and another appeaser shows up on stage.......Yeah lets forget about that whole resolution "crap", it only went round and round for a full decade but hey, you can't argue against the fact that Iraq broke the cease fire, so lets just forget it..LOLMoChief wrote:
Enough of the "Iraq was in violation of UN resolution # blah blah blah" crap. That's just a fancy way of saying we invaded because we wanted to.
Face it... Bush & company wanted this war. They needed a reason and justification. The UN talk was the best they could do.
Most people would prefer that intelligence impact the policy. Not the other way around. Of course, if you're an idealogue, the ends justifies the means.... so that's what we have here. Luckily for Bush in 2004, there are enough Lowing's out there that will suspend logical thinking in order to keep the notion alive that our dear leader is strong, smart, visionary, and whatever other flowery adjectives you'd like to throw in there. Of course, I'd like to think that Lowing actually knows that the Iraq war justification was a marketing job and that he's just spewing the administration line to play devil's advocate.
Who is appeasing who? Different topic from Iraq... but How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? 15?
Bush was kissing and holding hands with the Saudi King. Hmm... not only did he appease, he almost transmitted cooties to the guy.
We appease who we want and invade who we want. When you realize that, this will begin to make sense. If you have deluded yourself to thinking that our invasions are grounded in some high moral authority based on what a certain UN resolution said, I'd suggest you think some more about that.
Bush was kissing and holding hands with the Saudi King. Hmm... not only did he appease, he almost transmitted cooties to the guy.
We appease who we want and invade who we want. When you realize that, this will begin to make sense. If you have deluded yourself to thinking that our invasions are grounded in some high moral authority based on what a certain UN resolution said, I'd suggest you think some more about that.
Speaking of being in violation of UN resolutions, it appears Israel has a problem with #446:
(The Council) Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East; Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind it’s previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.
Are we appeasing Israel? No... we just don't want to invade them. Afterall... we give them a few billion dollars of support each year, are our closest ally in the region, etc. UN resolutions mean virtually nothing to us. UN resolutions are our bitch.... we care about them when we want.
(The Council) Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East; Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind it’s previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.
Are we appeasing Israel? No... we just don't want to invade them. Afterall... we give them a few billion dollars of support each year, are our closest ally in the region, etc. UN resolutions mean virtually nothing to us. UN resolutions are our bitch.... we care about them when we want.
Oh you mean territories acquired during the six day war when Israel, tired of the provocation by Egypt and the rest of the bordering countries, decided that they had enough of being fucked with, and took a preemptive strike against Egypt. The other countries joined in and it turned out, Israel handed all their asses to them. IN 6 DAYS.MoChief wrote:
Speaking of being in violation of UN resolutions, it appears Israel has a problem with #446:
(The Council) Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East; Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind it’s previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.
Are we appeasing Israel? No... we just don't want to invade them. Afterall... we give them a few billion dollars of support each year, are our closest ally in the region, etc. UN resolutions mean virtually nothing to us. UN resolutions are our bitch.... we care about them when we want.
Well, the UN, is the savior of most liberals, they want us to turn over our security to the UN so foreign countries who don't even like America can decide what is best for us.
I hate the UN, and I only refer to it and the resolutions, because that is the history and the facts behind this part of this discussion. It isn't cuz Bush wants to steal all the worlds damn oil
Last edited by lowing (2006-07-21 17:10:29)
Lowing wrote:
I hate the UN, and I only refer to it and the resolutions, because that is the history and the facts behind this part of this discussion. It isn't cuz Bush wants to steal all the worlds damn oil
That's right.... the UN is your bitch too. Use it when you want, disregard it when it's inconvenient.
I don't know if I can speak for 'most liberals' regarding the UN. I don't think I fall into the catgory of wanting to turn over our security to the UN though. But I think that what you are feeling is that most liberals do want someone other than a power hungry, sophomoric, talking with his mouth full, "bring 'em on... dead or alive", moron which is our president taking over security issues. He's proven himself to be ineffective. I can't think of one single region in the world that is more secure today than the day he took over the oval office in 2001. Not one.
I hate the UN, and I only refer to it and the resolutions, because that is the history and the facts behind this part of this discussion. It isn't cuz Bush wants to steal all the worlds damn oil
That's right.... the UN is your bitch too. Use it when you want, disregard it when it's inconvenient.
I don't know if I can speak for 'most liberals' regarding the UN. I don't think I fall into the catgory of wanting to turn over our security to the UN though. But I think that what you are feeling is that most liberals do want someone other than a power hungry, sophomoric, talking with his mouth full, "bring 'em on... dead or alive", moron which is our president taking over security issues. He's proven himself to be ineffective. I can't think of one single region in the world that is more secure today than the day he took over the oval office in 2001. Not one.
And whose deadline was that?lowing wrote:
they did not fully comply by the march 17 the dead line...Even fucking france admits that......They needed "just a little more time". Sorry time was up.
Sorry to hear that, how do you account for the lack of terror attacks in our country since 911, and the numerous foiled terror attacks.??MoChief wrote:
Lowing wrote:
I hate the UN, and I only refer to it and the resolutions, because that is the history and the facts behind this part of this discussion. It isn't cuz Bush wants to steal all the worlds damn oil
That's right.... the UN is your bitch too. Use it when you want, disregard it when it's inconvenient.
I don't know if I can speak for 'most liberals' regarding the UN. I don't think I fall into the catgory of wanting to turn over our security to the UN though. But I think that what you are feeling is that most liberals do want someone other than a power hungry, sophomoric, talking with his mouth full, "bring 'em on... dead or alive", moron which is our president taking over security issues. He's proven himself to be ineffective. I can't think of one single region in the world that is more secure today than the day he took over the oval office in 2001. Not one.
What foiled attacks? Like the kids in florida? Guess which one of the group suggested they attack someone, the undercover FBI agent. As more information came out, that case was falling apart, and was conveniently forgotten by the media. Or how about those Canadian terrorists, the ones that were "training" by playing airsoft.lowing wrote:
Sorry to hear that, how do you account for the lack of terror attacks in our country since 911, and the numerous foiled terror attacks.??MoChief wrote:
Lowing wrote:
I hate the UN, and I only refer to it and the resolutions, because that is the history and the facts behind this part of this discussion. It isn't cuz Bush wants to steal all the worlds damn oil
That's right.... the UN is your bitch too. Use it when you want, disregard it when it's inconvenient.
I don't know if I can speak for 'most liberals' regarding the UN. I don't think I fall into the catgory of wanting to turn over our security to the UN though. But I think that what you are feeling is that most liberals do want someone other than a power hungry, sophomoric, talking with his mouth full, "bring 'em on... dead or alive", moron which is our president taking over security issues. He's proven himself to be ineffective. I can't think of one single region in the world that is more secure today than the day he took over the oval office in 2001. Not one.
Not to mention there is more evidence for the theory that the 911 attack was an inside job by someone inside the american government. Two simple facts? 1. The alleged hijackers couldnt fly planes, as shown by their flight history. 2. Jet fuel can't possibly melt the steel in a skyscraper, skyscrapers burn down to the frame. Both these facts directly contradict the story fed to us by the government.
watch "loose change", and you should immediately be enlightened with my ideas on that...
It was set by the British and backed by the US and put up for a vote by the UN from what I read....but really, who gives a shit?? It was set, Iraq was breaking the cease fire they were warned by the UN and the US for 10 fucking years.....Stall tactics were not going to be entertained any longer.Bubbalo wrote:
And whose deadline was that?lowing wrote:
they did not fully comply by the march 17 the dead line...Even fucking france admits that......They needed "just a little more time". Sorry time was up.
And who restricts the US? The US goes around, telling everyone what to do, but who keeps them from stirring shit up?
What foiled attacks?? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00361.htmljonsimon wrote:
What foiled attacks? Like the kids in florida? Guess which one of the group suggested they attack someone, the undercover FBI agent. As more information came out, that case was falling apart, and was conveniently forgotten by the media. Or how about those Canadian terrorists, the ones that were "training" by playing airsoft.lowing wrote:
Sorry to hear that, how do you account for the lack of terror attacks in our country since 911, and the numerous foiled terror attacks.??MoChief wrote:
Lowing wrote:
I hate the UN, and I only refer to it and the resolutions, because that is the history and the facts behind this part of this discussion. It isn't cuz Bush wants to steal all the worlds damn oil
That's right.... the UN is your bitch too. Use it when you want, disregard it when it's inconvenient.
I don't know if I can speak for 'most liberals' regarding the UN. I don't think I fall into the catgory of wanting to turn over our security to the UN though. But I think that what you are feeling is that most liberals do want someone other than a power hungry, sophomoric, talking with his mouth full, "bring 'em on... dead or alive", moron which is our president taking over security issues. He's proven himself to be ineffective. I can't think of one single region in the world that is more secure today than the day he took over the oval office in 2001. Not one.
Not to mention there is more evidence for the theory that the 911 attack was an inside job by someone inside the american government. Two simple facts? 1. The alleged hijackers couldnt fly planes, as shown by their flight history. 2. Jet fuel can't possibly melt the steel in a skyscraper, skyscrapers burn down to the frame. Both these facts directly contradict the story fed to us by the government.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/ … 3075.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/ … index.html
I could go on and on but I think this will be good enough.
Did you get your "facts" about sky scrapers from Fahrenheit 911 or some shit?? Or some other conspiracy theory rag?
Believe me no American wants our nose out of your fucking business more than I do. The rest of you in the middle east or the EU could blow each other apart for all I give a shit, just don't come begging for help from us when you get over ran by another Hitler.Konfusion0 wrote:
And who restricts the US? The US goes around, telling everyone what to do, but who keeps them from stirring shit up?
You probably deserve it anyway. Any EU nation that actually holds David Hasselhoff as an international superstar deserves to be over ran.
actually, the spokesman for the company that made the steel said that...and for some 'mysterious reason' he was fired right afterwards...
Who ever did that?lowing wrote:
You probably deserve it anyway. Any EU nation that actually holds David Hasselhoff as an international superstar deserves to be over ran.
Anyway, no one actually attacks switzerland...maybe it's because of the alps...maybe it's because we have their money ...
As for Brazil, we have our allies.
And I live in the UK...remember monkey-boy-blair? Close buddy of bush, isn't he
You seriously see that as just cause for war? Israel sounds like one of those guys that shoots up his office building or school "he was picked on" "he decided he couldn't take it anymore" "he just snapped" ...frightening.lowing wrote:
when Israel, tired of the provocation by Egypt and the rest of the bordering countries, decided that they had enough of being fucked with, and took a preemptive strike against Egypt.
So it wasn't UN, therefore not applicable.lowing wrote:
It was set by the British and backed by the US and put up for a vote by the UN from what I read....but really, who gives a shit?? It was set, Iraq was breaking the cease fire they were warned by the UN and the US for 10 fucking years.....Stall tactics were not going to be entertained any longer.
Ah yes, the old "we should believe the people who have the greatest conflict of interests and greatest incentive to lie and bend facts" deal. Besides, the first link is the occurance i adressed, and as far as hundreds? Hah, like there are the resources to plot that many in such a short time span. And binladin? Don't forget, the CIA created and ran the taliban during the cold war, I see no reason they couldn't be calling up old associates. And these facts are true no matter the context. The government claimed the steel supports melted in the fire, but no skyscraper in history has ever melted from a fire. Not to mention, if the jet fuel burns so hot, why doesnt it melt the damn plane when it is BURNED for propulsion? Also, MIT students crunched the numbers and discovered that even if the tanks were full, and all the energy from burning the fuel was concentrated on one spot, it wouldnt melt the steel. However, thermite, a chemical readily avaliable to something like a government or military organization is known for its ability to burn through materials such as steel. What a coincidence that thermite was found on some steel in the wreckage of the towers. As for the hijackers, they couldn't fly even the smallest planes when they were in flight school, but they can pull off aerobatic maneuvers in boeing jets?lowing wrote:
What foiled attacks?? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00361.htmljonsimon wrote:
What foiled attacks? Like the kids in florida? Guess which one of the group suggested they attack someone, the undercover FBI agent. As more information came out, that case was falling apart, and was conveniently forgotten by the media. Or how about those Canadian terrorists, the ones that were "training" by playing airsoft.lowing wrote:
Sorry to hear that, how do you account for the lack of terror attacks in our country since 911, and the numerous foiled terror attacks.??
Not to mention there is more evidence for the theory that the 911 attack was an inside job by someone inside the american government. Two simple facts? 1. The alleged hijackers couldnt fly planes, as shown by their flight history. 2. Jet fuel can't possibly melt the steel in a skyscraper, skyscrapers burn down to the frame. Both these facts directly contradict the story fed to us by the government.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/ … 3075.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/ … index.html
I could go on and on but I think this will be good enough.
Did you get your "facts" about sky scrapers from Fahrenheit 911 or some shit?? Or some other conspiracy theory rag?
Want to hear more about this theory? Try this link http://www.st911.org/ its all about PROFESSORS and FACTS. And if you pass it off as a conspiracy theory, the governments story is a greater conspiracy theory. To think that 20 men could conspire to attack these three buildings with boxcutters? The passangers on the plane could have disarmed them with minimal injuries.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-07-21 20:56:17)
and you sound like the kid that doesn't defend himself against the school bully.......pathetic.Nomer wrote:
You seriously see that as just cause for war? Israel sounds like one of those guys that shoots up his office building or school "he was picked on" "he decided he couldn't take it anymore" "he just snapped" ...frightening.lowing wrote:
when Israel, tired of the provocation by Egypt and the rest of the bordering countries, decided that they had enough of being fucked with, and took a preemptive strike against Egypt.
UN voted on it bubbalo and it passed, less france and russiaBubbalo wrote:
So it wasn't UN, therefore not applicable.lowing wrote:
It was set by the British and backed by the US and put up for a vote by the UN from what I read....but really, who gives a shit?? It was set, Iraq was breaking the cease fire they were warned by the UN and the US for 10 fucking years.....Stall tactics were not going to be entertained any longer.
Ahhh, gotta love pointless conspiracy theories backed up by some "professor" out to sell a few books. Yeah, no way a couple dozen tons of metal flying at several hundred miles an hour could take down a building!!Naw, our buildings can withstand anything!!! Those planes weren't even a quarter the size of the tower, no way they brought it down!!! Thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning hot enough to warp steel? Nah, impossible!!! A massive, all encompasing plot by the government to kill 3,000 people in order to start a war? Even though that same government couldn't so much as hide the fact that the president was almost taken out by a pretzel? Yup, that sure sounds logical. Wow, glad we have people like you to show us the truth, yeah, fight the power man!!!!
LOL, god I love fuckin ignorance, makes life so much more amusing.
LOL, god I love fuckin ignorance, makes life so much more amusing.
General Assembly or Security Council?lowing wrote:
UN voted on it bubbalo and it passed, less france and russiaBubbalo wrote:
So it wasn't UN, therefore not applicable.lowing wrote:
It was set by the British and backed by the US and put up for a vote by the UN from what I read....but really, who gives a shit?? It was set, Iraq was breaking the cease fire they were warned by the UN and the US for 10 fucking years.....Stall tactics were not going to be entertained any longer.
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-07-21 22:09:16)
couple things wrong with this:jonsimon wrote:
Ah yes, the old "we should believe the people who have the greatest conflict of interests and greatest incentive to lie and bend facts" deal. Besides, the first link is the occurance i adressed, and as far as hundreds? Hah, like there are the resources to plot that many in such a short time span. And binladin? Don't forget, the CIA created and ran the taliban during the cold war, I see no reason they couldn't be calling up old associates. And these facts are true no matter the context. The government claimed the steel supports melted in the fire, but no skyscraper in history has ever melted from a fire. Not to mention, if the jet fuel burns so hot, why doesnt it melt the damn plane when it is BURNED for propulsion? Also, MIT students crunched the numbers and discovered that even if the tanks were full, and all the energy from burning the fuel was concentrated on one spot, it wouldnt melt the steel. However, thermite, a chemical readily avaliable to something like a government or military organization is known for its ability to burn through materials such as steel. What a coincidence that thermite was found on some steel in the wreckage of the towers. As for the hijackers, they couldn't fly even the smallest planes when they were in flight school, but they can pull off aerobatic maneuvers in Boeing jets?lowing wrote:
What foiled attacks?? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00361.htmljonsimon wrote:
What foiled attacks? Like the kids in florida? Guess which one of the group suggested they attack someone, the undercover FBI agent. As more information came out, that case was falling apart, and was conveniently forgotten by the media. Or how about those Canadian terrorists, the ones that were "training" by playing airsoft.
Not to mention there is more evidence for the theory that the 911 attack was an inside job by someone inside the american government. Two simple facts? 1. The alleged hijackers couldnt fly planes, as shown by their flight history. 2. Jet fuel can't possibly melt the steel in a skyscraper, skyscrapers burn down to the frame. Both these facts directly contradict the story fed to us by the government.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/ … 3075.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/ … index.html
I could go on and on but I think this will be good enough.
Did you get your "facts" about sky scrapers from Fahrenheit 911 or some shit?? Or some other conspiracy theory rag?
Want to hear more about this theory? Try this link http://www.st911.org/ its all about PROFESSORS and FACTS. And if you pass it off as a conspiracy theory, the governments story is a greater conspiracy theory. To think that 20 men could conspire to attack these three buildings with boxcutters? The passangers on the plane could have disarmed them with minimal injuries.
1. The terrorists were not doing "aerobatic maneuvers" in the airplanes.
2. It hardly takes a skilled pilot to crash an airplane.
3. The have the terrorists on the voice recorders.
4. An airplane WILL burn up, if the exhaust from the jet engine, or the burning fuel escapes the gas path. I give you the Concorde as the latest and greatest example.
5. Funny how fire can't get hot enough to melt metal, ( per your MIT students) yet blacksmiths have been around for thousands of years making all kindsa shit with molten metal, all from a fire the size of a fuckin' barbecue.
6. "Don't forget, the CIA created and ran the taliban during the cold war, I see no reason they couldn't be calling up old associates". <--------nothing but an opinion, no facts, so worthless.
7. So Bush conspired with Boeing, American Airlines and United Airlines to sacrifice their airplanes and employees and their reputations and their exposure to billions of dollars worth of laws suits so Bush could do what? Start a war with Iraq?? We are war mongers remember? we don't need an excuse to invade countries as I read every day on here. If Bush wanted to blow up the buildings as you insist, why use the airplanes if smart people like you would uncover the plot by doing a few google searches. Why not just do it and claim terrorism by planting bombs? gotta love the internet boy.
How was that the wrong thread? It is what is being discussed here between more then a few members.Bubbalo wrote:
Ah...........wrong thread Corithus..............General Assembly or Security Council?lowing wrote:
UN voted on it bubbalo and it passed, less france and russiaBubbalo wrote:
So it wasn't UN, therefore not applicable.
don't know or careBubbalo wrote:
Ah...........wrong thread Corithus..............General Assembly or Security Council?lowing wrote:
UN voted on it bubbalo and it passed, less france and russiaBubbalo wrote:
So it wasn't UN, therefore not applicable.