In the town of Safwan, Iraqi civilians eagerly greeted the 1st Marine Division.
One little boy, who had chocolate melted all over his face after a soldier gave him some treats from his ration kit, kept pointing at the sky, saying "Ameriki, Ameriki."
quote:
The townspeople seemed grateful this time.
"No Saddam Hussein! one young man in a headscarf told Gurfein. Bush!"
somehow looking back at these pics and seeing your self righteous gloating
. . . so naive
what did they do when we weren't looking, too sure that we made them happy with our chocolate bar treats?!??!
Yes, I am so naive. I only see one side. I am totally and completely unaware of any difficulties or Iraqi civilians that don't want military action by the US. You hit the nail right on the head. Bravo, jack ass.
Scott:
Quote:
A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start.
I actually posted this as well. No problem though...it is still amazing the second time.
Quote:
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.
Well, that may be. But, I see you have conveniently ignored the larger context. Of course the US rejected it, because any further resolutions without an ultimatum would have been a joke. In fact, I think even passing another resolution at all (short of one that simply says "Iraq is in material breach of Resolution 1441") was a joke.
But, you focus on the US/UK rejection of their "proposal", as if it is the fault of those two countries. The fact is that a 30 day proposal with no accountablity isn't a proposal at all...it is a delaying tactic. The point is that France acted in an obtstructionist fashion. Any other arguments about resolution language are purely semantical. And, regardless of any private offer, Chirac stated publicly that we would not allow any new resolution.
You really disappoint me Bunge. You normally seem to try and take the high road. To so purposefully mis-state what I obviously meant, and mislead others as to what I meant, is pretty low for you. I meant that his opinion should carry more weight in terms of perpective on a situation, since he is more directly involved and threatened by the situation, than any of us here are. I obviously did not mean more of a right in legal or constitutional manner. I really would have expectedmore of you bunge.
Well here's what I posted a few posts later:
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Ah, could be. If this is the case I'd have to reread the quote and such before criticizing it again.
In all honesty I read your post as I originally stated, as if you were stating legally, not morally. Sorry for the mix up. There was no intent to misrepresent as such and I think my subsequent posts show that.
...yeah, because there was no obvious way you could play that off and not appear utterly loony.
...and why are you complaining about a military and police controlled state here, but in another topic on this board you are suggesting a UN-enforced "democratic" government transplant as a solution to regime change? Either one could be construed as a fascist sort of manuever- just on different levels of authority (if the UN can even be considered to "have authority").
Well, that may be. But, I see you have conveniently ignored the larger context. Of course the US rejected it, because any further resolutions without an ultimatum would have been a joke. In fact, I think even passing another resolution at all (short of one that simply says "Iraq is in material breach of Resolution 1441") was a joke.
I conveniently ignored nothing. My post was just saying he made a proposal. I did not argue about the quality of these proposal. Will it kill you to admit he made a proposal (even a dumb one) ?
But, you focus on the US/UK rejection of their "proposal", as if it is the fault of those two countries. The fact is that a 30 day proposal with no accountablity isn't a proposal at all...it is a delaying tactic. The point is that France acted in an obtstructionist fashion. Any other arguments about resolution language are purely semantical. And, regardless of any private offer, Chirac stated publicly that we would not allow any new resolution
I focus on the rejection of the Blair's proposal by Bush and not the rejection of the Chirac proposal by Blair and Bush ( i never expected that Bush will accept it, since the beginning war was the only solution for him).
Blair at this time was in trouble with his public opinion, and want to have some air, Bush refuse to help him in this matter.
My personal opinion on that Iraqi thing, is whatever the inspector had said, Bush will have entered in war. For Bush the 1441 resolution was only an excuse to enter in war. I could be wrong, but the way the Bush admin manage this crisis give me this impression. The sad thing, is that Bush give this impression to a lot of people around the world.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
My favorite quotes and pics:
quote:
In the town of Safwan, Iraqi civilians eagerly greeted the 1st Marine Division.
One little boy, who had chocolate melted all over his face after a soldier gave him some treats from his ration kit, kept pointing at the sky, saying "Ameriki, Ameriki."
quote:
The townspeople seemed grateful this time.
"No Saddam Hussein! one young man in a headscarf told Gurfein. Bush!"
somehow looking back at these pics and seeing your self righteous gloating
. . . so naive
what did they do when we weren't looking, too sure that we made them happy with our chocolate bar treats?!??!
Yes, I am so naive. I only see one side. I am totally and completely unaware of any difficulties or Iraqi civilians that don't want military action by the US. You hit the nail right on the head. Bravo, jack ass.
Scott:
A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start.
I actually posted this as well. No problem though...it is still amazing the second time.
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.
Well, that may be. But, I see you have conveniently ignored the larger context. Of course the US rejected it, because any further resolutions without an ultimatum would have been a joke. In fact, I think even passing another resolution at all (short of one that simply says "Iraq is in material breach of Resolution 1441") was a joke.
But, you focus on the US/UK rejection of their "proposal", as if it is the fault of those two countries. The fact is that a 30 day proposal with no accountablity isn't a proposal at all...it is a delaying tactic. The point is that France acted in an obtstructionist fashion. Any other arguments about resolution language are purely semantical. And, regardless of any private offer, Chirac stated publicly that we would not allow any new resolution.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Wow.
You really disappoint me Bunge. You normally seem to try and take the high road. To so purposefully mis-state what I obviously meant, and mislead others as to what I meant, is pretty low for you. I meant that his opinion should carry more weight in terms of perpective on a situation, since he is more directly involved and threatened by the situation, than any of us here are. I obviously did not mean more of a right in legal or constitutional manner. I really would have expectedmore of you bunge.
Well here's what I posted a few posts later:
Originally posted by bunge
Ah, could be. If this is the case I'd have to reread the quote and such before criticizing it again.
In all honesty I read your post as I originally stated, as if you were stating legally, not morally. Sorry for the mix up. There was no intent to misrepresent as such and I think my subsequent posts show that.
...and why are you complaining about a military and police controlled state here, but in another topic on this board you are suggesting a UN-enforced "democratic" government transplant as a solution to regime change? Either one could be construed as a fascist sort of manuever- just on different levels of authority (if the UN can even be considered to "have authority").
Originally posted by SDW2001
. [/B]
Well, that may be. But, I see you have conveniently ignored the larger context. Of course the US rejected it, because any further resolutions without an ultimatum would have been a joke. In fact, I think even passing another resolution at all (short of one that simply says "Iraq is in material breach of Resolution 1441") was a joke.
I conveniently ignored nothing. My post was just saying he made a proposal. I did not argue about the quality of these proposal. Will it kill you to admit he made a proposal (even a dumb one) ?
But, you focus on the US/UK rejection of their "proposal", as if it is the fault of those two countries. The fact is that a 30 day proposal with no accountablity isn't a proposal at all...it is a delaying tactic. The point is that France acted in an obtstructionist fashion. Any other arguments about resolution language are purely semantical. And, regardless of any private offer, Chirac stated publicly that we would not allow any new resolution
I focus on the rejection of the Blair's proposal by Bush and not the rejection of the Chirac proposal by Blair and Bush ( i never expected that Bush will accept it, since the beginning war was the only solution for him).
Blair at this time was in trouble with his public opinion, and want to have some air, Bush refuse to help him in this matter.
My personal opinion on that Iraqi thing, is whatever the inspector had said, Bush will have entered in war. For Bush the 1441 resolution was only an excuse to enter in war. I could be wrong, but the way the Bush admin manage this crisis give me this impression. The sad thing, is that Bush give this impression to a lot of people around the world.