Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2009-12-10 07:51:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


But there was no justifiable reason to restart the war. To the world, it was over. Done. Finito. We had no rational reason to go back. Saddam was toothless and if anything, a stabilizing force in the region.
You mean no reason to go back except for his non compliance of the resolutions that stopped the hostilities in the first place. Pretty much undeniable.
Yeah, but the only person that gave a shit in the entire world was Bush.
"Yeah but"...........we will stop there.


Just because the UN did not see fit to follow through with its own threats, does not mean the US has to sit by and ignore Saddams non-compliance. His non-comliance was deemed a threat to world security per the UN. and they refused to act. So the US did.
2009-12-10 07:54:26
Morpheus
This shit still going?
+508|6201|The Mitten

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't think politics going to extremes of right and left helps anyone really.
If the 8 years of Bush are what neoconservatism are about then good luck.
I think if you read what neoconservatism is supposed to be in the article, you'll see that's not what Bush et al were/are.

I would liken them more to highly informed/educated libertarians...to throw out a label (as much as I hate them).
I also read what communism was supposed to be... and I'm not sure if stalin did.

And yes, maybe i would like to do away with 'labels' as you put it, lowing, and yes, that includes labels of racism, poverty, etc. etc... the only labels that would be ok would 'dead' and 'alive'...
EE (hats
2009-12-10 07:55:08
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

Mekstizzle wrote:

Why does it all concern you so much anyway, here you are, always talking about wanting the government out of your face, yet don't seem to wish the same upon other countries regarding your government, and infact want the absolute complete opposite.

You want your government to control every aspect of people's lives outside the borders and want the opposite within your borders. And then you question why those people outside the borders end up hating you for it and act all innocent. It's kinda baffling.

Anyone that is like that is just an asshole, plain and simple, there's literally no other way to describe it. It's a succinct word. You want others to live lifes of misery so that you can have your perfect suburban life, neocons are just downright evil


It doesn't matter about whether they had the right to invade Iraq or not, it was still unnecessary, or at the very least only necessary because of economic/resource reasons.
I quite reading after the first 2 sentences.

Don't look now but Iraq is a free nation now. Is there mopping up to do, yes. the reason it turned into a cluster fuck was the rise of terrorism after the fall of Saddam, and their wishes to keep the people down, and of course the democrats political motivations to all of a sudden switch gears and go against Bush to get their boys elected.

If not for these issues, we would have long been gone out of Iraq, as evidenced with the pre-mature "Mission Accomplished" banner.
2009-12-10 08:06:21
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6823|London, England

lowing wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Why does it all concern you so much anyway, here you are, always talking about wanting the government out of your face, yet don't seem to wish the same upon other countries regarding your government, and infact want the absolute complete opposite.

You want your government to control every aspect of people's lives outside the borders and want the opposite within your borders. And then you question why those people outside the borders end up hating you for it and act all innocent. It's kinda baffling.

Anyone that is like that is just an asshole, plain and simple, there's literally no other way to describe it. It's a succinct word. You want others to live lifes of misery so that you can have your perfect suburban life, neocons are just downright evil


It doesn't matter about whether they had the right to invade Iraq or not, it was still unnecessary, or at the very least only necessary because of economic/resource reasons.
I quite reading after the first 2 sentences.

Don't look now but Iraq is a free nation now. Is there mopping up to do, yes. the reason it turned into a cluster fuck was the rise of terrorism after the fall of Saddam, and their wishes to keep the people down, and of course the democrats political motivations to all of a sudden switch gears and go against Bush to get their boys elected.

If not for these issues, we would have long been gone out of Iraq, as evidenced with the pre-mature "Mission Accomplished" banner.
Iraq a free nation, don't start joking around now. The only way a country will be truly free is when they do it themselves under their own will. You should know that being the type of self-reliance person that you are. Otherwise it may be more free than under saddam but it still won't be really true to the will of the populace. It still has that sense of falsehood.

Still, you're nothing but a man who wants to live his little gay suburban life whilst his extra large military occupies and creates freedom for those who don't want it or don't want them to help them. What's the point, why do you want something like that? Does it make you feel warm inside or something? Why do you give a shit?

Why is it that you want your government out of your face and in the face of others instead? Just let them sort out their own shit, especially in a region that you know hates your guts, so why do you give a shit about them
2009-12-10 08:08:54
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5560|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:


You mean no reason to go back except for his non compliance of the resolutions that stopped the hostilities in the first place. Pretty much undeniable.
Yeah, but the only person that gave a shit in the entire world was Bush.
"Yeah but"...........we will stop there.


Just because the UN did not see fit to follow through with its own threats, does not mean the US has to sit by and ignore Saddams non-compliance. His non-comliance was deemed a threat to world security per the UN. and they refused to act. So the US did.
Aren't you one of those that wants us to pull out of the UN all together? Aren't you one of those that wants us to stop sending foreign aid? At least be consistent.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-10 08:10:35
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6918

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Yeah, but the only person that gave a shit in the entire world was Bush.
"Yeah but"...........we will stop there.


Just because the UN did not see fit to follow through with its own threats, does not mean the US has to sit by and ignore Saddams non-compliance. His non-comliance was deemed a threat to world security per the UN. and they refused to act. So the US did.
Aren't you one of those that wants us to pull out of the UN all together? Aren't you one of those that wants us to stop sending foreign aid? At least be consistent.
Lowing is the typical Republican contradictory. He says one thing but supports the other. He talks shit about big gov but then supports it by working for them. GG.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2009-12-10 08:11:10
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6699

Cybargs wrote:

Lowing is the typical Republican contradictory. He says one thing but supports the other. He talks shit about big gov but then supports it by working for them. GG.
2009-12-10 08:53:07
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Yeah, but the only person that gave a shit in the entire world was Bush.
"Yeah but"...........we will stop there.


Just because the UN did not see fit to follow through with its own threats, does not mean the US has to sit by and ignore Saddams non-compliance. His non-comliance was deemed a threat to world security per the UN. and they refused to act. So the US did.
Aren't you one of those that wants us to pull out of the UN all together? Aren't you one of those that wants us to stop sending foreign aid? At least be consistent.
Yes I am,

I have no problem with foreign aid, as long as it is not given under the terms bythose asking for it.

The US does not need the UN. In fact the UN is very much an anti-American organization. The US does not need it while it gives more to sustain it than any other country.

I am consistent in my view point.

This address all thoase quoting John as well.
2009-12-10 08:58:53
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5560|London, England

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

"Yeah but"...........we will stop there.


Just because the UN did not see fit to follow through with its own threats, does not mean the US has to sit by and ignore Saddams non-compliance. His non-comliance was deemed a threat to world security per the UN. and they refused to act. So the US did.
Aren't you one of those that wants us to pull out of the UN all together? Aren't you one of those that wants us to stop sending foreign aid? At least be consistent.
Yes I am,

I have no problem with foreign aid, as long as it is not given under the terms bythose asking for it.

The US does not need the UN. In fact the UN is very much an anti-American organization. The US does not need it while it gives more to sustain it than any other country.

I am consistent in my view point.

This address all thoase quoting John as well.
Not under their terms? Should we run off and topple any government we feel doesn't have US interests in their heart? So what it boils down to is you deem an interventionist policy to be good policy. What about the free will of the people in those countries? Do they not get a say? Frankly, your line of reasoning is completely destabilizing.

Country A asks for $1BN in aid. You feel that instead of sending $1BN in aid, it would be better to topple their government and install a better one?

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-10 09:00:19)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2009-12-10 09:06:44
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6332|North Tonawanda, NY

JohnG@lt wrote:

Not under their terms? Should we run off and topple any government we feel doesn't have US interests in their heart? So what it boils down to is you deem an interventionist policy to be good policy. What about the free will of the people in those countries? Do they not get a say? Frankly, your line of reasoning is completely destabilizing.

Country A asks for $1BN in aid. You feel that instead of sending $1BN in aid, it would be better to topple their government and install a better one?
What lowing probably meant is that US foreign aid should be given with whatever caveats and restrictions the US feels like imposing...

I don't know where you jumped from 'foreign aid' to 'invasion'.
2009-12-10 11:06:55
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6851

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


But there was no justifiable reason to restart the war. To the world, it was over. Done. Finito. We had no rational reason to go back. Saddam was toothless and if anything, a stabilizing force in the region.
You mean no reason to go back except for his non compliance of the resolutions that stopped the hostilities in the first place. Pretty much undeniable.
I hate to say it but lowing is right here... US had every legal right to re-enter Iraq. Countless cease-fire agreements were ignored, UN sanctions being ignored etc...
Even the people that started the war admit that it wasn't legal. There are only two scenarios in which war is legal, either when in self defense or the defense of another nation, or if agreed upon in a Security Council resolution.
2009-12-10 11:25:04
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Aren't you one of those that wants us to pull out of the UN all together? Aren't you one of those that wants us to stop sending foreign aid? At least be consistent.
Yes I am,

I have no problem with foreign aid, as long as it is not given under the terms bythose asking for it.

The US does not need the UN. In fact the UN is very much an anti-American organization. The US does not need it while it gives more to sustain it than any other country.

I am consistent in my view point.

This address all thoase quoting John as well.
Not under their terms? Should we run off and topple any government we feel doesn't have US interests in their heart? So what it boils down to is you deem an interventionist policy to be good policy. What about the free will of the people in those countries? Do they not get a say? Frankly, your line of reasoning is completely destabilizing.

Country A asks for $1BN in aid. You feel that instead of sending $1BN in aid, it would be better to topple their government and install a better one?
Nope, only if it goes against the national  security of the US and its allies. 

What does free will have to do with it. What of the free will of the US to do with their money as it sees fit and make sure it does not go against US intersts? To give money that is to be used against us is pretty fuckin stupid dontcha think?

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-10 11:28:06)

2009-12-10 11:26:40
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

ghettoperson wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

lowing wrote:


You mean no reason to go back except for his non compliance of the resolutions that stopped the hostilities in the first place. Pretty much undeniable.
I hate to say it but lowing is right here... US had every legal right to re-enter Iraq. Countless cease-fire agreements were ignored, UN sanctions being ignored etc...
Even the people that started the war admit that it wasn't legal. There are only two scenarios in which war is legal, either when in self defense or the defense of another nation, or if agreed upon in a Security Council resolution.
Hence the war of 91, which was resumed in 03 after failure to comply with resolutions, and failure to follow through with threats by the UN which deemed Iraq a threat by the way.
2009-12-10 11:32:36
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6851

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


I hate to say it but lowing is right here... US had every legal right to re-enter Iraq. Countless cease-fire agreements were ignored, UN sanctions being ignored etc...
Even the people that started the war admit that it wasn't legal. There are only two scenarios in which war is legal, either when in self defense or the defense of another nation, or if agreed upon in a Security Council resolution.
Hence the war of 91, which was resumed in 03 after failure to comply with resolutions, and failure to follow through with threats by the UN which deemed Iraq a threat by the way.
Lowing, you're free to argue it all you want. However, the fact of the matter is is that is an utterly terrible excuse that doesn't hold water whatsoever with the international legal community which widely regards the whole thing to be completely illegal. Even Richard Perle (one of your Neo-Con buddies) who was a chief adviser to the Bush administration, has admitted that there was no legal basis for the war, only what was put on to try to bring public support behind it.
2009-12-10 11:32:52
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

lowing wrote:

I am kinda loving this. Notice how it is only the liberals that want to do away with "labels". Unless of course it comes down to labeling a racist, bigot, Nazi, war monger etc. in the attempt to dismiss an argument rather argue against it. Then labeling appears to be fine.
 
I suppose what they really mean is, do away with labeling THEM, that way you cannot distinguish fucked up liberal ideology and pin it on them. Because apparently they do not want to be associated with their own bullshit.

Label me a conservative, or libertarian all you want, I am proud of it.
Oh, I guess we are done talking about "labels", go figure.

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-10 11:48:33)

2009-12-10 11:36:03
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

ghettoperson wrote:

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:


Even the people that started the war admit that it wasn't legal. There are only two scenarios in which war is legal, either when in self defense or the defense of another nation, or if agreed upon in a Security Council resolution.
Hence the war of 91, which was resumed in 03 after failure to comply with resolutions, and failure to follow through with threats by the UN which deemed Iraq a threat by the way.
Lowing, you're free to argue it all you want. However, the fact of the matter is is that is an utterly terrible excuse that doesn't hold water whatsoever with the international legal community which widely regards the whole thing to be completely illegal. Even Richard Perle (one of your Neo-Con buddies) who was a chief adviser to the Bush administration, has admitted that there was no legal basis for the war, only what was put on to try to bring public support behind it.
sorry, there are UN resolutions that disagree with you. 10 years worth of threats and sanctions etc that proved worthless. It was time he was forced to compliance.

Richard Perle? Yeah, he wrote a book didn't he?
2009-12-10 11:38:28
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6851

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

lowing wrote:


Hence the war of 91, which was resumed in 03 after failure to comply with resolutions, and failure to follow through with threats by the UN which deemed Iraq a threat by the way.
Lowing, you're free to argue it all you want. However, the fact of the matter is is that is an utterly terrible excuse that doesn't hold water whatsoever with the international legal community which widely regards the whole thing to be completely illegal. Even Richard Perle (one of your Neo-Con buddies) who was a chief adviser to the Bush administration, has admitted that there was no legal basis for the war, only what was put on to try to bring public support behind it.
sorry, there are UN resolutions that disagree with you. 10 years worth of threats and sanctions etc that proved worthless. It was time he was forced to compliance.

Richard Perle? Yeah, he wrote a book didn't he?
Ok I'm just going to drop this now, because despite me explaining this to you in my first post, you clearly have no idea how international law works and are going to apply your lowing logic to it.
2009-12-10 11:47:27
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

ghettoperson wrote:

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:


Lowing, you're free to argue it all you want. However, the fact of the matter is is that is an utterly terrible excuse that doesn't hold water whatsoever with the international legal community which widely regards the whole thing to be completely illegal. Even Richard Perle (one of your Neo-Con buddies) who was a chief adviser to the Bush administration, has admitted that there was no legal basis for the war, only what was put on to try to bring public support behind it.
sorry, there are UN resolutions that disagree with you. 10 years worth of threats and sanctions etc that proved worthless. It was time he was forced to compliance.

Richard Perle? Yeah, he wrote a book didn't he?
Ok I'm just going to drop this now, because despite me explaining this to you in my first post, you clearly have no idea how international law works and are going to apply your lowing logic to it.
How about applying the various UN resolutions drafted over the decade of the 90's to get Saddam to comply, and the threats that accompanied them? Like I siad, the UN itself deemed Iraq a threat to world security. It is alllllll there. If I were yo I would chose to drop it as well, if I had to contend with the facts of the matter. My logic has no part in this. It is fact and it is history.
2009-12-10 11:51:05
Morpheus
This shit still going?
+508|6201|The Mitten

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

I am kinda loving this. Notice how it is only the liberals that want to do away with "labels". Unless of course it comes down to labeling a racist, bigot, Nazi, war monger etc. in the attempt to dismiss an argument rather argue against it. Then labeling appears to be fine.
 
I suppose what they really mean is, do away with labeling THEM, that way you cannot distinguish fucked up liberal ideology and pin it on them. Because apparently they do not want to be associated with their own bullshit.

Label me a conservative, or libertarian all you want, I am proud of it.
Oh, I guess we are done talking about "labels", go figure.
i see you ignored my post then.

I would like to do away with labeling as a whole, yes, even the racism/bigot/nazi/etc labels, because all the do is try to "black and white" who is 'good' and who is 'evil'... labels should be done away with completely, because no matter how "insignificant" it might seem, it's there to divide.
EE (hats
2009-12-10 11:53:14
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

Morpheus wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

I am kinda loving this. Notice how it is only the liberals that want to do away with "labels". Unless of course it comes down to labeling a racist, bigot, Nazi, war monger etc. in the attempt to dismiss an argument rather argue against it. Then labeling appears to be fine.
 
I suppose what they really mean is, do away with labeling THEM, that way you cannot distinguish fucked up liberal ideology and pin it on them. Because apparently they do not want to be associated with their own bullshit.

Label me a conservative, or libertarian all you want, I am proud of it.
Oh, I guess we are done talking about "labels", go figure.
i see you ignored my post then.

I would like to do away with labeling as a whole, yes, even the racism/bigot/nazi/etc labels, because all the do is try to "black and white" who is 'good' and who is 'evil'... labels should be done away with completely, because no matter how "insignificant" it might seem, it's there to divide.
Actually I was speaking to my liberal friends who throw more labels into a discussion while condemning them, than any other group.

Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds and can be quite comical watching them scurry for an argument, only finding themselves, switching topics, ( as evidenced by going from health care to Haliburton) reverting to Bush, or dismissing your argument as racist.

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-10 12:05:23)

2009-12-10 11:54:00
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6851

Those resolutions are a basis on which they could create a resolution allowing a war against Iraq, but on their own they don't allow action. I'm not saying that Iraq didn't bring it upon themselves with their constant ignoring of the UN, however no matter how many resolutions Iraq ignores, until the Security Council passes a resolution allowing action against Iraq, nothing can be done legally. It's really that simple.
2009-12-10 11:58:04
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6823|London, England
The UN and the SC are a joke anyway. Who says five countries can rule the world. Most of the time a veto is used by someone anyway, the only time the SC works is if the five countries all agree that they don't give a shit about the other countries so they just pass the resolution involved or they can all agree that they hate a country so nobody will veto
2009-12-10 12:02:11
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6853|USA

ghettoperson wrote:

Those resolutions are a basis on which they could create a resolution allowing a war against Iraq, but on their own they don't allow action. I'm not saying that Iraq didn't bring it upon themselves with their constant ignoring of the UN, however no matter how many resolutions Iraq ignores, until the Security Council passes a resolution allowing action against Iraq, nothing can be done legally. It's really that simple.
They already passed a resolution that allowed it, in 1991. They only reason the hostilities ceased was because Saddam agreed to the cease fire conditions, when he broke them, it left him open for resuming those hostilities which did occur. THe UN WASTED 10 years of threats and bullshit woerthless resolutions to get him to re-comply. He refused, and the UN refused to act on its threats. THe US basically carried through with the threats put forth by the UN, doing what the UN said it was going to do.

The US has no reason to let Iraq continue to be a growing threat to the world security that the un admitted it was. The US took action, in spite of a weak and worthless UN.
2009-12-10 12:55:15
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6917|US
Let's get this straight.
Neoconservaties are NOT libertarians.

Neocons quite often argue for more government control.  Libertarians, not so much...
2009-12-11 01:23:04
Benzin
Member
+576|6201
Saddam played a stupid political game. He wanted to remain strong in the face of the continuing conflict with Iran (Iraq and Iran were sworn enemies). If he bowed to the rest of the world and let them come in and see that he had nothing at all to defend himself with, it would have made Iraq look weak to Iran, which was pretty much an invitation (in Saddam's mind) for them to come in and take over. Saddam didn't want to lose power.

Frankly, the war in Iraq never needed to happen. As it turns out, Saddam was never a threat to begin with. His military was in shambles, he had no working WMD delivery systems - absolutely NOTHING. He could certainly be a problem for his own people, but at the end of the day, he wasn't threatening the world with anything more than words and a big show. A little bit of intelligence work and real international diplomatic pressure would have fixed all of this.

Mekstizzle wrote:

The UN and the SC are a joke anyway. Who says five countries can rule the world. Most of the time a veto is used by someone anyway, the only time the SC works is if the five countries all agree that they don't give a shit about the other countries so they just pass the resolution involved or they can all agree that they hate a country so nobody will veto
Agreed. There should be no permanent members of the UN Security Council.

As Dilbert said on the first page: If Bush's 8 years were what MODERN neoconservatism is all about, count me out.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard