Does anything past really matter now? People say, Bush should've done this, Bush Sr. should have done that... but how about, Iraq should have complied with U.N. sanctions??? They've had 12 years to do so. People say, give peace a chance! But we've been trying to give peace a chance for the last 12 years. War is an absolute last resort. Nobody wants war. But that's what Saddam's let this come to.
You jumped into a conversation that didn't involve you (which in itself is perfectly acceptable in a public forum) but you don't seem to have any grasp of what was being talked about.
You jumped into a conversation that didn't involve you (which in itself is perfectly acceptable in a public forum) but you don't seem to have any grasp of what was being talked about.
groverat:Containment kills tens of thousands of Iraqis every year.
I guess it's "working".
bunge:Well then you should have been rallying to make Bush and Bubba before him vote intelligently on the sanctions rather than letting them fester.
Statement 1: Containment kills tens of thousands of Iraqis every year.
Reply 1: then you should have been rallying to make Bush and Bubba before him vote intelligently on the sanctions
My question for you: Would that have changed anything? Maybe.
My point: it doesn't matter anymore. Arguing about such past events gets us nowhere.
My question for you: Would that have changed anything? Maybe.
My point: it doesn't matter anymore. Arguing about such past events gets us nowhere.
Of course it matters. Bush Jr. has been responsible for the sanctions ever since he took office. If they're truly killing tens of thousands erronously, he should be reshaping them.
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.
Because a UN supported, wildly successful war did so well for his father?
How far up you ass was your head when you wrote that?
Again, not. Ispections are to verify the complete destruction of WMD, not to play hide and seek and hunt them down. They are not working.
Again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.
The implication of your question is that an election is not an opinion poll. Is this your belief?
Correct. I believe an election is a method for the populace to legally and systematically choose, select and empower a leader or leaders to govern and make decisions, carry out actions on behalf of the people.
I believe an opinion poll is an informal tool for people and organisations to gather data to estimated the current mood of other people. An opinion poll carries no legal weight, nor should it be used as anything more than a gauge of public opinion.
The implication of your question could be taken to infer that an election is an opinion poll. Perhaps in a very loose sense you could make that connection, but you can not also say that an opinion poll is an election.
The implication of your question could be taken to infer that an election is an opinion poll. Perhaps in a very loose sense you could make that connection, but you can not also say that an opinion poll is an election.
Again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.
The inspectors are there to supervise and verify the destruction of WMD and complete disarming or Iraq. The inspectors have said Iraq is not disarmed. The inspections have therefore failed.
The inspectors are there to supervise and verify the destruction of WMD and complete disarming or Iraq. The inspectors have said Iraq is not disarmed. The inspections have therefore failed.
Again again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.
Just read Cook's resignation. Like tonton said, pure brilliance. My favorite part?
Quote:
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
or how about:
Quote:
I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.
Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
Add to my list:
Japan
Uzbekistan
Luxemborg
Iceland
Yemen
United Arab Emirates [/B]
you'll probably be able to toss the turkey on there as well sometime soon.
Originally posted by running with scissors
you'll probably be able to toss the turkey on there as well sometime soon.
And France, eventually.
Originally posted by Outsider
And France, eventually.
When Rodney King was beaten, there were a lot of peole that agreed with rioting. Does that make it OK?
Dear God those guys crack me up.
That's classic.
Originally posted by bunge
What are you talking about?
Geez, ok... let me clean it up a bit:
Should have? Should have?
Does anything past really matter now? People say, Bush should've done this, Bush Sr. should have done that... but how about, Iraq should have complied with U.N. sanctions??? They've had 12 years to do so. People say, give peace a chance! But we've been trying to give peace a chance for the last 12 years. War is an absolute last resort. Nobody wants war. But that's what Saddam's let this come to.
Originally posted by groverat
hahahaha
Dear God those guys crack me up.
That's classic.
is that in a jerry lewis kind of way?
Originally posted by Ra
Geez, ok... let me clean it up a bit:
Nope. It's still irreverent drivel.
You jumped into a conversation that didn't involve you (which in itself is perfectly acceptable in a public forum) but you don't seem to have any grasp of what was being talked about.
bunge let loose:
Nope. It's still irreverent drivel.
You jumped into a conversation that didn't involve you (which in itself is perfectly acceptable in a public forum) but you don't seem to have any grasp of what was being talked about.
groverat: Containment kills tens of thousands of Iraqis every year.
I guess it's "working".
bunge: Well then you should have been rallying to make Bush and Bubba before him vote intelligently on the sanctions rather than letting them fester.
Statement 1: Containment kills tens of thousands of Iraqis every year.
Reply 1: then you should have been rallying to make Bush and Bubba before him vote intelligently on the sanctions
My question for you: Would that have changed anything? Maybe.
My point: it doesn't matter anymore. Arguing about such past events gets us nowhere.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>I do not care about opinion polls. If the world were suddenly run by opinion polls it would fall to crap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's democracy, baby. Move to China if you don't like it.
Opinion polls are democracy?
Originally posted by Ra
My question for you: Would that have changed anything? Maybe.
My point: it doesn't matter anymore. Arguing about such past events gets us nowhere.
Of course it matters. Bush Jr. has been responsible for the sanctions ever since he took office. If they're truly killing tens of thousands erronously, he should be reshaping them.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Opinion polls are democracy?
The implication of your question is that an election is not an opinion poll. Is this your belief?
Originally posted by Curufinwe
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.
Because a UN supported, wildly successful war did so well for his father?
How far up you ass was your head when you wrote that?
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
This war is wrong. The arguments for this war are wrong because containment is working.
Or not.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Inspections are working. [/B]
Again, not. Ispections are to verify the complete destruction of WMD, not to play hide and seek and hunt them down. They are not working.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Or not.
Again, not. Ispections are to verify the complete destruction of WMD, not to play hide and seek and hunt them down. They are not working.
Again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.
Originally posted by bunge
The implication of your question is that an election is not an opinion poll. Is this your belief?
Correct. I believe an election is a method for the populace to legally and systematically choose, select and empower a leader or leaders to govern and make decisions, carry out actions on behalf of the people.
I believe an opinion poll is an informal tool for people and organisations to gather data to estimated the current mood of other people. An opinion poll carries no legal weight, nor should it be used as anything more than a gauge of public opinion.
The implication of your question could be taken to infer that an election is an opinion poll. Perhaps in a very loose sense you could make that connection, but you can not also say that an opinion poll is an election.
Originally posted by Tulkas
The implication of your question could be taken to infer that an election is an opinion poll. Perhaps in a very loose sense you could make that connection, but you can not also say that an opinion poll is an election.
I'd say I agree.
Originally posted by bunge
Again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.
The inspectors are there to supervise and verify the destruction of WMD and complete disarming or Iraq. The inspectors have said Iraq is not disarmed. The inspections have therefore failed.
Originally posted by Tulkas
The inspectors are there to supervise and verify the destruction of WMD and complete disarming or Iraq. The inspectors have said Iraq is not disarmed. The inspections have therefore failed.
Again again, that's not for you or the U.S. to decide. That's a decision for the Security Council and the Security Council alone. They disagree with you, so it is you who are wrong.
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
or how about:
I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.
Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.