[quote]<strong>If the US goes to war against the clear resolve of the rest of the world,</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm going to have to stop you here because, well, you start off on the wrong foot.
"clear resolve of the rest of the world"?
Frace, Germany & Russia = "the rest of the world"
Most nations are undecided, only 3 are firmly set *against* the US and even today those 3 nations are wavering, claiming that they might accept a deadline after all.
I guess if you want to call an action undertaken by many nations "unilateral" and the stance of 3 nations "the clear resolve of the world" that's your business.
Thanks for the laugh. I'll be sure and save this and bring it "To The Top" in a few months. You partisan zealots make me giggle.
Thank you for those two above posts, 'rat. I would've said it, but I'd just get in trouble and get hounded for days, and I'm in no mood. Thanks in advance for taking any upcoming heat.
hahaha, Democrats are an odd bunch, but so are republicans.
In many ways I can't get my head around the demographic shift that has happened around Democrats and Republicans since the Civil war. A lot of people in one camp should really be in the other, as it seems to me.
<strong>The problem is that Bush/Blair created this on a grand scale and on the world's stage, playing right into Sadaam's hand.
Could the removal of Sadaam not have been achieved through the services of a hired member of Iraqi Republian army or a single sniper?</strong><hr></blockquote>
After reading through all of these posts, and having been influenced in life through the Military (NAVY for many years), I think this last statement ("the services of a hired member of Iraqi Republian army or a single sniper?") makes the most sense to me. After-all, we are trying to tupple the "Man" here, not the "Nation"
<strong>Does that make a Republican a Democrat leaning a tiny bit to the right minus the Heart?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes it does. If "heart" is defined by empty gestures, feel-good words that don't actually mean or do anything and that throwing gobs of money at any and every problem is the true solution to it. Sure, I'll buy that.
I used to be an Independent. Then I moved to a city that had eight Democrats for every one Republican. So I registered Republican just to spite the boneheads that run this town. Philosphically, I'm well to the right of the kind of Republicans we have in this state.
Oooh...a vast wasteland! TREMBLE BEFORE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT RUSSIA POSSESSES! Dumbass.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Vaste wasteland or no, just before it's breakup the Soviet Union was also the third most populous country in the world. This, of course, doesn't take into account the populations of Eastern Europe which can also be said to have been a part of the the Soviet Empire. Dumbass.
Most nations are undecided, only 3 are firmly set *against* the US and even today those 3 nations are wavering, claiming that they might accept a deadline after all.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I notice that you forget to include China. Be careful, or may be opening yourself to accusations of hypocrisy (slavish following of party line at expense of facts and all that.)
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>I notice that you forget to include China. Be careful, or may be opening yourself to accusations of hypocrisy (slavish following of party line at expense of facts and all that.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'll also notice that I didn't mention every nation that backs the US.
When one can't argue with the logic, they nitpick a detail.
[quote]<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>
So you will dismiss the pro-war sentiment as tainted by accept the anti-war sentiment as acceptable? Laughable.
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.
Comments
I'm going to have to stop you here because, well, you start off on the wrong foot.
"clear resolve of the rest of the world"?
Frace, Germany & Russia = "the rest of the world"
Most nations are undecided, only 3 are firmly set *against* the US and even today those 3 nations are wavering, claiming that they might accept a deadline after all.
I guess if you want to call an action undertaken by many nations "unilateral" and the stance of 3 nations "the clear resolve of the world" that's your business.
Thanks for the laugh. I'll be sure and save this and bring it "To The Top" in a few months. You partisan zealots make me giggle.
A Democrat is a Republican leaning a tiny bit left and minus the spine.
Thank you for those two above posts, 'rat. I would've said it, but I'd just get in trouble and get hounded for days, and I'm in no mood. Thanks in advance for taking any upcoming heat.
Sincerely,
Paul
In many ways I can't get my head around the demographic shift that has happened around Democrats and Republicans since the Civil war. A lot of people in one camp should really be in the other, as it seems to me.
<strong>
France and Holland don't come close to England, Spain, or Portugal...nor do China or Russia. Open a history book, will ya?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Russia doesn't come close? Open a geography book, will ya?
<strong>Does that make a Republican a Democrat leaning a tiny bit to the right minus the Heart?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, Republicans look right a great deal (as do Democrats for the most part). But you're right on target other than that.
<strong>The problem is that Bush/Blair created this on a grand scale and on the world's stage, playing right into Sadaam's hand.
Could the removal of Sadaam not have been achieved through the services of a hired member of Iraqi Republian army or a single sniper?</strong><hr></blockquote>
After reading through all of these posts, and having been influenced in life through the Military (NAVY for many years), I think this last statement ("the services of a hired member of Iraqi Republian army or a single sniper?") makes the most sense to me. After-all, we are trying to tupple the "Man" here, not the "Nation"
With him gone, such is his empire and followers.
Mark "My" words ...
<strong>Does that make a Republican a Democrat leaning a tiny bit to the right minus the Heart?
Yes it does. If "heart" is defined by empty gestures, feel-good words that don't actually mean or do anything and that throwing gobs of money at any and every problem is the true solution to it. Sure, I'll buy that.
<strong>
Russia doesn't come close? Open a geography book, will ya?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oooh...a vast wasteland! TREMBLE BEFORE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT RUSSIA POSSESSES! Dumbass.
<strong>
Oooh...a vast wasteland! TREMBLE BEFORE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT RUSSIA POSSESSES! Dumbass.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Vaste wasteland or no, just before it's breakup the Soviet Union was also the third most populous country in the world. This, of course, doesn't take into account the populations of Eastern Europe which can also be said to have been a part of the the Soviet Empire. Dumbass.
<strong>
"clear resolve of the rest of the world"?
Frace, Germany & Russia = "the rest of the world"
Most nations are undecided, only 3 are firmly set *against* the US and even today those 3 nations are wavering, claiming that they might accept a deadline after all.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I notice that you forget to include China. Be careful, or may be opening yourself to accusations of hypocrisy (slavish following of party line at expense of facts and all that.)
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>
I don't believe in either political party. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Trust me, they both exist. They're not figments of your immagination.
If anyone here really believe that the U.S. isn't following a one sided myopic agenda, then I'd say you're clueless.
<strong>I notice that you forget to include China. Be careful, or may be opening yourself to accusations of hypocrisy (slavish following of party line at expense of facts and all that.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
You'll also notice that I didn't mention every nation that backs the US.
When one can't argue with the logic, they nitpick a detail.
[quote]<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>
So you will dismiss the pro-war sentiment as tainted by accept the anti-war sentiment as acceptable? Laughable.
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>Unilateral = one sided.
If anyone here really believe that the U.S. isn't following a one sided myopic agenda, then I'd say you're clueless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
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>
well, you've been bombing every day for several weeks now...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Must be those invisible bombs, effectless bombs. Don't worry, the bombs will be dropping soone enough.
There is good chances that the war will start tomorow.