<strong>Actually the point of that link shows that uncertainty was the problem with the stock market recently, not war. Certainty is good, with or without war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That may have been YOUR point for linking it, but that doesn't negate the fact that the article itself supports more than one point (one of which you probably don't wish to acknowledge.)
I think the purpose of inspections is grossly misunderstood. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think they're misunderstood, even if the term 'inspections' no longer really applies. I think the consequences if Iraq failed to live up to #1441 are far more greatly misunderstood.
<strong>This war is wrong. The arguments for this war are wrong because containment is working. Inspections are working. This finger wagging condescension of the United States at the United Nations is childish and must stop immediately because the United States is wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what a convincing argument you make. i'll be sure to pass that on to the prez next time we have tea. it used to be beers, but you know how that went. bummer too, cause he sure was a whole lot more fun when he was drinking.
I don't think they're misunderstood, even if the term 'inspections' no longer really applies. I think the consequences if Iraq failed to live up to #1441 are far more greatly misunderstood.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't exactly disagree with you. The failure of the security Council is not coming up with a legit alternative, not nearly soon enough, though Chile stepped up at the 11th hour at least. France and Russia clearly had no alternative in mind, choosing to ignore the mandate of 1441, the part about "serious consequences" because they offered no consequences when Iraq did not comply with this 16th resolution (or whatever it was).
I'm just tired of this transparent warmongering being lapped up by the corporate media. If I hear one more reporter setting bush up by asking him to talk about how great america is rather than asking him about the FAKED EVIDENCE that they have been feeding to the inspectors or the SPYING and BUGGING OTHER COUNTRIES U.N. OFFICES then I am going to scream. The media in this country need a serious kick in the pants.
[quote](C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin.<hr></blockquote>
And did the Taliban or Afghan people attack us or did a group of terrorists not even from Afghanistan attack us? Other than letting Bin Laden roam around in Northern Afghanistan, what was the government role in the attack?
Iraq *is* attempting to shoot our pilots and drones down.
Iraq is attempting to shoot down planes that are regularly bombing. . . hardly an aggresive act by air defenses.
The "no Fly zones" are set up by the U.S. And UK, not the U.N. They have never been legal and they were waived when the U.S. allowed Saddam to use helicopters to crush the rebellion in the South after the Gulf War. God forbid that regime change could happen from within and more towards democracy without the U.S. "unbiased help."
<strong>Iraq is attempting to shoot down planes that are regularly bombing. . . hardly an aggresive act by air defenses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
you have that backwards. until very recently, we have only bombed after our planes have been targeted and only attack those iraqi resources that have been doing the targeting and shooting. they've been warned countless times that such actions are a no-no. if they want to throw away perfectly good hardware and people, we are more than happy to oblige them.
[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: running with scissors ]</p>
The failure of the security Council is not coming up with a legit alternative, not nearly soon enough, though Chile stepped up at the 11th hour at least. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, in all fairness, they Security Council shouldn't have to work based on the U.S. Military's timetables. Those countries are all equally capable of judging the threat the Iraqis (well, Saddam, I don't want to blame the Iraqi populace) posed, and they almost uniformly agree that there is no imminent threat.
The real failure was Bush not getting a definition for "serious consequences" either before signing #1441, or after it was breached. He couldn't get the answer he wanted (war) so he unilaterally decides to create the answer himself.
I can never be proud of being American again. Every time someone asks where I'm from I'll be hesitant to tell them the truth (incidentally, 99% of the people I meet are not American and 90% of those will hate Americans after this). I am ashamed to be associated with a country that thinks it IS God.
Then tell people you're Canadian
Seriously.......this is making a lot of American feel ashame of themselve
I'm not sure how brilliant it is to remove yourself from a position of power because you oppose the entrusted powers. It only puts your further away from a position which allows you to make a difference.
Oh, no, wait. BRILLIANT!
As for the rules. Why did Clinton get to play with a deadline, while Bush doesn't? Why didn't they set a deadline this time? There's a blatant double-standard here.
any bets when this little shindig is going to kick off?
i'm betting 3:00am wed morning. any takers?
I can't imagine Bush waiting much more than 48 hours, or else he would have said 72. But the time difference makes it tough to start Wed night/Thurs morning. You can't well launch the cruise missles before the deadline passes, but assuming they take a couple hours to reach their targets, they wouldn't start hitting until past dawn Thusday morning (8pm EST Wed = 4am Baghdad Thurs).
So that suggests Thursday night, prime time here in the USA.
Unless he does the militarily smart (and politically awkward) thing and starts the bombs dropping an hour before the deadline passes.
Does anyone else have a flight booked for Thursday? I made plans to visit my girlfriend in St. Louis for the weekend, leaving Thursday morning. Damn inconvenient of the President to set a deadline for Wed night. I'm not sure I want to be on a plane the day war breaks out. But then, the terrorists will presumably wait until the bombs start dropping, and such things take a couple days to pull together. I guess I'll wait and see when things start.
The power comes with the statement. Cook will be listened to, and adored by the (majority) UK public who oppose Blair's stance. His day will come with this.
Biggest? What about France and Holland? Not to mention neoemerpialists like Russia and China?</strong><hr></blockquote>
France and Holland don't come close to England, Spain, or Portugal...nor do China or Russia. Open a history book, will ya?
Seems like your the one that needs to open it. Holland? You do realize that Rotterdam is still the largest port in the world. They used to be all over the world. You can crack open that history book you have to look up a place called "New Amsterdam".
France? Shit dude look at who we bought most of the mid west from. Great numbers of Africans speak French. I wonder why, der?. Look up in that history book who got us into Vietnam?
Russia? Yea as in former Soviet Union. As in used to control all of eastern Europe. As in took over most of the 'stans including the Afghan one. As in sold us all of Alaska. As in open up that history book of yours and start reading.
China? Well not nearly as big as the rest but ask the Dalai Lama__if he'd like his country back. I think he does.
Comments
<strong>Actually the point of that link shows that uncertainty was the problem with the stock market recently, not war. Certainty is good, with or without war. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That may have been YOUR point for linking it, but that doesn't negate the fact that the article itself supports more than one point (one of which you probably don't wish to acknowledge.)
<strong>
I think the purpose of inspections is grossly misunderstood. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think they're misunderstood, even if the term 'inspections' no longer really applies. I think the consequences if Iraq failed to live up to #1441 are far more greatly misunderstood.
<strong>This war is wrong. The arguments for this war are wrong because containment is working. Inspections are working. This finger wagging condescension of the United States at the United Nations is childish and must stop immediately because the United States is wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what a convincing argument you make. i'll be sure to pass that on to the prez next time we have tea. it used to be beers, but you know how that went. bummer too, cause he sure was a whole lot more fun when he was drinking.
<strong>
I don't think they're misunderstood, even if the term 'inspections' no longer really applies. I think the consequences if Iraq failed to live up to #1441 are far more greatly misunderstood.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't exactly disagree with you. The failure of the security Council is not coming up with a legit alternative, not nearly soon enough, though Chile stepped up at the 11th hour at least. France and Russia clearly had no alternative in mind, choosing to ignore the mandate of 1441, the part about "serious consequences" because they offered no consequences when Iraq did not comply with this 16th resolution (or whatever it was).
And did the Taliban or Afghan people attack us or did a group of terrorists not even from Afghanistan attack us? Other than letting Bin Laden roam around in Northern Afghanistan, what was the government role in the attack?
Iraq *is* attempting to shoot our pilots and drones down.
The "no Fly zones" are set up by the U.S. And UK, not the U.N. They have never been legal and they were waived when the U.S. allowed Saddam to use helicopters to crush the rebellion in the South after the Gulf War. God forbid that regime change could happen from within and more towards democracy without the U.S. "unbiased help."
<strong>Iraq is attempting to shoot down planes that are regularly bombing. . . hardly an aggresive act by air defenses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
you have that backwards. until very recently, we have only bombed after our planes have been targeted and only attack those iraqi resources that have been doing the targeting and shooting. they've been warned countless times that such actions are a no-no. if they want to throw away perfectly good hardware and people, we are more than happy to oblige them.
[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: running with scissors ]</p>
<strong>
The failure of the security Council is not coming up with a legit alternative, not nearly soon enough, though Chile stepped up at the 11th hour at least. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, in all fairness, they Security Council shouldn't have to work based on the U.S. Military's timetables. Those countries are all equally capable of judging the threat the Iraqis (well, Saddam, I don't want to blame the Iraqi populace) posed, and they almost uniformly agree that there is no imminent threat.
The real failure was Bush not getting a definition for "serious consequences" either before signing #1441, or after it was breached. He couldn't get the answer he wanted (war) so he unilaterally decides to create the answer himself.
<strong>
i was thinking local iraqi time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That seems reasonable to me.
Baghdad 3am Wednesday = Eastern Standard Time 10pm Tuesday
Cruise missiles start flying shortly after the markets close on Tuesday.
[ 03-17-2003: Message edited by: audiopollution ]</p>
It really seems like many more people are taking notice of what their country and government are doing.
Originally posted by tonton
I can never be proud of being American again. Every time someone asks where I'm from I'll be hesitant to tell them the truth (incidentally, 99% of the people I meet are not American and 90% of those will hate Americans after this). I am ashamed to be associated with a country that thinks it IS God.
Then tell people you're Canadian
Seriously.......this is making a lot of American feel ashame of themselve
Oh, no, wait. BRILLIANT!
As for the rules. Why did Clinton get to play with a deadline, while Bush doesn't? Why didn't they set a deadline this time? There's a blatant double-standard here.
Originally posted by running with scissors
any bets when this little shindig is going to kick off?
i'm betting 3:00am wed morning. any takers?
I can't imagine Bush waiting much more than 48 hours, or else he would have said 72. But the time difference makes it tough to start Wed night/Thurs morning. You can't well launch the cruise missles before the deadline passes, but assuming they take a couple hours to reach their targets, they wouldn't start hitting until past dawn Thusday morning (8pm EST Wed = 4am Baghdad Thurs).
So that suggests Thursday night, prime time here in the USA.
Unless he does the militarily smart (and politically awkward) thing and starts the bombs dropping an hour before the deadline passes.
Does anyone else have a flight booked for Thursday? I made plans to visit my girlfriend in St. Louis for the weekend, leaving Thursday morning. Damn inconvenient of the President to set a deadline for Wed night. I'm not sure I want to be on a plane the day war breaks out. But then, the terrorists will presumably wait until the bombs start dropping, and such things take a couple days to pull together. I guess I'll wait and see when things start.
Originally posted by tonton
The power comes with the statement. Cook will be listened to, and adored by the (majority) UK public who oppose Blair's stance. His day will come with this.
I'll be waiting with bated breath.
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott:
<strong>
Biggest? What about France and Holland? Not to mention neoemerpialists like Russia and China?</strong><hr></blockquote>
France and Holland don't come close to England, Spain, or Portugal...nor do China or Russia. Open a history book, will ya?
Seems like your the one that needs to open it. Holland? You do realize that Rotterdam is still the largest port in the world. They used to be all over the world. You can crack open that history book you have to look up a place called "New Amsterdam".
France? Shit dude look at who we bought most of the mid west from. Great numbers of Africans speak French. I wonder why, der?. Look up in that history book who got us into Vietnam?
Russia? Yea as in former Soviet Union. As in used to control all of eastern Europe. As in took over most of the 'stans including the Afghan one. As in sold us all of Alaska. As in open up that history book of yours and start reading.
China? Well not nearly as big as the rest but ask the Dalai Lama__if he'd like his country back. I think he does.
Good luck.
today:
last 13 Weeks:
last year:
Losses in red ink, what an appropriate image.
[quote]Groverat is sleeping with Scott_h_Phd.<hr></blockquote>
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?
Stay nice , please, these pornographics comment may hurt people.