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.
[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.
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?
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.
[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!
But what?s your excuse Hassan? We all know Saddam has a sexy mustache, but you do realize that?s really his sadistic way of giving them French whores in Paris the carpet burn. You think Saddam takes much for hairy Iranian girls?
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!
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.
<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?
Comments
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.
<strong>
Perhaps we bomb them because they target our aircraft? Hmmm.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps they target your aircraft because you bomb them.
<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?
<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.
<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.
[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!
<strong>Groverat, sometimes it's like you've a great big turnip stuck up your arse!
I like you now!
*hugs Hassan*
Let's be friends, you make tea and I'll go get some cookies...errr biscuits!
<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.
<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>
You've got some information you should get to the press ASAP!<hr></blockquote>
REEHEEEHEEHEEHEEHEE
[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?
<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>
<strong>Groverat is sleeping with Scott_h_Phd.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But what?s your excuse Hassan? We all know Saddam has a sexy mustache, but you do realize that?s 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..
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!
<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.
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!
Or am I...
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<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?