Iraq is a political subject.
Iraq, again
-
Ding-Ding!
Ending Round Score:
–----------------------BigBlocky: 1
F_alk: 0LOL! :wink:
-
F_alk, didn’t I read that when you served in the German conscript army there were several people in your unit that you how did you describe them as, ah yes, nazis. Of course you said you secretly loathed them but of course didn’t rock the boat and speak out against them, how brave of you. That is the difference between you and me. I don’t silently endure nazis. My mouth has gotten me into situations that were not pleasant, but at least I always felt I had done the morally right thing and damn those who don’t want me to rock the boat.
Wow. It also demonstrates that you would be the wrong person to be with in a platoon. There is a difference between being in “normal society” - whatever that is to you - and being in a life-and-death situation. Although i have principals and i have little-to-no fear in defending them, i have never served in the armed forces, but you can be certain that i would not do anything that would make my mates rely less on me (and less reliable). This comes after the battles have ended and we have rejoined civilian life. I come from a family with a strong and proud tradition of having the balls to do what’s right, even at enormous personal risk. At the same time, there is no point to being stupid and risking several people’s lives (including your own) for a soap box at an inappropriate time to throw your pearls before swine.
It explains why you think the rest of the world should do nothing against the Saddams of the world. You would cloak you inability to stand up to tyranny in words like “There is no legal precidence for standing up to brutality in a unilateral fashion”.
Wow. I have never seen any of the pro-peace people say anything like this. Again you use a blatantly flawed argument to paint us as having a completely different stance than we actually have. This Argument is akin to suggesting that all of those in favor of military force to uncover WMD are in fact “looking to destroy as many babies as possible in order to rape Iraq of all of its oil”. Naturally i don’t believe this and i believe it to be patently false, but this is how you have reacted to F_alk’s rather reasoned method of picking apart the “war-mongering” way.
I have no need to debate anybody on morality who admits to forming a tight bond with nazi-like people to the point of defending them to the death. I lament the fact I had to say this, I was trying not to read your crap, but like a motorist who just must gawk at an accident I looked and didn’t like what I was reading.
How was this related to the topic at hand? You have no way of taking apart F_alk’s well worded and reasoned arguments so you are leaving the sandbox, so to speak?
I will refrain from making any more personal comments about you, you should do the same to me. This forum is not about you and me.
BBhavn’t seen F_alk get too personal (asid from that tongue-in-cheek jab at the end of the last post. Chill there my friend.
-
If you were a nazi you’re damn right I’d be the wrong person to have in your platoon.
BB
-
Once again and once more CC was too quick for me :)
Anyway…
@BigBlocky:F_alk, didn’t I read that when you served in the German conscript army there were several people in your unit that you how did you describe them as, ah yes, nazis.
“close to be Nazis” was the words.
Of course you said you secretly loathed them but of course didn’t rock the boat and speak out against them, how brave of you.
Quote me correctly please. disgust is not loath. And i think i kept that posting rather short, and did not talk about the “discussions” when we wore civil clothes.
That is the difference between you and me.
That i talk of things i experienced and you make presumptions on your behavior?
… It explains why you think the rest of the world should do nothing against the Saddams of the world. You would cloak you inability to stand up to tyranny in words like “There is no legal precidence for standing up to brutality in a unilateral fashion”.
You continue to ignore my point, and try to change the words in my mouth.
…forming a tight bond with nazi-like people to the point of defending them to the death.
Quote me correctly, don`t talk of things you have not experienced.
…your crap, …
I will refrain from making any more personal comments about you, you should do the same to me. This forum is not about you and me.
lol rofl …. oh, i see, after you insulted me frequently, i should now keep quiet and stay back etc. etc., just like the behavior you “dissed” above? You indeed have strange thoughts sometimes.
If you were a nazi you’re damn right I’d be the wrong person to have in your platoon.
You would not defend your homeland if you had the “wrong” people in your platton? How patriotci, how brave! …“No, i will not fight, unless i can join a platoon with Private A,B and C… but not with Private D,E or F…”
hmmmmpf -
Is this the largest thread ever?
-
The UN thread was longer, more than 10 pages.
…
BTW, much of the “proof” of the US for the Iraq possession WMD has been proven wrong by the inspectors: Jörn Siljeholm, norwegian member of the inspectors, said, the “special vehicles” for decontaminating the own (iraqi) soldiers were not for that purpose, they had been found, but never were such a decontamination vehicle. As well, the “ventilations” of some factories (US reasoned that this meant the factories must have been producing chemical weapons)… well, the factories were examined and no hint for the production of chemical weapons was found.
He called Powells speech in front of the security counsil “misleading” and “simply incorrect”. The inspectors “received much incomplete and poos intelligence information from the Americans, and (the) cooperation developed accordingly. Much of what has been claimed about WMDs has proven to be sheer nonsense. From what (he has) seen they are going to war on very little.”
“I strongly doubt that the American will find anything at all. In any case I doubt that they will find WMDs that constitute a military threat,” Siljeholm said.After a quick Google-search, with his name entered… i struck me that no major US or UK site seems to have this on their pages…
-
A very nice article, which describes my (european) point of view pretty well:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/14/nyt.bernstein/
Any other opinions on that article?
-
Well, all I can do is point to the fact that there are inspectors who substantiate and fear in the potentiality of what they never found in 1991. I’m not really sure who this guy you’re speaking of is, but I assure you that there are people with equally high statures that are saying the opposite of him.
I guess it’s only a matter of time before we find out who is right. :-?
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
I’m not really sure who this guy you’re speaking of is, but I assure you that there are people with equally high statures that are saying the opposite of him.
the opposite would mean that the intelligence given by the US was helpful and actually informing ;)…
As you assure me of that, can you give me a report/quote which says so? -
I agree with Falk, had Bush given some reliable intelligence to the inspectors, then they would of turned up something and America would be in a more reliable diplomatic situation than we are now.
-
I agree with F_alk that if WMD HAVE been found, then the evidence has not been forthcoming, or it has been proven wrong. Of course just as before, we are being expected to find the evidence, and we who consider that war was unnecessary (and maybe even a little bit “wrong”) are considered anti-American even as the reasons for war are slowly shifting away from the enforcement of 1441 which has been clung to so viligently by others on this site, in addition to Blair Bush.
w.r.t. the site F_alk pointed to, i think that i am either:- More naive than F_alk, or
- Less paranoid.
I think that America has been “strutting it” a little too much around the world, and is on the razor edge when it comes to motives (i.e. i really hope that they at least continue to appear to be wanting to do the right thing). Although it appears to be the attitude of many Americans, i do not yet see the American agenda to be "lets make the rest of the world “America” - yet.
-
the opposite would mean that the intelligence given by the US was helpful and actually informing …
As you assure me of that, can you give me a report/quote which says so?No, I’m sorry. I can’t. :(
I don’t doubt that the intelligence given by the US to the weapons inspectors was probably not all that “juicy.” I wouldn’t trust the UN as much as F_alk probably would, much less would I give them information that our spies risked their lives to get. Therefore, I don’t see the value of giving this information to UN inspectors, since they’ve already proved themselves incompetant in the past. Their hotel rooms are bugged, and there’s even talk of Saddam paying people off on the inside.
I think the information we did give them was more or less aimed at pleasing the rest of the world.
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
the opposite would mean that the intelligence given by the US was helpful and actually informing …
As you assure me of that, can you give me a report/quote which says so?No, I’m sorry. I can’t. :(
I don’t doubt that the intelligence given by the US to the weapons inspectors was probably not all that “juicy.” I wouldn’t trust the UN as much as F_alk probably would, much less would I give them information that our spies risked their lives to get. Therefore, I don’t see the value of giving this information to UN inspectors, since they’ve already proved themselves incompetant in the past. Their hotel rooms are bugged, and there’s even talk of Saddam paying people off on the inside.
I think the information we did give them was more or less aimed at pleasing the rest of the world.
fortunately the “aim” of the American soldiers appears better than that of your information providers . . . .
-
A violation) Iraq fired missles that exceeded the range limitations, radar telemetry exists to prove this.
A violation) Weapons inspectors did find about a dozen shells that could be used for WMD and should have been destroyed.
A violation) Inspectors had minders that violated ‘unfetered access’ by monitoring their actions and forewarning possible target inspection sites.
Any one of those should be grounds for regime change. He was on probation and we should have zero tolerance for ‘convicted criminals’. Argue the miniscule nuainces of semantics but he was the leader of a country who invaded a neighbour country and ultimately lost the war. He was on probation and failed several tests.
He was a little guilty like young mothers were a little pregnant awhile ago. Guilty is as guilty does.
BB
-
@cystic:
… and we who consider that war was unnecessary (and maybe even a little bit “wrong”) are considered anti-American even as the reasons for war are slowly shifting away from the enforcement of 1441 which has been clung to so viligently by others on this site, in addition to Blair Bush.
very true. Humanitarian action and regime change (as needed as it was, and as good as it hopefully does to the people) was never a part of 1441. 1441 and disarmament was first used as the excuse for an attack, but somehow it changed to something that makes a better PR-campaign.
That makes the attack even more illegal (loosely speaking), but more “humane”.w.r.t. the site F_alk pointed to, i think that i am either:
- More naive than F_alk, or
- Less paranoid.
Maybe both :)….
I mentioned that i often prepare for the worst and can be quite pessimistic (and you less paranoid), but then, the US rethorics have pointed that way a few years ago already (so, maybe you are a bit more naive).(i.e. i really hope that they at least continue to appear to be wanting to do the right thing). Although it appears to be the attitude of many Americans, i do not yet see the American agenda to be "lets make the rest of the world “America” - yet.
grins i like that “continue to appear to be wanting” :)….
For the agenda, well, the world doesn’t need to be America. It can be anything as long as the US dominates the world’s markets and policy, as long as the US are the hegemon. Anyone who puts up any resistance though, well…@Deviant:Scripter:
I don’t doubt that the intelligence given by the US to the weapons inspectors was probably not all that “juicy.” I wouldn’t trust the UN as much as F_alk probably would, much less would I give them information that our spies risked their lives to get.
Spies? Like satellite photos? That was most of the information the UN got, so you say the info gathered by “spies” was held back? I doubt that there was a lot of that kind of info.
For not trusting the UN:
If you don’t trust the UN, why should i trust the US?Therefore, I don’t see the value of giving this information to UN inspectors, since they’ve already proved themselves incompetant in the past. Their hotel rooms are bugged, and there’s even talk of Saddam paying people off on the inside.
incompetent? When? The disarmament after ‘91 was not working (even with the sticks and stones thrown in the inspectors’ way)??? Bugged rooms cough cough … you mean “bugged” like the EU offices (with bugs that can be placed there by about 4 nations in the world technological-know-how-wise)? Or “bugged” like with the ECHOLON system that is used by the operating nations for industrial espionage??
I think the information we did give them was more or less aimed at pleasing the rest of the world.
And it failed to do that job. Try harder next time….
-
Any one of those should be grounds for regime change. He was on probation and we should have zero tolerance for ‘convicted criminals’. Argue the miniscule nuainces of semantics but he was the leader of a country who invaded a neighbour country and ultimately lost the war. He was on probation and failed several tests.
So, it is the cops duty to decide what is right or wrong, and not the jurys?
Since when does the world need the judge, cop and executioner in one person/nation? How does that fit into the values that are claimed to be defended by that nation?
How would the US react if …
say another permament member of the security council masses troops next to Israel, givign them an ultimatum to (a) get rid of all their WMDs and (b) leave all palestine territory? There are standing resolutions against Israel (and about a zillion blocked by the US veto)…
How would think of that? Would that be “legal”? Where is the judicial difference between these two? (i only ask for the judicial difference, nothing else, this is not about who is “better” or religiously more “fundamentalist” etc etc) -
And it failed to do that job. Try harder next time….
If I were the President, next time I’d tell ya to kiss my a-s-s.
So, it is the cops duty to decide what is right or wrong, and not the jurys?
The UN isn’t a jury. Sorry to disappoint you :(
Since when does the world need the judge, cop and executioner in one person/nation? How does that fit into the values that are claimed to be defended by that nation?
Since when does the world need an organization who’s aim is to become the single world government?
-
@Deviant:Scripter:
And it failed to do that job. Try harder next time….
If I were the President, next time I’d tell ya to kiss my a-s-s.?
well, he pretty much says that on a globel level anyway . . . .
So, it is the cops duty to decide what is right or wrong, and not the jurys?
The UN isn’t a jury. Sorry to disappoint you :( ?
i think the point is that the U.S. is acting both as cop and jury and is not a jury either . . . .
Since when does the world need the judge, cop and executioner in one person/nation? How does that fit into the values that are claimed to be defended by that nation?
Since when does the world need an organization who’s aim is to become the single world government?
well, the U.S. is more a nation than an organization, but i agree with you . . . .
-
Every system needs checks and balances. Who keeps tabs on the United States?
-
The US Congress (House of Representatives and Senate)
writes the checks (har de har har!)
Balance? Nobody! (Republican or Democrat.)
–----------------------------------------
:lol: Sorry :lol: , I coildn’t resist. :roll:
Suggested Topics
