[quote]<strong>We know the world's opinion on the matter.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just keep telling yourself that everyone besides Bush and some domestic war-mongering baby-killers is against the war. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]<strong>We know the consequences of bullying and sword brandishing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Peace and prosperity?

[quote]<strong>1. He is smarter than the people who disagree with him.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think that I know more about this situation than those who know less than I do about this situation. THT disagrees with me and he's smarter than me.

[quote]<strong>2. The Republican Party is smarter than the Democrats.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think both parties, as a polity, are very stupid. I think the Republicans are myopic and the Democrats are spineless. That's the difference in my mind.

[quote]<strong>3. Bush is smarter than those who disagree with him.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Eh... no. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]<strong>4. The US is the smartest nation in the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know what that means or how one would measure such a thing. We have Al Gore, inventor of the internet. So we are very smart. I hear those Swedes are smart as well.

[quote]<strong>5. Any of this matters when balanced against the importance of diplomacy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think diplomacy is good when it's not an impediment to necessary action. We musn't sacrifice a necessary end to a preferrable means.

Bush knows that war is the only way that he is going to get re-elected.

Just think about it. . . CNN spending all day covering the slow and agonizing implosion of the U.S. economy would not be good news for this son-of-a-Bush.

He is banking on converting Americans from unconscious imperialists who think they are making a better world into actual imperialists who don't give a sh*t.

[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>Sure. Have any planes been hit? I think "armed conflict" means more than just threats.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Missiles have been fired at American planes multiple times. Success isn't a measure of whether or not something is an attack. Foolish.

[quote]<strong> And is there any proof that these attacks came from the Iraqi government and not some rogue commander? It makes a difference, you know. Or do you? Sometimes I wonder.</strong><hr></blockquote>

"Rogue commander".... in Saddam Hussein's armed forces... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

It was painful to read that, tonton, I recommend you resume your silence.

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

[quote]<strong>Just think about it. . . CNN spending all day covering the slow and agonizing implosion of the U.S. economy would not be good news for this son-of-a-Bush.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/17/markets/markets_newyork.1018/index.htm" target="_blank">What?</a>

[quote] Bush knows that war is the only way that he is going to get re-elected.
Just think about it. . . CNN spending all day covering the slow and agonizing implosion of the U.S. economy would not be good news for this son-of-a-Bush.
<hr></blockquote>

aren't all americans willing to support war and murder if it helps the economy...gotta remember that civic duty to god and country...all good americans should buy an SUV, buy lots of stock in just about any company on the nasdac, and shoot an iraqi or two... (giving g'rat quote material to use in his next reply)

anyway, war is here, yeah team, war eagle and all that....my side will kick some ass, wooohoooo

again, i hope the iraqis roll over and don't act like the irish...and i hope few die and hopefully nobody anyone at AI knows and loves...i hope it all ends wonderfully with a new arab world that loves us and works with us and that there is a peace in the middle east and more...i hope and kinda pray (as much as a jaded old atheisit can pray) for this to happen...

that old spineless democrat g


g'rat, you don't really help yourself with a link showing that the economy wants war...it just further shows that Bush would want war for reasons other than to "free the iraqi people" and stop the iraqi attacks on america that we have never had...it kinda adds to the lists of possible reasons GW wants war other than the "noble reasons"....now we have as "non-noble reasons": oil, re-election and boost to a sickly economy...

again...i hope none of those are reasons we are going to war...i also hope the war is short or the cost in lives will be high and the effect on the economy will be great...osuma has done quite a number on us with 9-11 and i don't think even he knew the effect he would have....

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

Now, the best we can hope for is that the pope goes to Bagdhad. Not gonna happen, but that is the only way I can see that war could be stopped it its tracks. Imagine Bush trying to figure out what the hell to do then?

jesus himself could be on the way to baghdad and it wouldn't stop what is about to go down...too much time, money, personal have been put into motion...lots of people at the ready to fight=fight...

comes down to the point now where we americans have to hope our leaders are correct and their hearts are true...

g

[quote]Originally posted by Curufinwe:
<strong>Now, the best we can hope for is that the pope goes to Bagdhad. Not gonna happen, but that is the only way I can see that war could be stopped it its tracks. Imagine Bush trying to figure out what the hell to do then? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Steam coming out of ears comes to mind.

Well, what do Americans do if they have already proven those two questions of fact in the negative? Get arrested?

any bets when this little shindig is going to kick off?
i'm betting 3:00am wed morning. any takers?

[quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:
<strong>any bets when this little shindig is going to kick off?
i'm betting 3:00am wed morning. any takers?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Is that Eastern or Pacific time?

I think we'll start seeing action late tomorrow (Tuesday).

i'll play running...anybody know what EST it is here when it is about 1 am wednesday in kuwait??

cruise missles fly at 1:11 am kuwait time on wednesday morning...wouldn't that be fitting if it was 9:11 am or pm in NYC...not that iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11, but this administration can keep trying to link them (gotta give them an A for effort on that)...g

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>

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

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

You've almost got it right...but not. Too bad you can't formulate an argument. That hard-on for war must be taking all the blood from your brain. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

No way, it will start on Friday night. That way if it is raining all weekend we can all just sit around and watch CNN so that we have something to do instead of getting wet while walking out to our SUVs. Plus then there will be a little time for it to sink in before the stock market opens on Monday. Hopefully the war ends before the baseball season starts. That would suck to have Iraqis dying on my TV instead of getting to see my Mariners play.

This war is wrong. The arguments for this war are wrong because containment is working. Inspections are working. This finger wagging condescension of the United States at the United Nations is childish and must stop immediately because the United States is wrong.

Tonight.
Israel had its 48 hrs, as promised. Maybe before the President even gives his speech.

gelding:

[quote]<strong>that old spineless democrat g</strong><hr></blockquote>

You're a Democrat?

[quote]<strong>g'rat, you don't really help yourself with a link showing that the economy wants war...it just further shows that Bush would want war for reasons other than to "free the iraqi people" and stop the iraqi attacks on america that we have never had...it kinda adds to the lists of possible reasons GW wants war other than the "noble reasons"....now we have as "non-noble reasons": oil, re-election and boost to a sickly economy...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually the point of that link shows that uncertainty was the problem with the stock market recently, not war. Certainty is good, with or without war.

Uncertainty was bad, certainty is good (war or no war).

tonton:

[quote]<strong>What a compelling argument you make. Ridicule only makes you look like more of an ass. Sure, my question was faecetious, but really, shooting a missile as a threat does not constitute armed conflict. If it did, we'd be at war with NK right now, as the interception was very much a comparable act.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ah, shooting a missiles isn't armed conflict? So I guess it won't be armed conflict when we drop an assload of bombs on Iraq?

Could you apologize for Saddam any more without painting a mural on your wall?

I'm not saying you like Saddam, but I will say that you hate Bush more than you like reason and logic.

[quote]<strong>Anyway, it's all rhetorical. Within the next two days we'll start to see what the consequences of war are. Of course, many people (no doubt yourself - I bet you were fooled by the "Al Jazeera" spy photos that were actually of New Mexico ) will be swayed by the planting of weapons; increased terrorism will be seen as a cause and not an effect; and the economy will somehow be blamed on Clinton.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So you've set yourself up to be right, any weapons found will be "planted" (I wonder if you know what the outstanding weapons issues are or are aware that all 15 Security Council member nations have stated (through relevant resolutions) that Iraq does have proscribed weapons).

This is how brainless partisan politick works. "My side is right, their side is wrong. *baaaaaaaah* *baaaaaaaaaaaah*"

The best way to avoid terrorism is by hiding.

[quote]Originally posted by audiopollution:
<strong>

Is that Eastern or Pacific time?

I think we'll start seeing action late tomorrow (Tuesday).</strong><hr></blockquote>

i was thinking local iraqi time.

[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>This war is wrong. The arguments for this war are wrong because containment is working. Inspections are working. This finger wagging condescension of the United States at the United Nations is childish and must stop immediately because the United States is wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So, uh, what are you trying to say?

I think containment hasn't been working for four years becasue there hasn't been real containment beyond the no-fly zone enforcement. Inspections aren't "working" in the sense that inspectors aren't supposed to be dragging out little violations here and there and pulling the Iraqi government's teeth. Inspections are supposed to confirm that Iraq's disarmament is substantial and complete. They are not there to forcefully pull the info from the Iraq's government. This is not what inspections were predicated on -- they are suposed to be confirming a complete report, one that accounts for what the UN reported years ago, and the newest reports from Iraq don't even do that. I think the purpose of inspections is grossly misunderstood.

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

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Actually the point of that link shows that uncertainty was the problem with the stock market recently, not war. Certainty is good, with or without war. </strong><hr></blockquote>

That may have been YOUR point for linking it, but that doesn't negate the fact that the article itself supports more than one point (one of which you probably don't wish to acknowledge.)

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>
I think the purpose of inspections is grossly misunderstood. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think they're misunderstood, even if the term 'inspections' no longer really applies. I think the consequences if Iraq failed to live up to #1441 are far more greatly misunderstood.

[quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:
<strong>This war is wrong. The arguments for this war are wrong because containment is working. Inspections are working. This finger wagging condescension of the United States at the United Nations is childish and must stop immediately because the United States is wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>

what a convincing argument you make. i'll be sure to pass that on to the prez next time we have tea. it used to be beers, but you know how that went. bummer too, cause he sure was a whole lot more fun when he was drinking.

[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

I don't think they're misunderstood, even if the term 'inspections' no longer really applies. I think the consequences if Iraq failed to live up to #1441 are far more greatly misunderstood.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't exactly disagree with you. The failure of the security Council is not coming up with a legit alternative, not nearly soon enough, though Chile stepped up at the 11th hour at least. France and Russia clearly had no alternative in mind, choosing to ignore the mandate of 1441, the part about "serious consequences" because they offered no consequences when Iraq did not comply with this 16th resolution (or whatever it was).

I'm just tired of this transparent warmongering being lapped up by the corporate media. If I hear one more reporter setting bush up by asking him to talk about how great america is rather than asking him about the FAKED EVIDENCE that they have been feeding to the inspectors or the SPYING and BUGGING OTHER COUNTRIES U.N. OFFICES then I am going to scream. The media in this country need a serious kick in the pants.

[quote](C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin.<hr></blockquote>

And did the Taliban or Afghan people attack us or did a group of terrorists not even from Afghanistan attack us? Other than letting Bin Laden roam around in Northern Afghanistan, what was the government role in the attack?

Iraq *is* attempting to shoot our pilots and drones down.

Iraq is attempting to shoot down planes that are regularly bombing. . . hardly an aggresive act by air defenses.

The "no Fly zones" are set up by the U.S. And UK, not the U.N. They have never been legal and they were waived when the U.S. allowed Saddam to use helicopters to crush the rebellion in the South after the Gulf War. God forbid that regime change could happen from within and more towards democracy without the U.S. "unbiased help."

[quote]Originally posted by Curufinwe:
<strong>Iraq is attempting to shoot down planes that are regularly bombing. . . hardly an aggresive act by air defenses.</strong><hr></blockquote>

you have that backwards. until very recently, we have only bombed after our planes have been targeted and only attack those iraqi resources that have been doing the targeting and shooting. they've been warned countless times that such actions are a no-no. if they want to throw away perfectly good hardware and people, we are more than happy to oblige them.

[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: running with scissors ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>
The failure of the security Council is not coming up with a legit alternative, not nearly soon enough, though Chile stepped up at the 11th hour at least. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, in all fairness, they Security Council shouldn't have to work based on the U.S. Military's timetables. Those countries are all equally capable of judging the threat the Iraqis (well, Saddam, I don't want to blame the Iraqi populace) posed, and they almost uniformly agree that there is no imminent threat.

The real failure was Bush not getting a definition for "serious consequences" either before signing #1441, or after it was breached. He couldn't get the answer he wanted (war) so he unilaterally decides to create the answer himself.

[quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:
<strong>

i was thinking local iraqi time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That seems reasonable to me.

Baghdad 3am Wednesday = Eastern Standard Time 10pm Tuesday

Cruise missiles start flying shortly after the markets close on Tuesday.

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