It was up to the UN to do something about the violations......they did nothing except pussyfoot around for the past half decade before the invasion.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
If they were violating UN sanctions, then wouldn't it be up to the UN to do something about it?lowing wrote:
Fair response, I will let the difference of opinion issues go without conceding a thing.
But as far as the "illegal" invasion of Iraq issue goes your attempt to debunk my statement didn't work......I said it was shown Iraq had ties to terrorism............I did not say they were involved in 911..sorry.......I also said we went back to Iraq because they were violating UN sanctioned resolutions that ended the first gulf war..........Your own article points out the fact that Iraq had ties to terror, so for doing my research, thanks...Now try and find me an article that backs up your rebuttle instead of prove my point......you can do this by finding an article that clearly shows Iraq was not breaking any UN sanctioned resolutions for several years before we went back.good luck
In the same way America has ties to McVeigh? What's the point you are making? That because a terrorist lived in America we should go in and arrest the president?
you see, this is where your irational attitude shines.......to say there is no difference between a street thug who car jacked some and murdered them, and a world wide threat to entire cities and civilian populations that could change the entire world, economically, environmentally, and socially has got to be the most absurd defense you and Marconius can make...........It is time you to guys get real.......What color IS the sky on the planet you guys are from?? Here on earth it is blue, and alot of us want to keep it that way.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
Exactly, no it doesn't. You might as well have stopped talking there because you are just making my point further. It doesn't matter about the scale of the plot, my saying that you were a part of it doesn't mean you were. Innocent until proven guilty. That's a human right. UN number 11.lowing wrote:
Uhhh no it doesn't.............but the only dispute in question is how far WOULD he have gone with this plot.......Nobody in the know seems to be able to dispute his communication with the enemy.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
By 'NO disputing' I assume you mean 'there is serious dispute.'
You have links to the KKK. You are therefore a terrorist and a traitor. Just because I said it, does that make it true?
Also yes being link to the KKK could be construed as a threat .......If the plot was to hang 100,000 black people, and you were found to be cooperating with the people (terrorist) who are planning such a thing......you are a traitor to America
If it was an invasion, that just means it was an illegal war. Either way it is still a war. Illegal war (invasion), justified war, whatever you believe it was a war. If they were using the war as an excuse for testing weapons, then that still doesn't mean it wasn't a war. So, by your logic that America hasn't been to war since WW2, Vietnam wasn't a war either?cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
i cannot believe this... iraq was not a war... it was a fucking invasion, the USA hasnt officially declared war since world war 2 when the japanese attackked pearl harbour. I agree that it was stupid to invade iraq, but it was never a war. The media always thought it was a war whilst it was not. But the situation in Iraq to me was more of test of new and improved US weapons... kinda like what germany had done in WW2 (spanish civil war). well thats my theory anyway
syria i am sure.........You talk about the WMD as if it were supposed to be a warehouse full of nukes........We are talking about a weapon that comes in the form of a single grain or a speck that can kill 100,000 people......No we didn't find a grain but we did find chemical plants that produced such shit didn't we?herrr_smity wrote:
and were are the weapons of mass destruction then, that the US and the grand "coalition" know were there.
America is a real threat to entire cities and civilian populations, they have more WMD's than anybody and a track record of using them. You think abusing human rights is okay, I think it's not. It's time for you to get real. Most of America already has woken up to this. The colour of the sky is many shades; red, blue, purple, yellow, black, white and more, and the problems on this planet have a spectrum of perceptions just as wide as this and are never black and white like you seem to think.lowing wrote:
you see, this is where your irational attitude shines.......to say there is no difference between a street thug who car jacked some and murdered them, and a world wide threat to entire cities and civilian populations that could change the entire world, economically, environmentally, and socially has got to be the most absurd defense you and Marconius can make...........It is time you to guys get real.......What color IS the sky on the planet you guys are from?? Here on earth it is blue, and alot of us want to keep it that way.
I will buy this answer....except the part that America is a threat to anyone in the world (except terrorist)......at least you are not throwing half truths and opinions, as facts in this post. Which is the only thing I will challenge you on......If you want to make an arguement fine, but please please base it on WHOLE truth and WHOLE facts not opinion based shit......IE the "war is illegal"...welll no it isn't I showed you why it isn't .........FACT...........Truth be known NOBODY in America likes war, no big secret there.....I don't like war either.......I hate the fact that we all have to live with this threat over our heads everyday.....The allies are trying to make it so we don't have to..UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
America is a real threat to entire cities and civilian populations, they have more WMD's than anybody and a track record of using them. You think abusing human rights is okay, I think it's not. It's time for you to get real. Most of America already has woken up to this. The colour of the sky is many shades; red, blue, purple, yellow, black, white and more, and the problems on this planet have a spectrum of perceptions just as wide as this and are never black and white like you seem to think.lowing wrote:
you see, this is where your irational attitude shines.......to say there is no difference between a street thug who car jacked some and murdered them, and a world wide threat to entire cities and civilian populations that could change the entire world, economically, environmentally, and socially has got to be the most absurd defense you and Marconius can make...........It is time you to guys get real.......What color IS the sky on the planet you guys are from?? Here on earth it is blue, and alot of us want to keep it that way.
I may not like the war, but the fact remains that more people now think it was wrong than right in America (including many, many ex-soldiers), and my government was opposed to invading until Blair met Bush a few days before. For all we know Bush threatened to kill his children if we didn't support him in the war.
Last edited by lowing (2006-03-24 06:12:45)
Last edited by lowing (2006-03-24 05:59:23)
still waitin' for an answer darlin' it has been over a week now or do you just wanna have a change of heart and admit this fight is a world war and needs to be faught and won?........although i admit I doubt it can be won as it seems no one else is interested in fighting for their own survival and way of lifeFriluftshund wrote:
Sure, let me get back to you tomorrow - I'm off to bed right nowlowing wrote:
All of those other countries Bosnia..etc........also Samolia...........we were trying to stop mass genocide....sorry for trying to interfere.......but seemed someone needed to.........As a matter of fact, America should holds it head in shame for not interfereing in Rwanda.....Friluftshund wrote:
Afghanistan is defined as in the middle-east, just one post ago we discussed briefly the west "meddling" in Afghanistan when communism had to be battled.
I also believe there was some incidents in Sarajevo/Bosnia/Serbia which also included a whole lot of muslims - those too may have felt agrieved...
I don't know which 7 incidents you'r refering to when you say you "won't be suckerpunched for the 8th time"
Your next statement is interesting to say the least...
You seem to think I'll tag any US involvement as meddling.. Why do you think that? have i expressed that view somewhere?!
Why you went to war is another picture and another discussion altogether. You walked into the European theater even when your beaf were with the Japanese - why did you?
You say: "America should have minded its own business in Europe?"
And I'll say: You/they did? - Do you think it wasn't in the US's interest to get Hitler dethroned?
Hitler had already taken over my country, you didn't stop him - you just went to war aginst him, as did we all... We were in the same boat (which incidently is why it was labeled a World War, which the middle-east conflict isn't)
Let me say it: I won't say that your "meddling" was wrong 60 years ago, I will say that you wern't meddling!"
Going to war is one thing, aiding another country in war is one thing
Trying to impose a totally alien set of rules and guidelines is something completely different!
You can't draw parallells between WW2 and the war in Iraq.
If you introduce WW2 and the way you kicked Hitler down from the throne, what if I introduce North-Korea? Why havn't you done anything about that country?
There's probably a bunch of countries in Africa where people gets slaughtered at some war-lords whim?!
I am, however, content in keeping this discussion confined to the middle-east conflict and different views on it and views on how to end it in the cleanest way for all parties.
ya going to war to aid another country is 1 thing......going to war to impose our set of rules on someone else is another.........<--------huh??........In this case the only rule that we imposed is......."it is against the rules to infiltrate our country and kill thousands of American with commerical airliners into our buildings"...OOPS they broke the rule....
the other problem with your post and your attitude toward us is this.........you say WW2 involved the whole world and that is not the case here............well .....terror in europe, terror in america........terror in the middle east.....terror in South America, Terror in Australia...........Could you pleaseeeeeee tell me again how this war on terror isn't a world war??and way you don't think any of us should combat it???
you see I am alittle fuzzy still how this war is different than WW2 ......Ruthless band if radical leaders bent on the destruction of its neighboring countries and its allies attack many cites, kill millions of civilians, destroy cities, and push its will on other cultures..............hmmmmmmm now, you tell me which war I am referring to
Cheer up, it's only a discussion...
Last edited by lowing (2006-03-24 06:24:00)
I wasn't refering mainly to nukes, mainly to biological and chemical weapons.lowing wrote:
yes we did use a WMD ..but again half truth...........the whole truth is.........It was used on a country that attacked America... secondly.......the use of this weapon proved to saved lives, both American and Japanese....Had we not done this, the loss of life that would be incurred invading Japan would be far greater.
Do you really really go to bed at night praying America doesn't drop the bomb on your country???
Sounds like you're talking about what the Coalition did to Iraq.you see I am alittle fuzzy still how this war is different than WW2 ......Ruthless band if radical leaders bent on the destruction of its neighboring countries and its allies attack many cites, kill millions of civilians, destroy cities, and push its will on other cultures..............hmmmmmmm now, you tell me which war I am referring to
Still extremely wrong. You have no basis for your "fact" of his collaboration with terrorists. You are only spouting what you've heard, and have not researched it at all. Go back a few pages and read my initial posts about Padilla. I posted links proving my point, plus the actual judicial transcript of Bush/Rumsfeld vs. Padilla.lowing wrote:
Marconius.....There is NO disputing the fact that he was communicating with terrorist in a cooperative manner, therefore a traitor.
secondly:.........He is a piece of shit gang banger who was out to make a name for himself....pardon me if I spare my tears for the victims of this violence and not the enemy.
http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htmUnOriginalNuttah wrote:
I wasn't refering mainly to nukes, mainly to biological and chemical weapons.lowing wrote:
yes we did use a WMD ..but again half truth...........the whole truth is.........It was used on a country that attacked America... secondly.......the use of this weapon proved to saved lives, both American and Japanese....Had we not done this, the loss of life that would be incurred invading Japan would be far greater.
Do you really really go to bed at night praying America doesn't drop the bomb on your country???
But let me tell you something about nuclear war:
From the age of about 8 through to about 13, yes I had a real fear that nuclear war could happen. "When the Wind Blows" (which I suggest you read) might have had something to do with this, who can say. Whether or not it was started by America would be irrelevant, they would have to have launched nukes that passed directly over my head to strike many targets around the world, and American missiles don't have a good track record. And if they did launch on Russia then London would no doubt be subject to a counter-attack as there would be nothing to lose. Every time I heard them testing the air-raid sirens near my house in London, I panicked that this could be the three minute warning. Everyone I know used to discuss what they would do with those final few minutes or life, what it would be really like if nuclear war happened. How old are you, not to remember all this public discussion on why nuclear disarmament is critical for world peace?
But my biggest fear was not being killed in the blast but dying slowly in the nuclear winter that would follow, no matter where the nukes were deployed. Fallout is not my friend. Haven't you ever feared that Russia or China might nuke you? Does it matter who the aggressor is in nuclear war? The consequences are the same.
If it has been proven that nuking Japan saved lives, then please provide a link or source.Sounds like you're talking about what the Coalition did to Iraq.you see I am alittle fuzzy still how this war is different than WW2 ......Ruthless band if radical leaders bent on the destruction of its neighboring countries and its allies attack many cites, kill millions of civilians, destroy cities, and push its will on other cultures..............hmmmmmmm now, you tell me which war I am referring to
hmm, and what threat did iraq pose to the USlowing wrote:
Also if the UN was not interested ( because the UN and its members have thier own agendas) in upholding ITS OWN PEACE TREATY with Iraq, then the US is obliged to oversee the security of its own population......In short, the UN did nothing so we did
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/ … b.suspect/Marconius wrote:
Still extremely wrong. You have no basis for your "fact" of his collaboration with terrorists. You are only spouting what you've heard, and have not researched it at all. Go back a few pages and read my initial posts about Padilla. I posted links proving my point, plus the actual judicial transcript of Bush/Rumsfeld vs. Padilla.lowing wrote:
Marconius.....There is NO disputing the fact that he was communicating with terrorist in a cooperative manner, therefore a traitor.
secondly:.........He is a piece of shit gang banger who was out to make a name for himself....pardon me if I spare my tears for the victims of this violence and not the enemy.
I know he's a multiple felon. I know he's been in prison before. I know he's a despicable person. Don't let that cloud the fact that a US CITIZEN has had their Rights stripped and has been detained indiscriminantly "just because the government said so."
very easily answered............herrr_smity wrote:
hmm, and what threat did iraq pose to the USlowing wrote:
Also if the UN was not interested ( because the UN and its members have thier own agendas) in upholding ITS OWN PEACE TREATY with Iraq, then the US is obliged to oversee the security of its own population......In short, the UN did nothing so we did
Heh. How about the UN just illegalize war? That would intimidate the world into acting more civil, now wouldn't it.UnOriginalNuttah wrote:
If it was an invasion, that just means it was an illegal war. Either way it is still a war. Illegal war (invasion), justified war, whatever you believe it was a war. If they were using the war as an excuse for testing weapons, then that still doesn't mean it wasn't a war. So, by your logic that America hasn't been to war since WW2, Vietnam wasn't a war either?cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
i cannot believe this... iraq was not a war... it was a fucking invasion, the USA hasnt officially declared war since world war 2 when the japanese attackked pearl harbour. I agree that it was stupid to invade iraq, but it was never a war. The media always thought it was a war whilst it was not. But the situation in Iraq to me was more of test of new and improved US weapons... kinda like what germany had done in WW2 (spanish civil war). well thats my theory anyway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_-_Legitimacy
yea right!!!!!!!lowing wrote:
very easily answered............herrr_smity wrote:
hmm, and what threat did iraq pose to the USlowing wrote:
Also if the UN was not interested ( because the UN and its members have thier own agendas) in upholding ITS OWN PEACE TREATY with Iraq, then the US is obliged to oversee the security of its own population......In short, the UN did nothing so we did
they were stock piling longe range missles which is against the resolutions set forth by the UN
they also were denying access to its verious facilites that was deemed to be monitored by UN inspectors and that was also again the UN resolutions.
Plus hosting terror groups could also be considered a threat don't ya think??
*sigh* Check the sources, sir. You posted news from 2002...and my links are from much later than that. Here's a 2005 retrospective carried out by the BBC. Note how the US authorities only make allegations and do not have any sources or proof. For the sake of the BBC story, it was written that way, but in every case of the US informing any media about Padilla, they only make allegations and never offer any evidence. Here's a great read about the battle.lowing wrote:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/dirty.bomb.suspect/
here you go Marconius, as I am not any more "in the know" about this case any more than you are, like you, my research is limited to the same sources as you...........
Bottom line here is.........holding this sack of shit is the safer play.........or should we just wait until he disappears in a city and blows up 5 city blocks......the govt. obviously has a very good reason to hold him that you, me, or the courts know about. If not, why would they waste their time on just another street thug?
your armchair quarterbacking and logic is truly a sight to behold.
There is no proof of Padilla as an enemy combatant other than the hearsay of the government. Until they prove that he indeed was an enemy combatant and offer up solid, hard evidence, Padilla is innocent of all accusation and still stands in a brig for no justifiable reason whatsoever.The U.S. Constitution wrote:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.