Iraq Tribute

Not my #s…
just my emphasis!
:-P

:-)

Well Smith?

I’m still waiting for the quoting of my stance on tech, as you so arbitrarily claimed existed.

@F_alk:

Why do the US have to implement another CIA funded (former?) really violent man/terrorist as a president? … that does not sound like a steep learning curve.

You referring to Bush or Zahwar?

Bush nor any other prez is CIA funded as Far as I know… Why would they?

So I assume you mean Zahwar?

GG

I find it funny how you understood and quoted the sentence.
Let me requote my interpretation which is differing by 100% from your view.

The Arab world has seethed whenever the United States used its U.N. veto – as it has done with frequency – to quash efforts to send international observers into the Palestinian territories or halt the construction of Israeli settlements.

I really wonder from where you took the Chuzpe to skip some important parts of the sentence.

@Mr:

I disagree a bit here. I don’t think this war is a question of legal or illegal.
I don’t think you can sum up this war in one question at all. It is a clouded and complicated iusse.

It truly is, and everyone has different emphasises of importance on different questions on that issue.

If one is going to agrue the legality of this war than one has to say that action in Kosovo was illegal and should not have been done. The UN, as a body, did not approve it. However, the question is was it the right thing to do? I would think yes.

But the situation was different: First it was NATO going in, second the UN later de facto approved the action.

in circles?

[blackest sarcasm]
Well, probably, you don’t mind the sporadic terror attacks targeted against the US then either
[\blackest sarcasm]

Well, F_alk, you do bring up an interesting theory. :D

I don’t see a need to threaten shooting someone. That’s not my point. My point is not to threaten them, but simply to make it known that they person holding the gun to your head is not going to come out of the situation in one piece either. If that’s not a deterrent to attack, I don’t know what is. Think of it as “self-defense.”

In your last part, if you’re referring to Iraq, then that’s a different situation. That so-called “unarmed” person is not really unarmed. He’s simply hiding his weapon underneath his jacket. In that case, you can try to “talk” to him (which we did with Saddam) but if he won’t listen, you’ve got to draw the line somewhere, and show him who’s boss.

All I can say is, “This is amazing.” I can’t help but chuckle. :lol: