Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Litmus test for liberals
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108597] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 19:56   |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
I cannot believe you are this stupid.
You said I cannot use the self defense reason because I cannot use wmd as something to defend against.
I simply pointed out Iraq did not need wmd to attack us. I gave an example. Which was Japan. Your lack of brains did not allow you to figure that out.
BTW, I'm not going to attempt to explain this to you again.
|
lol, and who's making up what stuff now? Trying, and I stress the trying part, to make me look like an idiot doesn't work when you have to pull things out of thin air like this.
I in no way EVER stated that Iraq NEEDED WMD's to attack someone with. I never even implied it. What was it that I said again? Oh yes..
| Quote: |
Sure, you have the right to defend yourself from danger, however there was no threat of danger. You yourself said there was no real proof for or against the existance of WMD's, so that excuse is not valid as "self defence". In order for it to be construed self-defence, one thing must be present. A real and imminant danger.
|
Where in here did I say Iraq NEEDED to use WMD's? nowhere. Did I say Japan would use WMD's? Nope. Did I imply WMD's were the only reason someone could go to war? Nope.
Did I imply that WMD's were a reason the United States used for going to war? Most certainly! Did I imply that using self-defence (as is the only legal way one Member state can attack someone) as a clause could work? Sure! Did I Imply that the WMD's were not a valid reason for self-defence? Of course!
Did I imply that there were other reasons self-defence could be used as an excuse? Sure! Does that include WMD's? Yup. Does self-defence include traditional war that Japan used at Pearl Harbor? Of course!
Was there proof that Iraq was going to use traditional warfare to attack America? None!
And now the more important point I had made, that you completely missed. Is there WMD's that Iraq could use? Inconclusive. Therefore with no proof of a traditional attack, and an argument that America used to go to war including WMD's, I stated that WMD's could NOT be used as an excuse for self defence as it is inconclusive as to their existance.
What was so hard about this to understand that you had to go and make up things in an attempt to make me look bad? Are you THAT much of a sore looser?
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108603] |
Tue, 17 August 2004 21:22 |
|
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| hydra1945 |
| warranto |
WHO CARES if it is Saddam who is nuking the world, it DOES NOT give a member state the right to invade another member state without the approval of the United Nations.
|
Four words: Oil-for-Food scandal
You're going to trust the UN?
I think it's about time that corrupt, spineless organization was disbanded. If two countries have a dispute, let them work it out. For example, why should Japan or Indonesia have a say in Israel's affairs? It's not going to affect them in any way if Israel builds a security barrier, it's none of their business, so why should they be able to tell Israel "We condemn you for building that wall!" if Israel didn't even ask their opinion?
The United Nations is not a world government even though that's what it's trying to be.
|
Ordinarily you would be right. However in this instance, time and time again, tyhe United Nations reaffirmend Iraqs soverignty and terrotorial integrity. this meaning no one had a right to violate it. Because of this, no other nation had the right to violate Iraqs territory, save one exception. Self-Defence. Now because as far as people were concerned Iraq was in the process of disarming, and America was under no threat of attack (of any type) from Iraq. Because of this, there was no reason for self-defence to be called.
Now with that said, if proof of a threat of attack had existed (meaning Iraq was going to send bombers over to America, or use other unconventional means) then self defence could be declared. keep in mind, if proof is found after the war begins, it may justify the war, but it would make the war any less illegal, as the war was started under illegal pretences.
Regardless of the United Nations "World Government" intentions, it does have a charter that Member States have to adhere to. True, based on this charter, Iraq was also commiting illegal offences, however as the saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right, and America had no right to violate Iraqs terrotory. Even if it had used Iraqs illegal activities as a reason.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108632] |
Wed, 18 August 2004 02:58 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I'm glad that you made the only intelligent opposing post in this thread on the matter, NukeIt15.
| NukeIt15 |
Yes, there are rules nations are expected to follow as members of the UN. However, I think you'll find that there aren't any nations that are willing to give up authority for any decision to anyone other than their own government. Not the US, not France, nor Russia, Great Britain, China, Germany, etc.
|
I would have to agree. It's pretty appearent after the attacks of 19 March 2003 that this idea is blantantly true. But you have to understand, and I don't mean to say this to be redundant, but the people that signed the Charter to come into the U.N. agreed to those terms. I'm not talking about "authority" or morality here. I'm talking strictly on the legal sense. In fact, I know exactly where you are coming from when you say the "U.S. supercedes the U.N.", and when I see that, I'm getting the distinct idea of two recognized international policies. However, even if it went through Congress "legally" as far as the United States goes, you have to admit that it did not go through the United Nations legally. Again, if it did, please prove it instead of pulling a Nodbugger and throwing around misinformation and FOXNews generated "opinion".
| Quote: |
The UN is NOT a government. Any time a nation decides that the UN is not acting in their best interests, you can be damned sure they can and will look after themselves with or without support. As far as the US government is concerned, this country's interests come BEFORE those of the UN. The US constitution and the laws supporting it supercede any resolution the UN puts forth. I am far beyond certain that if you looked deep enough, you would find that your own country has the same policy.
|
I would also agree that the United Nation isn't a government. It's an international organization. But, I am curious... Where in your constitutation does it imply what you said? Not to disagree with you, but I would just like to see your view on the matter in better depth.
| Quote: |
That is the reason why the US became a member of the UN, and not the League of Nations before it- the League had the authority to tell its members whether or not they could go to war, the UN can not do that.
|
Uh, I'm not sure about this one. The League of Nations was probably more blunt when they said it, but the United Nations does have the authority to "ask" its Member States to assist. Resolution 678 says:
"2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"
Again, its not as blunt, but it does authorize Member States to go to war, if necessary. Note that resolution doesn't say that you can go to war unconditionally, Nodbugger.
| Quote: |
Please understand that I don't like how the US governemnt basically gave the UN the cold shoulder, but also understand that I am-and always will be- loyal to my own country before the UN.
|
Oh, I would agree with you. The fact of the matter is though, if you're going to do something like that to such a widely recognized international organization, that SEVERE international criticism will follow. And it is totally warranted, and I think you can agree with me on that given the fact that the United States (and many others) chose to disregard policies that countries such as mine were abiding to.
| Quote: |
There probably were better ways to go about getting rid of Saddam, but it is clear(to me, at least) that the UN was never going to do a damn thing about him-
|
I don't know about as far as usurping control of Iraq, but the United Nations WAS doing something about the abundance of weapons he had after the Gulf War. It is totally undeniable that Blix was actually doing something with UNMOVIC up to mere days before the Shock and Awe campaign. I posted a Quarterly Report on the matter in a previous thread, and if you want it, I'll get it again.
As far as getting Saddam out of power... Whether or not the United Nations would have done that, I don't know. There were humanitarian resolutions on the matter which may or may not have led up to authorizing states to taking him from power. It's impossible to say what would have happened nowadays, though.
As for Nodbugger: I'm sorry that you feel that way. Your misinformed, disillusioned view of the world is the reason that people like Rush Limbaugh write articles on "hatred" for America. Guess what kid, you are wrong. It has been proven time and time again and you are simply to arrogent to acknowledge anything that opposes your tunnel-like vision of the world and your president.
You think you are doing the right thing by invoking, by all definitions, terrorism on Iraq, well, I hate to break it to you, but Usama Bin Laden thought that what he was doing was good, too.
Does that mean what he did wasn't illegal? I mean, according to you, laws are only guidelines. Attacking proptery on foreign soil, causing the deaths of innocent people, and all in the name of a "just cause".
That seems to me like it can be used interchangibly with what happened on March 19th, 2003. Oh well.
At any rate, I highly suggest you rethink your opinions. Any sane person, and every sane person here has disagreed with you on these matters. My God, REPUBLICANS in this thread have disagreed with you.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108640] |
Wed, 18 August 2004 04:32 |
 |
ViperFUD
Messages: 69
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Here, nodbugger. I have an analogy for you.
I don't like you. You're an idiot. You are a danger to those around you, because you could infect them with your stupidity.
Therefore, I am going to kill you. I feel it is the right thing to do. And, after you're dead, warranto will probably tell me it was illegal. Now, i'm going to argue that it was the right thing to do, and therefore not illegal. And obviously, since the US couldn't stop me, either it WASN'T illegal, or the US is outdated. Also, the Japanese killed people once, so maybe you were going to kill me. It was self-defense.
Recognize this argument at all?
And if you don't understand what I'm saying, you've only proven my point that you're an idiot.
P.S. I'm not actually going to kill you. I know it's illegal, and wouldn't kill you even if it were legal. I feel the worst punishment that could be inflicted on you would be for you to have to live with your own stupidity.
And shepherds we shall be,
For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from thy hand;
That our feet may swiftly carry out thy command.
And we shall flow a river forth to thee,
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108678] |
Wed, 18 August 2004 09:19 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Ok, I'm not exactly sure what the hell you just tried to get across there but I'll cope.
Article 51 says:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Nothing in that statement says anything about being legally allowed to pre-empting an attack. It says you may act after the matter of fact, but not before. Sounds pretty stupid, don't you think? I would agree with you on that one. The Russian president saying that someone will attack doesn't validate this article, legally. Irregardless of United States law, if this Article isn't upheld, then the act is illegal in accordance with the international laws that your country agreed to.
I bet you, and a lot of individuals probably feel pretty stupid reading that after you get a warning from Putin. Oh, and before you go off on another of your little tirades, set aside your annoying off topic "morality" and look at this from strictly a legal aspect. That is, of course, if you've learned that laws aren't guidelines that only need to be upheld if you feel them just.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| You 5. [message #108682] |
Wed, 18 August 2004 09:48 |
|
ViperFUD
Messages: 69
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
And you people call me an idiot?
|
Yes, because you are. And this post of yours proves it.
| Nodbugger |
I'd re read all of your posts.
|
I doubt it, but only because I doubt you can actually read. This is evidenced by the fact that as of today, you still have yet to understand a single thing that's been said to you.
| Nodbugger |
1. Yo said there were no wmd, so there cannot be an imminent threat so you cannot say self defense. If you are going to say Bush was grammatically incorrect then you are grammatically incorrect.
|
Your first sentence is almost correct. It should read: "You said there were no WMD, so there was no 'imminent threat,' so Bush could not claim self-defense." This would be both logical and correct.
I have no fucking clue what the second sentence has to do with anything.
| Nodbugger |
2. Putin said Iraq was going to attack us. It is on every news source possible. but you only listen to obviously biased sources so you will never receive this information.
|
Yes. Iraq was going to attack us. They were going to load up their donkeys, swim across the fucking atlantic, and somehow attack us.
WTF is this logic? How the hell, if they have no WMD's (and the missile chassis to carry them) are they going to attack us? I mean, ignoring the fact that they could sponsor terrorists, and kill maybe 3000 American's (ala Towers Attack), how can they visit any destruction on us that would do anything?
And besides, if they did that, we'd fucking pave their asses into the desert. Nothing like "operation Iraqi Freedom." It would be "Operation bomb-the-shit-out-of-Iraq." The difference? a zero survival rate.
Don't get me wrong. I love America (or at least, the idea of America). If anyone attacks us, I say kill them all. HOWEVER: Iraq did nothing of the sort. We were in the wrong, legally, and, IMO, morally.
THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS.
fuck you and die.
And shepherds we shall be,
For thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from thy hand;
That our feet may swiftly carry out thy command.
And we shall flow a river forth to thee,
And teeming with souls shall it ever be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108736] |
Wed, 18 August 2004 11:41 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
When the big dogs of the UN are deep in Saddam's back pocket for lots of money, their objectivity goes away. France and others had lots of money to lose if Saddam lost power and they voted for their own benefit because they don't give a flying fuck about America or Americans. They failed to act objectively and were selfish instead.
A law enforcement entity is only as good as its law enforcement capabilities. Unless all the other UN countries want to declare war on the US or capture Bush and try him for these "crimes" and put him in jail, then the UN itself is useless as a law making authority and hence worthless.
Overall, I would have done the same thing. Saddam blatantly violated all the resolutions for the cease fire agreement, therefore he needed to be taken care of. He had 12 fucking years to prove to the UN that he was disarmed. If he had truly disarmed, don't you think he would have shown the inspectors that instead of concealing his disarmament? Logically it makes sense that those weapons are somewhere if not in Iraq.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108769] |
Wed, 18 August 2004 14:13 |
 |
Gizbotvas
Messages: 172
Registered: February 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Crimson |
When the big dogs of the UN are deep in Saddam's back pocket for lots of money, their objectivity goes away. France and others had lots of money to lose if Saddam lost power and they voted for their own benefit because they don't give a flying fuck about America or Americans. They failed to act objectively and were selfish instead.
|
Wow.
Saddam ran France? The way Haliburton runs the US?
France told us to wait, to not invade because they didn't think Iraq had nukes. They were right. Let me say that again- FRANCE WAS RIGHT and WE WERE WRONG. So go ahead and insult the French, eat your "Freedom Fries" and make Frog jokes. Whatever you do, DO NOT APOLOGIZE to them. Just because they were correct, and it turns out there was no immediate threat as the French told us, just because there were no WMDs as the French told us, just because Iraq had no capabliltiy of attacking the US as the French told us is no reason to back peddle now. No reason to embrace the French and admit we were wrong. We are never wrong.
And as your your ridiculous statement:
| Quote: |
they (France)don't give a flying fuck about America or Americans
|
LOL, they did help us found the country. Remember a little something called the French-Indian War? America would not exist without the Financial, Political, and Military support of France. We wouldn't even be here today.
Bah, Fuck Em anyway, right?
"Everyone relax...Gizbotvas is here"
Pits moderator
n00bserver moderator
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108780] |
Wed, 18 August 2004 14:59 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
This is my problem with the common thought that France is in it only for the money, and nothing more:
You're making out the french to be capitalistic, soulless, and without rational thought for saying "don't go to war because we still think that UNMOVIC is working". Then you're saying that the French only said THAT because they were getting money from Saddam and impling that the French don't care for humanity at all. While it's arguable to say that, you have to understand that war was NOT the reason the United Nations came to be in the first place. And I quote:
"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind..."
I agree that it is coincidental, and maybe even suspicious that most, if not all countries opposed to the war on March 19th 2003 would profit from Saddam being in power, however, that does not equate to the sole reason why those countries opposed this war. I suggest you read this and/or this to read what they actually said on the matter. After you're done that, if you do read it, please read this, this, this, and/or this to hear what the rest of the world had to say on the matter. I garuntee you that not every single country that spoke in those meetings was making money off Saddam.
Now, if you suggest that they are all lying (or passing on misinformation) when they talk, then I will call the United States and the United Kingdom on their faulty intelligence on the matter. Something, too, which can equate to misinformation being passed off as fact. Also something you can blame on the United States and the United Kingdom (not their leaders, per se, but their intelligence gathering institutions).
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108812] |
Wed, 18 August 2004 19:36 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Gizbotvas |
France told us to wait, to not invade because they didn't think Iraq had nukes. They were right. Let me say that again- FRANCE WAS RIGHT and WE WERE WRONG.
|
| Quote: |
just because there were no WMDs as the French told us
|
Both of those statements about WMDs are untrue. Iraq DID have WMDs. Where do you think those insurgents got that sarin-filled mortar shell, and did those 10-20 sarin gas mortar shells the Polish found just pop out from nowhere? How about another cache of sarin gas the Marines found just a few weeks ago? Isn't sarin nerve gas a weapon of mass destruction?
| Quote: |
LOL, they did help us found the country. Remember a little something called the French-Indian War? America would not exist without the Financial, Political, and Military support of France. We wouldn't even be here today.
|
You seem to be forgetting the hundreds of American merchant ships that were raided by French ships (French NAVY ships, not rogue pirates) during Adams's presidency. We kept telling them to stop, they kept replying with a middle finger. War was imminent, but the young nation wouldn't have been able to sustain a large-scale war with one of the world's superpowers of the time, so Adams sent over a peace delegation to France to straighten things out, averting a war that would have possibly destroyed the United States.
Yeah, the French are really noble and have always been our friends, haven't they? :rolleyes:
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108834] |
Thu, 19 August 2004 00:16 |
NHJ BV
Messages: 712
Registered: February 2003
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
|
Besides, you can kill more with regular explosives than with those 5 leftover Sarin shells. I doubt Saddam even knew about those, his whole military administration was a mess.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108935] |
Thu, 19 August 2004 11:43 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Actually, most of the "WMD" experts prefer to call them "Weapons of Mass Terror." They scare more people than they would ever be capable of killing. Chemical weapons are limited by how they are spread- if the wind goes in the wrong direction, or the river you plop it in gets filtered 50m downstream, the weapon is useless. Bio and Nuclear weapons are a different story, as both of those are capable of killing massive numbers of people. However, the same holds true- the fear factor of so-called "WMD's" far exceeds their actual combat value.
Oh, and sarin is not a gas. Liquid form, geniuses, it's not any more in gas form than the stuff that comes out of an aerosol hairspray can.
That said, Saddam was in posession of several weapon types that were forbidden to him, including several hidden long range interceptor aircraft and- surprise, surprise- mobile MRBM launchers(Russian-built ballistic missile systems more commonly known as SCUDs). He USED several of those missile launchers during the invasion.
Now, any half bright chimp could draw a logical conclusion from all this. Let's put together the facts:
* Ballistic missile launching systems
* Shells filled with chemical weapons(It does not matter how many- they were there, in Saddam's country, therefore he DID have them)
* Nuclear-capable long range fighters
Honestly, I do not understand how people can continue to argue that Saddam did not have such weapons or the means to deliver them. As for anything that has not yet been found, well, there's a couple thousand square miles of Iraq that still haven't been searched. Ok, so we have our madman, we have our "smoking gun"(or more accurately, smoking ballistic missile launchers), so why in the fuck are people trying to call off the search before finding the ammunition?
Looking at this from the "objective" point of view that you people seem to brag about so much, doesn't it make a whole lot more sense to finish the search before drawing conclusions?
As for the France thing- You're damn right they were in it for personal gain. They were looking after their nation's interests just the same as we were. Our interests conflicted, and that's all there is to it. Simple, huh? That doesn't make their decision a bad one(hell, even the US supported that bastard at one point, under a different administration)- not from their point of view. I highly doubt that the entire country of France was sitting there drinking wine and plotting the undoing of the US the night before they opposed us in the UN. The same goes for every country that opposed the US, and every country that went to war. Neither side did what they did because "it was the right thing to do", they did it because it was what (they thought) was best for their country at the time.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108950] |
Thu, 19 August 2004 12:37 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 |
Actually, most of the "WMD" experts prefer to call them "Weapons of Mass Terror." They scare more people than they would ever be capable of killing.
|
A little off topic, but these same "weapons of terror" (however those "experts" want to define it) are probably what kept the United States and Russia from blasting each other. It pertains no relevance to Saddam, but condemning the same weapons (or at least having that kind of connotation) that probably saved all of our lives seems a bit strange.
| Quote: |
That said, Saddam was in posession of several weapon types that were forbidden to him, including several hidden long range interceptor aircraft and- surprise, surprise- mobile MRBM launchers(Russian-built ballistic missile systems more commonly known as SCUDs). He USED several of those missile launchers during the invasion.
|
I'm curious, could you get some proof about those MRBMs? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just I would prefer to have some confirmation.
As for the illegal weapons, it's true. He does/did have weapons deemed "illegal" by the United Nations. Read this, the 13th Quarterly Report from UNMOVIC. It should tell you exactly what Saddam still had in terms of illegal weapons reported to the UNMOVIC. But don't forget, these same people watching Saddam disarm were the same people that had to evacuate the country while doing their job only a day (I believe) before the S&A campaign. If you were in the same place as Iraq, would you keep disarming after and during a full scale invasion?
| Quote: |
Ok, so we have our madman, we have our "smoking gun"(or more accurately, smoking ballistic missile launchers), so why in the fuck are people trying to call off the search before finding the ammunition?
|
Heh, no one said anything about stopping the search. The United States and their allies went into Iraq for the reason to disarm those weapons. It's bad enough they by all definitions and semantics violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq from March 19th 2003 onwards, but they can't simply pack up on go. It would be hypocritical and morally wrong to leave that society in more shambles than it was when Saddam was in power.
| Quote: |
Looking at this from the "objective" point of view that you people seem to brag about so much, doesn't it make a whole lot more sense to finish the search before drawing conclusions?
|
Well, it's equally arguable to say the same thing to the intelligence communities that screwed up, right?
| Quote: |
As for the France thing- You're damn right they were in it for personal gain. They were looking after their nation's interests just the same as we were.
|
I sincerely hope you haven't concluded that France and opposers to the war were in it for personal gain only. If you have, then I'm sorry to say but you are wrong. It might surprise you, but other people have principles as well, and they don't always revolve around money. Canada did not send their troops to Iraq, but we thus far have given over $300,000,000 to the Iraqi people for humanitarian reasons since this war began. We gain nothing from Saddam being in power, and risk quite a lot by not supporting one of our closest allies in their unlawful invasion.
| Quote: |
Neither side did what they did because "it was the right thing to do", they did it because it was what (they thought) was best for their country at the time.
|
You said "at the time". With Saddam out of power, and any influx of funds going to France because of Saddam (as so many people seem to believe) stopped, why aren't the French, in full force assisting in Iraq now (I'm NOT referring to the humanitarian efforts of the United Nations, btw)? Why isn't Canada? Why isn't Russia?
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
[Updated on: Thu, 19 August 2004 14:17] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108953] |
Thu, 19 August 2004 13:40 |
Phoenix - Aeon
Messages: 221
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
I love the argument about how Saddam was going to attack us all with WMDs. You do realise that an ICBM needs to have sattelite targetting don't you? How many sattelites do you think Saddam had? WMDs were never an issue to us, only to Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia, all of whom happen to be about as much interest to the northern hemisphere as the oil they produce....
As for France, they slate England saying we were in the war for oil, personally I have no idea why we were in the war, I do however know something about where certain countries obtain most of their oil: England - North Sea; France Iraq. To top that off as soon as the war's over France demands a say in the "re-building" of the country, coincidence? Then again, they might just have been trying to piss us off, it's not as if we're not equal arseholes to them.
My thoughts; it's all fucked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108984] |
Thu, 19 August 2004 16:36 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Yeah, and Saddam could provide a terrorist with a flight to some remote island in the Carribean and some weapons? Or how about all that many he has? The 9/11 terrorists didn't need weapons, just money to get training and housing/board.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108992] |
Thu, 19 August 2004 18:55 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Nodbugger - don't get any political views from Fiction movies.
First, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Ok, just clarifying.
Why would Saddam want to finance anything that would attack the United States? First, there was nothing showing that he was an imminent threat to the United States, and he would only concieve such a ridiculous idea out of severe insanity. He knew as well as we did that we could pound his country into the ground in about 5 minutes if he was involved in a major attack on our soil.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108994] |
Thu, 19 August 2004 19:14 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
A little off topic, but these same "weapons of terror" (however those "experts" want to define it) are probably what kept the United States and Russia from blasting each other. It pertains no relevance to Saddam, but condemning the same weapons (or at least having that kind of connotation) that probably saved all of our lives seems a bit strange.
|
The fear of those weapons was what made them the most useful, I agree. Mutually assured destruction. However, there are enough of the damn things around already to wipe out all life on Earth several times over, and IMHO it is far better to have any existing weapons in the hands of countries which are not willing to use them(or lose them!).
| Quote: |
I'm curious, could you get some proof about those MRBMs? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just I would prefer to have some confirmation.
|
I had been watching live news reports of the invasion when the SCUDs first came up- IIRC, Saddam's troops fired on Kuwait with them from well inside the Iraqi border. I'm pretty sure it was CNN I was watching- if I have the time tomorrow, I'll try to find a write-up of the story. In case you get around to looking before I do, the event took place within about 12-24 hours of the beginning of the invasion.
| Quote: |
Well, it's equally arguable to say the same thing to the intelligence communities that screwed up, right?
|
The intelligence community DID screw up. The director of the CIA lost his job over it- officially he resigned for "personal reasons," however it is well known that all government officials hand the President signed (but undated) resignation letters before taking office. They do that so the administration can fire any person at any time without looking bad for it.
| Quote: |
I sincerely hope you haven't concluded that France and opposers to the war were in it for personal gain only. If you have, then I'm sorry to say but you are wrong. It might surprise you, but other people have principles as well, and they don't always revolve around money. Canada did not send their troops to Iraq, but we thus far have given over $300,000,000 to the Iraqi people for humanitarian reasons since this war began. We gain nothing from Saddam being in power, and risk quite a lot by not supporting one of our closest allies in their unlawful invasion.
|
Sad as it may be, no country makes decisions of that significance without there being some gain in it for them. That includes France, the US, and everyone else as well. Morality may play some part, but it is the money and security that really drive such choices.
| Quote: |
You said "at the time". With Saddam out of power, and any influx of funds going to France because of Saddam (as so many people seem to believe) stopped, why aren't the French, in full force assisting in Iraq now (I'm NOT referring to the humanitarian efforts of the United Nations, btw)? Why isn't Canada? Why isn't Russia?
|
Simple. With Saddam gone, there is no money to be made. Sending troops would do nothing to augment the country's income or security- and assisting the insurgents would only ruin the already shaky US-France or US-Russia alliances.
| Quote: |
I love the argument about how Saddam was going to attack us all with WMDs. You do realise that an ICBM needs to have sattelite targetting don't you? How many sattelites do you think Saddam had? WMDs were never an issue to us, only to Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia, all of whom happen to be about as much interest to the northern hemisphere as the oil they produce....
|
You, sir, need to read more. Or watch more TV. Or do something- your information is inadequate at best.
*First-An ICBM does not *need* to be targeted at all- it could be purchased having already been configured by someone else. The missile guides itself, and needs no outside assistance once launched.
*Second- We aren't talking about ICBM's(InterContinental Ballistic Missiles), we're talking about MRBM's(Medium Range Ballistic Missiles). Biiig difference. Most ICBM's go all thge way up into Earth orbit before hitting their targets, while an MRBM(such as a SCUD launcher) may only reach as high as the Stratosphere- around cruising altitude for commercial jetliners.
I won't even answer the part about oil, since this war never had anything to do with oil in the first place- a fact which has been established time and time again.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Litmus test for liberals [message #108998] |
Thu, 19 August 2004 20:26 |
|
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Since we (thankfully) agree on so much, I don't need to quote everything you wrote and attempt to refute it. 
| Quote: |
Sad as it may be, no country makes decisions of that significance without there being some gain in it for them. That includes France, the US, and everyone else as well. Morality may play some part, but it is the money and security that really drive such choices.
|
Well, you're right. Canada, for example gained nothing from Saddam, and would've gained nothing from attacking him. But we certainly did lose something for NOT attacking with the Coalition of the Willing. We've lost over $300,000,000 as I've stated, in covering humanitarian relief, and our international relationship with the United States takes a beating. So whether or not that balances out, I don't know.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 11 13:45:28 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01991 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
