BF2S Forums Will the America/Israel haters please take note.

Its hard to see the "positive"  and be "joyous" now, especially when this meeting which is being called was:

A. Not initiated by the US
B. Comes at a time when the US has been ramping up its rhetoric against Iran
C. Afghanistan is going bonkers


This is the reason for skepticism, not because he hates the individual, on the contrary he probably hates his policy. His policy has been of unilateral action which has alienated our allies and foes alike. Hence the skepticism. There is no problem in what will come, but i find it highly unlikely that one can thank the US for these talks being pushed forward if anything we can thank the US for not stopping them, and yes this is a reason to be thankful.

Bubbalo wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

12 years of UN diplomacy and countless resolutions sure as hell didn't matter as well.

Then why weren't there any WMDs?

If he would have complied with the resolutions then we would have known positively and a case for war would have been impossible to make. For years Iraq would not give free access to UN inspectors who were in Iraq to ensure that Iraq no longer had poison gas or a nuclear weapons program. Saddam could have stopped an invasion completely without a single shot being fired if he would have followed the UN resolutions. It was Saddam who rejected diplomacy.

Bubbalo wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

This is not to say Iraq was an an immediate threat but to say there was no diplomacy is inaccurate also.

That's not what I said.  I said the US did not pursue a diplomatic solution.

Again, The US did via the UN for years prior.

Bubbalo wrote:

So, you're arguing that Saddam must have had WMDs because otherwise we would have known he didn't?  Despite the fact that the evidence used was flimsy at best, and much of it was later proven to be fabricated?

And the US didn't try to achieve it's aims diplomatically through the UN, as if it's aim was very clearly to force regime change.

No I'm arguing that diplomacy was attempted.

Again, for 12 years there was no talk of war. Saddam could have shut everyone up by complying with the UN resolutions (The resolutions which the US had a great part in). It would have been impossible for the President to sell a case for war to Congress if Saddam had cooperated. We are arguing whether or not there were diplomatic attempts prior, not at the incompetence of the intelligence. Don't lose focus Bub. Saddam took a fat dump on diplomacy and the UN for a great many years. He had a chance to alter his fate.

PS: You might tell the UK to get the fabricated evidence off their websites.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page275.asp
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page277.asp

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-02 03:31:34)

Kmarion wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

So, you're arguing that Saddam must have had WMDs because otherwise we would have known he didn't?  Despite the fact that the evidence used was flimsy at best, and much of it was later proven to be fabricated?

And the US didn't try to achieve it's aims diplomatically through the UN, as if it's aim was very clearly to force regime change.

No I'm arguing that diplomacy was attempted.

Again, for 12 years there was no talk of war. Saddam could have shut everyone up by complying with the UN resolutions (The resolutions which the US had a great part in). It would have been impossible for the President to sell a case for war to Congress if Saddam had cooperated. We are arguing whether or not there were diplomatic attempts prior, not at the incompetence of the intelligence. Don't lose focus Bub. Saddam took a fat dump on diplomacy and the UN for a great many years. He had a chance to alter his fate.

PS: You might tell the UK to get the fabricated evidence off their websites.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page275.asp
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page277.asp

QFE

Jainus wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

PS: You might tell the UK to get the fabricated evidence off their websites.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page275.asp
http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page277.asp

Actually as a Brit I'm glad that they haven't tried to squirrel away the documents that led them to war. Whether they are accurate or not, the links you've posted show what they thought at the time, and by keeping the "evidence" accessible to the public they have helped to lift the fog on what went on.

I agree, I was being facetious in trying to show that it was not only the US that had the evidence.

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Pug wrote:

My assumption is that you cannot see anything positive, period.

About America?  I do.  About Bush?  I don't.

So to sum up:
1) There is a diplomatic envoy going over to talk with Syria and Iran.  Iran has absolutely no diplomatic relations with the US.  Syria has some, but it's not that great.  So talking with these two countries instead of sabre rattling is an extremely positive step.
and 2) Ignore number one because Bush sucks.

Makes absolute sense to me.  We should always strive to condemn our leaders based on which political party we favor, much like we condemn our uncle who is attending alcoholics anonymous.

I said it before, it's a huge step.  But I don't think this is Bush's initiative.  I don't align with parties, only with persons.  I like Clinton not coz he's Dem or lib, I just like the guy.  I don't like Bush coz of him, not coz of his party.  If GWB is learning from his mistakes, good for him then.

Pug wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Pug wrote:

So to sum up:
1) There is a diplomatic envoy going over to talk with Syria and Iran.  Iran has absolutely no diplomatic relations with the US.  Syria has some, but it's not that great.  So talking with these two countries instead of sabre rattling is an extremely positive step.
and 2) Ignore number one because Bush sucks.

Makes absolute sense to me.  We should always strive to condemn our leaders based on which political party we favor, much like we condemn our uncle who is attending alcoholics anonymous.

I said it before, it's a huge step.  But I don't think this is Bush's initiative.  I don't align with parties, only with persons.  I like Clinton not coz he's Dem or lib, I just like the guy.  I don't like Bush coz of him, not coz of his party.  If GWB is learning from his mistakes, good for him then.

Oh good, so I got it right.

So:
1) Bush is responsible for all the bad things because he approves the plans.
2) Bush is not responsible for all the good things because he approves the plans.

Your logic sickens me.

Perhaps my English is crap, but did you read what I wrote?
If GWB is learning from his mistakes, good for him.