At least we now have your word that the left and the right use the same tactics.
No, this is not about left and right. The issues are, but it is the approach that I complain about. Some people choose very unseenly approaches to get their idea across. They do not help their cause. They do it to call attention to themself (dramaqueen style), whereas no one would pay attention otherwise. It's the manifestation of a personal problem more than an "awareness of issues".
No, this is not about left and right. The issues are, but it is the approach that I complain about. Some people choose very unseenly approaches to get their idea across. They do not help their cause. They do it to call attention to themself (dramaqueen style), whereas no one would pay attention otherwise. It's the manifestation of a personal problem more than an "awareness of issues".
Sorry, I misunderstood your point.
There's a huge lack of moderates on either side of any issue. Unfortunate.
PARIS (AP)--Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Monday that France cannot accept a second U.N. resolution that includes an ultimatum or resorts to automatic use of force to disarm Iraq.
Speaking to Europe-1 radio, de Villepin reiterated France's threat to use its veto in the U.N. Security Council to block a resolution that paves the way to war.
``France cannot accept the resolution that sets an ultimatum and envisages an automatic use of force,'' de Villepin told the French radio station.
Sorry, I didn't expect any rational human being to be able to ignore the obvious. I probably still shouldn't.
Ok dude, I see the obvious. There is a dead body covered by a blanket. This doesn't support your argument implying that it is because of the liberation. Perhaps a caption could support your sarcastic statement. That's all I'm asking for.
Ok dude, I see the obvious. There is a dead body covered by a blanket. This doesn't support your argument implying that it is because of the liberation. Perhaps a caption could support your sarcastic statement. That's all I'm asking for.
I apologize, but after seeing your original response I went through my history from the past three days and can't find the original story. It appears that Safari knocks out after about 50 pages and I'm guessing the original story was more than 50 pages ago.
I tried to shorten the link of the photograph to find the original page, but nothing worked. It appears to be some Yahoo! news page, but I can't tell you from where. I run across pages from all over the world.
I then posted a link to the Washington Post article, but obviously I'm already logged in. I don't know if there's a public login available from AI for the Post (Scott?).
So, the body picture was posted along with a story about 50+ dead civilians in Basra. According to the original source, it's a picture of a dead civilian from this current gulf war.
Were this thread started within the realm of normal human civility and sanity, I wouldn't post something like that sarcastically. But this thread is such utter crap it should be sidetracked.
The face of Liberation is like the faces of a coin, it has two of them. If anyone here contests that it's actually just happy go lucky soldiers shaking hands with grateful children, I've posted a picture to refute that. If anyone here is trying to ignore, or is just ignorant of the fact that liberating people means you have to accidentally or irresponsibily kill a lot of them, go look at the original photo.
P.S. I don't think I've ever embedded a photo from a page within a post. I prefer to link to articles so the photos can be seen in their original context. In this case, I posted the picture because it's how the thread is handling photos. I was just being consistent. Unfortunately it means the original page is lost or going to be difficult to find. But it doesn't much matter because there are plenty of other articles about dead civilians.
Tulkas, the Liberal govt has serious problems right now and they just added fuel to the fire by not joing coalition forces. I think we will see more trade disputes in the next couple of months because of Chretien's move. Plus, look at the Softwood Lumber issue and the new duty placed on Canadian wheat farmers. It is crazy. Hopefully Paul Martin will succeed Chretien in the future.
Agree with you 100%. Still don't see a reason for the average GI to add us to that sign.
PARIS (AP)--Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Monday that France cannot accept a second U.N. resolution that includes an ultimatum or resorts to automatic use of force to disarm Iraq.
Speaking to Europe-1 radio, de Villepin reiterated France's threat to use its veto in the U.N. Security Council to block a resolution that paves the way to war.
``France cannot accept the resolution that sets an ultimatum and envisages an automatic use of force,'' de Villepin told the French radio station.
The day before, Chirac made a proposal who was rejected.
It didn't show that as a real proposal before the UN nor did it show any rejection. Sounds like something Chirac floated out there, and certainly someone his foreign minister rejected the next day.
What difference would 30 days be? More stalling. More political games.
France rejected *any* ultimatum, that's just fact.
The 16th would be the day of the Azores summit, one week ago today. Sure seems longer. Anyway, France had certainly rejected ultimatums by the 14th at the latest and I believe even several days before that. So the quote from the interview with the war slut was subsequent to the Chiraq clan staking out their anti-ultimatum stance and basically in contradiction of it. Then the next day on the 17th [but prior to the Bush speech] de Villain reaffirms their opposition to ultimatums. Any backtracking Chiraq may have done, in particular in an interview with a US station, was just political cover for his absurd position IMO.
Of-course they are offensive, they ruin the whole image of american military invisibility. They might even give some people second thoughts about the war...
There was still no automatic use of force. In other words, no accountability. It doesn't matter, Powerdoc. How many "last chances" was he going to get? My God, the French position was absurd. 30 more days? Why? As if he is going to disarm within 30 more days? As if he would cooperate? Come on....no reasonable person believes that. One cannot look at the current situation and ignore its history and context. We have been through this before. He has deceieved before. Fortunately, we are doing something about it...finally.
There was still no automatic use of force. In other words, no accountability. It doesn't matter, Powerdoc. How many "last chances" was he going to get? My God, the French position was absurd. 30 more days? Why? As if he is going to disarm within 30 more days? As if he would cooperate? Come on....no reasonable person believes that. One cannot look at the current situation and ignore its history and context. We have been through this before. He has deceieved before. Fortunately, we are doing something about it...finally.
I answered a post saying Chirac never made any proposals. It's was not about the quality of the proposal. It was an unofficial but public proposal rejected by the US.
I answered a post saying Chirac never made any proposals. It's was not about the quality of the proposal. It was an unofficial but public proposal rejected by the US.
That's why you're correct and several people here are incorrect.
That soldier is putting his life on the line. Against a regime that has no problem murdering babies, gassing civilians, raping women and killing entire families in order to oppress it's own people, but if he holds up sign it's somehow dishonorable.
the human machine by design well get emotional and loose his temper in all stressful situations. a soldier is not beyond this. if the UN had been united againt a Irac then it is quite possible that we would not be at war. The situation clearly (to soldiers at least) must be delt with. Hitler also broke all treatys and the UN was against intervention at that time as well. Saddam has broken every UN treaty for the past 10 years and no action was deamed necessary except for more talks. Having a divided opinnion in the world and in this country is empowering to Sadamms point of view as it makes it seem as if half of the world agrees with Saddam which makes him seem correct in fighting the US evill empire. one neads to be understading of an individuals point of view. If world had stood up to Saddam then it is quite possible that we would not be at war and I understand how this soldier could place part of the blame for this on France and Germany. Remember he could die tomorrow and is entittled to be high strung. So try and take it with a grain of salt
Comments
Originally posted by audiopollution
At least we now have your word that the left and the right use the same tactics.
No, this is not about left and right. The issues are, but it is the approach that I complain about. Some people choose very unseenly approaches to get their idea across. They do not help their cause. They do it to call attention to themself (dramaqueen style), whereas no one would pay attention otherwise. It's the manifestation of a personal problem more than an "awareness of issues".
Originally posted by Randycat99
No, this is not about left and right. The issues are, but it is the approach that I complain about. Some people choose very unseenly approaches to get their idea across. They do not help their cause. They do it to call attention to themself (dramaqueen style), whereas no one would pay attention otherwise. It's the manifestation of a personal problem more than an "awareness of issues".
Sorry, I misunderstood your point.
There's a huge lack of moderates on either side of any issue. Unfortunate.
Not the last week before the war. He suggested it perhaps monday the 16. I have eard it on the radio (france info, a sort of equivalent of CNN).
Yes it was just one day before the 17, but he made it.
3/17/03: link
PARIS (AP)--Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Monday that France cannot accept a second U.N. resolution that includes an ultimatum or resorts to automatic use of force to disarm Iraq.
Speaking to Europe-1 radio, de Villepin reiterated France's threat to use its veto in the U.N. Security Council to block a resolution that paves the way to war.
``France cannot accept the resolution that sets an ultimatum and envisages an automatic use of force,'' de Villepin told the French radio station.
Originally posted by bunge
Sorry, I didn't expect any rational human being to be able to ignore the obvious. I probably still shouldn't.
Ok dude, I see the obvious. There is a dead body covered by a blanket. This doesn't support your argument implying that it is because of the liberation. Perhaps a caption could support your sarcastic statement. That's all I'm asking for.
Originally posted by Randycat99
A link to register at the Washinton Post? How useless.
I had no idea it required a registration.
Originally posted by filmmaker2002
Ok dude, I see the obvious. There is a dead body covered by a blanket. This doesn't support your argument implying that it is because of the liberation. Perhaps a caption could support your sarcastic statement. That's all I'm asking for.
I apologize, but after seeing your original response I went through my history from the past three days and can't find the original story. It appears that Safari knocks out after about 50 pages and I'm guessing the original story was more than 50 pages ago.
I tried to shorten the link of the photograph to find the original page, but nothing worked. It appears to be some Yahoo! news page, but I can't tell you from where. I run across pages from all over the world.
I then posted a link to the Washington Post article, but obviously I'm already logged in. I don't know if there's a public login available from AI for the Post (Scott?).
So, the body picture was posted along with a story about 50+ dead civilians in Basra. According to the original source, it's a picture of a dead civilian from this current gulf war.
Were this thread started within the realm of normal human civility and sanity, I wouldn't post something like that sarcastically. But this thread is such utter crap it should be sidetracked.
The face of Liberation is like the faces of a coin, it has two of them. If anyone here contests that it's actually just happy go lucky soldiers shaking hands with grateful children, I've posted a picture to refute that. If anyone here is trying to ignore, or is just ignorant of the fact that liberating people means you have to accidentally or irresponsibily kill a lot of them, go look at the original photo.
P.S. I don't think I've ever embedded a photo from a page within a post. I prefer to link to articles so the photos can be seen in their original context. In this case, I posted the picture because it's how the thread is handling photos. I was just being consistent. Unfortunately it means the original page is lost or going to be difficult to find. But it doesn't much matter because there are plenty of other articles about dead civilians.
Originally posted by Mac OS X Addict
Tulkas, the Liberal govt has serious problems right now and they just added fuel to the fire by not joing coalition forces. I think we will see more trade disputes in the next couple of months because of Chretien's move. Plus, look at the Softwood Lumber issue and the new duty placed on Canadian wheat farmers. It is crazy. Hopefully Paul Martin will succeed Chretien in the future.
Agree with you 100%. Still don't see a reason for the average GI to add us to that sign.
Originally posted by groverat
3/17/03: link
PARIS (AP)--Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Monday that France cannot accept a second U.N. resolution that includes an ultimatum or resorts to automatic use of force to disarm Iraq.
Speaking to Europe-1 radio, de Villepin reiterated France's threat to use its veto in the U.N. Security Council to block a resolution that paves the way to war.
``France cannot accept the resolution that sets an ultimatum and envisages an automatic use of force,'' de Villepin told the French radio station.
The day before, Chirac made a proposal who was rejected.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar16.html
What difference would 30 days be? More stalling. More political games.
France rejected *any* ultimatum, that's just fact.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...britain_iraq_1
Originally posted by New
Of-course they are offensive, they ruin the whole image of american military invisibility. They might even give some people second thoughts about the war...
Not me.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Not me.
I said thoughts...
Originally posted by Powerdoc
The day before, Chirac made a proposal who was rejected.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Mar16.html
There was still no automatic use of force. In other words, no accountability. It doesn't matter, Powerdoc. How many "last chances" was he going to get? My God, the French position was absurd. 30 more days? Why? As if he is going to disarm within 30 more days? As if he would cooperate? Come on....no reasonable person believes that. One cannot look at the current situation and ignore its history and context. We have been through this before. He has deceieved before. Fortunately, we are doing something about it...finally.
Originally posted by SDW2001
There was still no automatic use of force. In other words, no accountability. It doesn't matter, Powerdoc. How many "last chances" was he going to get? My God, the French position was absurd. 30 more days? Why? As if he is going to disarm within 30 more days? As if he would cooperate? Come on....no reasonable person believes that. One cannot look at the current situation and ignore its history and context. We have been through this before. He has deceieved before. Fortunately, we are doing something about it...finally.
I answered a post saying Chirac never made any proposals. It's was not about the quality of the proposal. It was an unofficial but public proposal rejected by the US.
Originally posted by groverat
France rejected *any* ultimatum, that's just fact.
Funny, I didn't think a vote was ever taken. Did they in fact veto anything or was the U.S. just scared?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I answered a post saying Chirac never made any proposals. It's was not about the quality of the proposal. It was an unofficial but public proposal rejected by the US.
That's why you're correct and several people here are incorrect.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Well said.
That soldier is putting his life on the line. Against a regime that has no problem murdering babies, gassing civilians, raping women and killing entire families in order to oppress it's own people, but if he holds up sign it's somehow dishonorable.
the human machine by design well get emotional and loose his temper in all stressful situations. a soldier is not beyond this. if the UN had been united againt a Irac then it is quite possible that we would not be at war. The situation clearly (to soldiers at least) must be delt with. Hitler also broke all treatys and the UN was against intervention at that time as well. Saddam has broken every UN treaty for the past 10 years and no action was deamed necessary except for more talks. Having a divided opinnion in the world and in this country is empowering to Sadamms point of view as it makes it seem as if half of the world agrees with Saddam which makes him seem correct in fighting the US evill empire. one neads to be understading of an individuals point of view. If world had stood up to Saddam then it is quite possible that we would not be at war and I understand how this soldier could place part of the blame for this on France and Germany. Remember he could die tomorrow and is entittled to be high strung. So try and take it with a grain of salt