MEDDLE in the ME Cam? Is this what you are suggesting. I kinda was thinking all of these years that you were against the US sticking its nose in the affairs of other countries.CameronPoe wrote:
OK then don't sanction them or publicly reprimand them. Continue sucking their knob. Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in your nation, massively. Quietly and diplomatically threaten to seize their assets or make their investments less 'fruitful' unless they play ball. Cease military co-operation/sales - that would make them sit up and take notice. There are more carrots and sticks than direct intervention you guys. Shit PR exercises would suffice - have Obama clearly address the international media to call upon America's ally Saudi Arabia to disavow Wahabiism and embrace more a modern and tolerant branch of Islam. It would be quite difficult for the Saudis to stand up and say 'No, we like cutting peoples heads off'. They're meant to be on your side - they should demonstrate that no? Don't they want to rid themelves of such problems - it's in their own interest....usmarine wrote:
he forgets euros suck russian knob.......lowing wrote:
and what, meddle in ME affairs?! I thought you were against that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7882142.stm
Ban Wahabiism. Start there.
Anyone else think if something is deemed extreme it would also be deemed unreasonable? Hence extreme and unreasonable behaviour.RAIMIUS wrote:
Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of peace imposed upon Iraq after the 1991 war. That's what you get for violating an agreement to end a fight! (Extreme? Yes. Completely unreasonable? No.)
The UN did not enforce its resolutions. The US felt this was unacceptable, and overthrew the Iraqi regime without UN approval. Several other nations agreed with this and participated. The WMD accusations were a portion of the UN resolution problem. UN inspectors were routinely being handled by Iraqi military and government officials, which aroused even more suspicion by the US government. It was NOT a one issue action.
_________
Back on topic:
In my opinion, a representative republic is the best solution to governing larger populations in a semi-reasonable way, that we have found. (Somewhat like that old quote about Democracy being the worst form of government, except for all the others...)
I think we are seeing the problems brought by a non-homogeneous society. When government becomes too large and has to balance too many interests, governing becomes increasingly difficult, and solutions become acceptable to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.
Is our governmental reach surpassing our grasp?
If so, what can be done to make the situation better? More government power? Less? A division of power?
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Actually, the UN threatened time and time again to take action, yet it never did. The UN became a joke regarding this issue ( and every other issue for that matter)m3thod wrote:
Wrong again. The UN was against unilateral action and did not sanction the US to enforce its resolutions. And anyway the US didn't enforce UN resolutions, last time i checked invasion, war and occupying a sovereign nation were not in any UN resolution I’ve read.lowing wrote:
Partly, it was also about enforcing UN resolutions that were continually broken for an entire decade. Resolutions that the UN failed to enforce with anything more than idol threats and bullshit.TheAussieReaper wrote:
True. It was about weapons of mass destruction.
It was not a resolution to go back to Iraq, it was to enforce the resolutions that stopped the fighting in the first place. 10 years of diplomacy was attempted with no acceptable result. The UN failed to act on its promises and its threats. The US refused to play games anymore. Simple as that.
I disagree with this, there was nothing extreme to enforcing a peace treaty, by force if necessary. THe fighting would never have stopped in the first place unless Iraq agreed t othe conditions laid out. He agreed, he then refused, 10 years of peaceful diplomacy failed, fighting resumed. Nothing extreme or unreasonable about it.m3thod wrote:
Anyone else think if something is deemed extreme it would also be deemed unreasonable? Hence extreme and unreasonable behaviour.RAIMIUS wrote:
Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of peace imposed upon Iraq after the 1991 war. That's what you get for violating an agreement to end a fight! (Extreme? Yes. Completely unreasonable? No.)
The UN did not enforce its resolutions. The US felt this was unacceptable, and overthrew the Iraqi regime without UN approval. Several other nations agreed with this and participated. The WMD accusations were a portion of the UN resolution problem. UN inspectors were routinely being handled by Iraqi military and government officials, which aroused even more suspicion by the US government. It was NOT a one issue action.
_________
Back on topic:
In my opinion, a representative republic is the best solution to governing larger populations in a semi-reasonable way, that we have found. (Somewhat like that old quote about Democracy being the worst form of government, except for all the others...)
I think we are seeing the problems brought by a non-homogeneous society. When government becomes too large and has to balance too many interests, governing becomes increasingly difficult, and solutions become acceptable to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.
Is our governmental reach surpassing our grasp?
If so, what can be done to make the situation better? More government power? Less? A division of power?
There is a difference between projecting military power outside your borders to assert political influence on others from a strategic or political (i.e., not purely defensive) perspective and exerting influence, on the basis of parity of esteem and as two trading partners with mutually beneficial agreements, through the bilateral relations nations have with each other. That's not meddling - that's horse trading. If they tell you to fuck off then at least you know where they stand and consequently where you should stand.lowing wrote:
MEDDLE in the ME Cam? Is this what you are suggesting. I kinda was thinking all of these years that you were against the US sticking its nose in the affairs of other countries.
10 years of successful sanctions keeping Saddam lame and unable to project any kind of power or influence beyond its borders and keeping him weak, as evidenced by the pathetic resistance thrown up to the invasion. Your argument for action totally fails on so many levels.lowing wrote:
I disagree with this, there was nothing extreme to enforcing a peace treaty, by force if necessary. THe fighting would never have stopped in the first place unless Iraq agreed t othe conditions laid out. He agreed, he then refused, 10 years of peaceful diplomacy failed, fighting resumed. Nothing extreme or unreasonable about it.
Enforcing a PEACE treaty. Using FORCE?lowing wrote:
I disagree with this, there was nothing extreme to enforcing a peace treaty, by force if necessary. THe fighting would never have stopped in the first place unless Iraq agreed t othe conditions laid out. He agreed, he then refused, 10 years of peaceful diplomacy failed, fighting resumed. Nothing extreme or unreasonable about it.m3thod wrote:
Anyone else think if something is deemed extreme it would also be deemed unreasonable? Hence extreme and unreasonable behaviour.RAIMIUS wrote:
Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of peace imposed upon Iraq after the 1991 war. That's what you get for violating an agreement to end a fight! (Extreme? Yes. Completely unreasonable? No.)
The UN did not enforce its resolutions. The US felt this was unacceptable, and overthrew the Iraqi regime without UN approval. Several other nations agreed with this and participated. The WMD accusations were a portion of the UN resolution problem. UN inspectors were routinely being handled by Iraqi military and government officials, which aroused even more suspicion by the US government. It was NOT a one issue action.
_________
Back on topic:
In my opinion, a representative republic is the best solution to governing larger populations in a semi-reasonable way, that we have found. (Somewhat like that old quote about Democracy being the worst form of government, except for all the others...)
I think we are seeing the problems brought by a non-homogeneous society. When government becomes too large and has to balance too many interests, governing becomes increasingly difficult, and solutions become acceptable to a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.
Is our governmental reach surpassing our grasp?
If so, what can be done to make the situation better? More government power? Less? A division of power?
Fighting didn't resume because Iraq wasn't compliant with UN resolutions. Something called WMD's was invented for a purpose.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I think what you meant to say was "oh sorry, i am wrong, you are right"lowing wrote:
Also you know the context that "terrorist attacks" are being used, so please stop trying to pass off that every crime is a form of terrorism.
But that what I would expect from someone who is rational, has creditability and willing to listen.
The crimes listed were acts of terror as defined by US law and were treated as such.
successful? lewl. oil for food ring a bell? lulzCameronPoe wrote:
10 years of successful sanctions keeping Saddam lame and unable to project any kind of power or influence beyond its borders and keeping him weak, as evidenced by the pathetic resistance thrown up to the invasion. Your argument for action totally fails on so many levels.lowing wrote:
I disagree with this, there was nothing extreme to enforcing a peace treaty, by force if necessary. THe fighting would never have stopped in the first place unless Iraq agreed t othe conditions laid out. He agreed, he then refused, 10 years of peaceful diplomacy failed, fighting resumed. Nothing extreme or unreasonable about it.
not complying wiht most of the surrender agreement? thats a success?
wow, you irish have a weird view of success.
likewise. it appears to me that you think ireland gets oil out of their arses and are not dependent on anyone.CameronPoe wrote:
OK then don't sanction them or publicly reprimand them. Continue sucking their knob.
Success = weak and impotent Saddam Hussein. Period. Or was the absolute pulverisation within days of his 'menacing military machine ready to bring down the west' a dream I had.... lewlz....usmarine wrote:
successful? lewl. oil for food ring a bell? lulz
not complying wiht most of the surrender agreement? thats a success?
wow, you irish have a weird view of success.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-02-11 08:23:38)
Russia aren't actively setting up/allowing schools that preach a message of intolerance of all things non-Russian to their citizens. And last time I checked Ireland didn't have a problem with Islamic extremists unlike the US. How many Saudis took part in 9/11 again? Duh. The nation with the most influence and most deep rooted relations with Saudi Arabia is the US. Ireland are but a blip on their radar. Why on earth would they listen to a word we had to say?usmarine wrote:
likewise. it appears to me that you think ireland gets oil out of their arses and are not dependent on anyone.CameronPoe wrote:
OK then don't sanction them or publicly reprimand them. Continue sucking their knob.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-02-11 08:24:56)
One reason Ireland probably doesn't have much trouble is because back in the day the good ole IRA helped them train to make bombs and stuff.CameronPoe wrote:
Russia aren't actively setting up/allowing schools that preach a message of intolerance of all things non-Russian to their citizens. And last time I checked Ireland didn't have a problem with Islamic extremists unlike the US. How many Saudis took part in 9/11 again? Duh. The nation with the most influence and most deep rooted relations with Saudi Arabia is the US. Ireland are but a blip on their radar. Why on earth would they listen to a word we had to say?usmarine wrote:
likewise. it appears to me that you think ireland gets oil out of their arses and are not dependent on anyone.CameronPoe wrote:
OK then don't sanction them or publicly reprimand them. Continue sucking their knob.
what does it matter where the terrorists were born or where they come from? these guys float all over the ME.CameronPoe wrote:
Russia aren't actively setting up/allowing schools that preach a message of intolerance of all things non-Russian to their citizens. And last time I checked Ireland didn't have a problem with Islamic extremists unlike the US. How many Saudis took part in 9/11 again? Duh. The nation with the most influence and most deep rooted relations with Saudi Arabia is the US. Ireland are but a blip on their radar. Why on earth would they listen to a word we had to say?usmarine wrote:
likewise. it appears to me that you think ireland gets oil out of their arses and are not dependent on anyone.CameronPoe wrote:
OK then don't sanction them or publicly reprimand them. Continue sucking their knob.
As an example to your percieved oxymoron of enforcing peace forcefully: Ever hear of the UN Peacekeepers? Yeah, they show up with guns.m3thod wrote:
Enforcing a PEACE treaty. Using FORCE?lowing wrote:
I disagree with this, there was nothing extreme to enforcing a peace treaty, by force if necessary. THe fighting would never have stopped in the first place unless Iraq agreed t othe conditions laid out. He agreed, he then refused, 10 years of peaceful diplomacy failed, fighting resumed. Nothing extreme or unreasonable about it.m3thod wrote:
Anyone else think if something is deemed extreme it would also be deemed unreasonable? Hence extreme and unreasonable behaviour.
Fighting didn't resume because Iraq wasn't compliant with UN resolutions. Something called WMD's was invented for a purpose.
I disagree, because based on this, you would support sanctions against a country that refused to accept your morality as their own. Sanctions is synonymous with punishment. This is meddling CamCameronPoe wrote:
There is a difference between projecting military power outside your borders to assert political influence on others from a strategic or political (i.e., not purely defensive) perspective and exerting influence, on the basis of parity of esteem and as two trading partners with mutually beneficial agreements, through the bilateral relations nations have with each other. That's not meddling - that's horse trading. If they tell you to fuck off then at least you know where they stand and consequently where you should stand.lowing wrote:
MEDDLE in the ME Cam? Is this what you are suggesting. I kinda was thinking all of these years that you were against the US sticking its nose in the affairs of other countries.
In the context of this discussion, if you can not see the difference between and international terrorist group planning and staging a history, economic, and society altering event from a guy with a pipe bomb in a mailbox then I am sorry, you are the one who will not acknowledge the fact that Bush's innitiutives, prevented this from happening again under his watch.BN wrote:
I think what you meant to say was "oh sorry, i am wrong, you are right"lowing wrote:
Also you know the context that "terrorist attacks" are being used, so please stop trying to pass off that every crime is a form of terrorism.
But that what I would expect from someone who is rational, has creditability and willing to listen.
The crimes listed were acts of terror as defined by US law and were treated as such.
This statement brought this quote from orwell to my mind for some reason:m3thod wrote:
Enforcing a PEACE treaty. Using FORCE?lowing wrote:
I disagree with this, there was nothing extreme to enforcing a peace treaty, by force if necessary. THe fighting would never have stopped in the first place unless Iraq agreed t othe conditions laid out. He agreed, he then refused, 10 years of peaceful diplomacy failed, fighting resumed. Nothing extreme or unreasonable about it.m3thod wrote:
Anyone else think if something is deemed extreme it would also be deemed unreasonable? Hence extreme and unreasonable behaviour.
Fighting didn't resume because Iraq wasn't compliant with UN resolutions. Something called WMD's was invented for a purpose.
George Orwell (in Notes on Nationalism) wrote:
If one harbours anywhere in one's kind a nationalistic loyalty or hatred, certain facts, although in a sense known to be true, are inadmissible. Here are just a few examples. I list below five types of nationalist, and against each I append a fact which it is impossible for that type of nationalist to accept, even in his secret thoughts:
...
PACIFIST: Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.
All of these facts are grossly obvious if one's emotions do not happen to be involved: but to the kind of person named in each case they are also INTOLERABLE, and so they have to be denied, and false theories constructed upon their denial.
Last edited by Spark (2009-02-12 01:43:21)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
It's funny how you constantly excuse your arguments lowing ... if it's classified as a terrorist act it is a terrorist act no matter how you twist it, doesn't matter if it is a foreign muslim or a native american that commits the act ...lowing wrote:
In the context of this discussion, if you can not see the difference between and international terrorist group planning and staging a history, economic, and society altering event from a guy with a pipe bomb in a mailbox then I am sorry, you are the one who will not acknowledge the fact that Bush's innitiutives, prevented this from happening again under his watch.BN wrote:
I think what you meant to say was "oh sorry, i am wrong, you are right"lowing wrote:
Also you know the context that "terrorist attacks" are being used, so please stop trying to pass off that every crime is a form of terrorism.
But that what I would expect from someone who is rational, has creditability and willing to listen.
The crimes listed were acts of terror as defined by US law and were treated as such.
You claim that most on this forum that doesn't agree with your views have a hard time to acknowledge certain facts but you are just as bad or worse when it comes to just that ... you seek understanding for your own points but totally discard what others post always, you are blind to believe that all your points are the truth ...some of it may be the truth, some of it may be the truth for you and some of it is simply not the truth but just a point of view ... know the difference between those and you will be more rational and credible ...
And that goes for more members that just you lowing and in both camps of the political debate ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Do we? At least here, stopping one of the big two parties is like being the first to throw yourself in front of a freight train.TheAussieReaper wrote:
...that's why you have the power to vote them in and out.
Anyhow, much hatred for big government stems from a history of anti-federalism, high taxes and the occasional experiment with heavy-handed tactics against citizens. At home, people feel like the government interferes enough in their personal lives. You can get in trouble for swatting your troublesome child on the bum, they can tell you to tear down a six foot fence because it's too high, or to set aside 30% of your property for wetlands. Businesses don't like the idea of socialism because, as oppressed as many already are by overregulation, hefty fines, unreasonable environmental impact audits, absurd taxes and more, they feel that more of it would do nothing but further hamper their own ingenuity and freedom, not to mention potential employee pool.
A whole plethora of reasons can explain why a lot of Americans feel alienated toward big government, and handing over our military-industrial complex to socialism can be a frightening thought.
Preeeeeeeeeeeeeeedicable!lowing wrote:
As an example to your percieved oxymoron of enforcing peace forcefully: Ever hear of the UN Peacekeepers? Yeah, they show up with guns.m3thod wrote:
Enforcing a PEACE treaty. Using FORCE?lowing wrote:
I disagree with this, there was nothing extreme to enforcing a peace treaty, by force if necessary. THe fighting would never have stopped in the first place unless Iraq agreed t othe conditions laid out. He agreed, he then refused, 10 years of peaceful diplomacy failed, fighting resumed. Nothing extreme or unreasonable about it.
Fighting didn't resume because Iraq wasn't compliant with UN resolutions. Something called WMD's was invented for a purpose.
UN peacekeepers don't partake in wars to force 'peace'. It's the demonstration and presence of overwhelming force that prevents any fuckhead getting any ideas. So your comparison as ever fails.
Also on the topic of UN peacekeepers they also tend to show up under a general consensus amongst the UN security council, and also tend to keep the peace rather than leave a country wide open so terrorists could flood in and turn it into a bloodbath. So fail again.
Last edited by m3thod (2009-02-12 02:43:41)
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
gotta back up, regardless as to reason or intent, PEACEkeepers show up in FORCE to keep the PEACE, with GUNS.m3thod wrote:
Preeeeeeeeeeeeeeedicable!lowing wrote:
As an example to your percieved oxymoron of enforcing peace forcefully: Ever hear of the UN Peacekeepers? Yeah, they show up with guns.m3thod wrote:
Enforcing a PEACE treaty. Using FORCE?
Fighting didn't resume because Iraq wasn't compliant with UN resolutions. Something called WMD's was invented for a purpose.
UN peacekeepers don't partake in wars to force 'peace'. It's the demonstration and presence of overwhelming force that prevents any fuckhead getting any ideas. So your comparison as ever fails.
Also on the topic of UN peacekeepers they also tend to show up under a general consensus amongst the UN security council, and also tend to keep the peace rather than leave a country wide open so terrorists could flood in and turn it into a bloodbath. So fail again.
Killing off one side in the conflict is not peacekeeping lowing ... what fairytale book have you gotten that from?lowing wrote:
gotta back up, regardless as to reason or intent, PEACEkeepers show up in FORCE to keep the PEACE, with GUNS.m3thod wrote:
Preeeeeeeeeeeeeeedicable!lowing wrote:
As an example to your percieved oxymoron of enforcing peace forcefully: Ever hear of the UN Peacekeepers? Yeah, they show up with guns.
UN peacekeepers don't partake in wars to force 'peace'. It's the demonstration and presence of overwhelming force that prevents any fuckhead getting any ideas. So your comparison as ever fails.
Also on the topic of UN peacekeepers they also tend to show up under a general consensus amongst the UN security council, and also tend to keep the peace rather than leave a country wide open so terrorists could flood in and turn it into a bloodbath. So fail again.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
It didn't 'resume' it was a whole new war.lowing wrote:
fighting resumed
If it had 'resumed' the US wouldn't have wasted any time going to the UN.
Fuck Israel
you know the terrorism he is talking about. why you bush bashers ALWAYS have to bring up random acts of domestic crap that most people in the country, and for that matter the world have never heard of because you cant admitt no embassies or building were blown to shreds.Varegg wrote:
It's funny how you constantly excuse your arguments lowing ... if it's classified as a terrorist act it is a terrorist act no matter how you twist it, doesn't matter if it is a foreign muslim or a native american that commits the act ...
Last edited by usmarine (2009-02-12 06:40:56)