Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 15

 

2006-07-19 22:11:42
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

Havazn wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Did you even read what I said?  The fact that they weren't sufficiently compliant at that time, didn't mean they weren't allowed more time according to the resolution.
So they thought that 10 years of bullshit by them could have been extended even longer and they only needed a little more time to be fully compliant??

But according to you they were not breaking any resolutions at all, so how can you claim that maybe they thought they needed more time to comply if they weren't in violation in the first place??
Ok, so lets say Iraq failed to comply with UN resolutions just for argument's sake. If that is the case, than it is up to the UN security council to enforce compliance. However, only 2 of the 5 permanent members of the UN SC took part in the Coalition. The U.S. and U.K.
We DO NOT have to imagine Iraq "Failed to comply with the UN resolutions just for argument sake". they did IN FACT fail to comply with the UN resolutions.

You are right it was up to the council to enforce Iraq's compliance. In this task they failed. The US has an obligation to protect it's self, and Iraq, with their uninspected and unchecked weapons programs was deemed a threat. It is no secret that the US has taken a posture since 911, NOT to sit around and wait for threats to materialize in our cities again. Because of this posture, several terrorist strikes were foiled on our soil as well as on our Canadian brothers and sisters. Sorry to disappoint you all, but the US initiative IS working to keep terror in check in the western hemisphere.
2006-07-19 23:24:34
Havazn
Member
+39|6895|van.ca

lowing wrote:

Havazn wrote:

lowing wrote:

So they thought that 10 years of bullshit by them could have been extended even longer and they only needed a little more time to be fully compliant??

But according to you they were not breaking any resolutions at all, so how can you claim that maybe they thought they needed more time to comply if they weren't in violation in the first place??
Ok, so lets say Iraq failed to comply with UN resolutions just for argument's sake. If that is the case, than it is up to the UN security council to enforce compliance. However, only 2 of the 5 permanent members of the UN SC took part in the Coalition. The U.S. and U.K.
We DO NOT have to imagine Iraq "Failed to comply with the UN resolutions just for argument sake". they did IN FACT fail to comply with the UN resolutions.

You are right it was up to the council to enforce Iraq's compliance. In this task they failed. The US has an obligation to protect it's self, and Iraq, with their uninspected and unchecked weapons programs was deemed a threat. It is no secret that the US has taken a posture since 911, NOT to sit around and wait for threats to materialize in our cities again. Because of this posture, several terrorist strikes were foiled on our soil as well as on our Canadian brothers and sisters. Sorry to disappoint you all, but the US initiative IS working to keep terror in check in the western hemisphere.
Where is your documentation on Iraq increasing its arms? Wasn't it bad Intelligence that deemed Iraq was a threat? When was Iraq a possible terrorist threat? How does invading Iraq prevent terrorist attacks? Which terrorist attacks did this action prevent?

lowing wrote:

I said a thousand times, Iraq had nothing to do with 911

911=Afhanistan/taliban

lowing wrote:

It is no secret that the US has taken a posture since 911, NOT to sit around and wait for threats to materialize in our cities again.
Why do you insist on bringing up 9/11 in regards to Iraq if they had nothing to do with it? Is it because 9/11 can justify invading a soverign nation based on bad intelligence? How is invading Iraq preventing locals from learning to fly planes?

Its the same old story with nothing backing it up, its not that I believe you or not, but debate isn't about believing each other is it?

Last edited by Havazn (2006-07-19 23:26:55)

2006-07-20 02:21:05
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6762

lowing wrote:

LOL, uhh once again, you said earlier that they never breached their obligations to the UN and the cease fire agreements that they signed off on. Now you are admitting that they did in fact kick out the inspectors ( which was clearly a breach of the resolutions set forth by the UN.
I decided to use you language to prevent yet another strand developing.

lowing wrote:

They were stalling for time during all the "negotiations" as to who, what, when, and where the UN inspections were to start again. You are nuts to think that Iraq needed 10 years to start RE-complying with their obligations to the cease fire. If you see it as anything other than stall tactics, ( probably to get their WMD's out of the country) you ARE as naive as all your liberal comrades.......LOL, comrades,........no pun intended.
Yet they didn't have any WMD's, and I doubt they could have gotten out everything the US was blabbering on about in the time they had, whilst armies built up on their borders.  I'm curious as to how I'm naive for saying before the war that Iraq had no WMDs, and then being proven right.  As opposed to the US government, who were saying before that they did have WMDs, and were then proven wrong.
2006-07-20 03:01:21
-=NHB=- Bananahands
Member
+58|6759
They have already found WMD's in Iraq. At least 500 artillery shells with sarin gas etc.
2006-07-20 03:02:26
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6762
I read that from another thread.  It seemed suspect, as I recall.
2006-07-20 03:55:42
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

Havazn wrote:

lowing wrote:

Havazn wrote:


Ok, so lets say Iraq failed to comply with UN resolutions just for argument's sake. If that is the case, than it is up to the UN security council to enforce compliance. However, only 2 of the 5 permanent members of the UN SC took part in the Coalition. The U.S. and U.K.
We DO NOT have to imagine Iraq "Failed to comply with the UN resolutions just for argument sake". they did IN FACT fail to comply with the UN resolutions.

You are right it was up to the council to enforce Iraq's compliance. In this task they failed. The US has an obligation to protect it's self, and Iraq, with their uninspected and unchecked weapons programs was deemed a threat. It is no secret that the US has taken a posture since 911, NOT to sit around and wait for threats to materialize in our cities again. Because of this posture, several terrorist strikes were foiled on our soil as well as on our Canadian brothers and sisters. Sorry to disappoint you all, but the US initiative IS working to keep terror in check in the western hemisphere.
Where is your documentation on Iraq increasing its arms? Wasn't it bad Intelligence that deemed Iraq was a threat? When was Iraq a possible terrorist threat? How does invading Iraq prevent terrorist attacks? Which terrorist attacks did this action prevent?

lowing wrote:

I said a thousand times, Iraq had nothing to do with 911

911=Afhanistan/taliban

lowing wrote:

It is no secret that the US has taken a posture since 911, NOT to sit around and wait for threats to materialize in our cities again.
Why do you insist on bringing up 9/11 in regards to Iraq if they had nothing to do with it? Is it because 9/11 can justify invading a soverign nation based on bad intelligence? How is invading Iraq preventing locals from learning to fly planes?

Its the same old story with nothing backing it up, its not that I believe you or not, but debate isn't about believing each other is it?
Once again, I never said Iraq had anything to do with 911. In this last post i said Iraq was deemed a threat because their weapons programs were unchecked and uninspected, by the UN inspectors that was supposed to be there, The fact that they were kicked out of the country, against the cease fire agreement made Iraq a threat again. For the very reasons I listed above. We were not going to sit around and wait for something to happen. Unless you have a crystal ball that you can share with the world to tell us all what will happen next.


You can try and twist my words all you want, I have been clear on my opinion regarding two separate issues of Iraq and 911
2006-07-20 03:58:01
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

LOL, uhh once again, you said earlier that they never breached their obligations to the UN and the cease fire agreements that they signed off on. Now you are admitting that they did in fact kick out the inspectors ( which was clearly a breach of the resolutions set forth by the UN.
I decided to use you language to prevent yet another strand developing.

lowing wrote:

They were stalling for time during all the "negotiations" as to who, what, when, and where the UN inspections were to start again. You are nuts to think that Iraq needed 10 years to start RE-complying with their obligations to the cease fire. If you see it as anything other than stall tactics, ( probably to get their WMD's out of the country) you ARE as naive as all your liberal comrades.......LOL, comrades,........no pun intended.
Yet they didn't have any WMD's, and I doubt they could have gotten out everything the US was blabbering on about in the time they had, whilst armies built up on their borders.  I'm curious as to how I'm naive for saying before the war that Iraq had no WMDs, and then being proven right.  As opposed to the US government, who were saying before that they did have WMDs, and were then proven wrong.
Gee I thought the gassed dead kurds were proof enough that the did have WMD's...you are a tough crowd to accept proof.
2006-07-20 04:02:26
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6762
When was the most recent gassing of Kurds?
2006-07-20 15:47:25
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

When was the most recent gassing of Kurds?
1988 I believe, gulf war started '91. cease fire in '91, defiance of the cease fire ever since, up to the recommencement of hostilities
2006-07-20 15:58:40
PekkaA
Member
+36|6865|Finland

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

When was the most recent gassing of Kurds?
1988 I believe, gulf war started '91. cease fire in '91, defiance of the cease fire ever since, up to the recommencement of hostilities
1991 gulf war wasn't started because of WMDs. Do you disagree?
2006-07-20 16:33:35
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

PekkaA wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

When was the most recent gassing of Kurds?
1988 I believe, gulf war started '91. cease fire in '91, defiance of the cease fire ever since, up to the recommencement of hostilities
1991 gulf war wasn't started because of WMDs. Do you disagree?
Nope, I agree..however, the terms of the cease fire were very clear, and they were responsible to abide those terms. They did not, so the fighting started up again.
2006-07-20 19:49:50
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6762

lowing wrote:

1988 I believe, gulf war started '91. cease fire in '91, defiance of the cease fire ever since, up to the recommencement of hostilities
Therefore pre-ceasefire, and therefore not a violation.
2006-07-20 19:59:15
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

1988 I believe, gulf war started '91. cease fire in '91, defiance of the cease fire ever since, up to the recommencement of hostilities
Therefore pre-ceasefire, and therefore not a violation.
sighhhhhhhh, they were in violation of the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to the gulf war bubbalo, plain and simple, your attempt to cloud that fact with bullshit is not working so let it go. You know it, everyone knows it. You can't hardly pull up porn on the internet without reading about it.


Bubbalo, I know you refuse to accept it, and that is ok, I will no longer try and confuse you with the fucking facts about this issue. Your mind is made up.
2006-07-20 20:03:00
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6762
No, you cited the gassing of kurds as a violation, which was pre-ceasefire.  I want you to cite a violation post ceasefire (and really, you need to go post last resolution to prove your point).
2006-07-20 20:08:56
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

No, you cited the gassing of kurds as a violation, which was pre-ceasefire.  I want you to cite a violation post ceasefire (and really, you need to go post last resolution to prove your point).
Bubbalo, It was the UN resolutions thar sent the UN inspectors into Iraq in the first place..........The very second they were kicked out of Iraq, Iraq was in violation of the UN resolutions that authorized UN inspections of Iraqi weapons programs. Pretty simple huh???
2006-07-20 20:10:39
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6762
A new resolution was passed, Iraq would have had to have been in violation of that resolution for force to be necessary.  Cite a violation.
2006-07-21 03:39:25
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

A new resolution was passed, Iraq would have had to have been in violation of that resolution for force to be necessary.  Cite a violation.
The UN passed reolution after resolution in response to Iraqs' non-compliance of the cease fire agreement ( the orginal resolutions), You are trying to tell me that Iraq never violated the cease fire agreement and you are 100% wrong, and you know you are wrong. Stop being a little bitch about it, and move on.
2006-07-21 03:49:03
stonehand
I need a medic here! Please?!?
+12|6882|Southern Indiana
I have a solution to all our problems over there.  BIG GLASS BOWL!!!!  2 to 3 nukes = problem solved
2006-07-21 04:15:52
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6762

lowing wrote:

The UN passed reolution after resolution in response to Iraqs' non-compliance of the cease fire agreement ( the orginal resolutions), You are trying to tell me that Iraq never violated the cease fire agreement and you are 100% wrong, and you know you are wrong. Stop being a little bitch about it, and move on.
I will try to put this as clearly as I can:

You said that Iraq violated the last resolution made by the United Nations Security Council against them.  I want to no how.

Note:

Last:  Same as final, most recent, the one with the latest date etc.

How:  The manner in which something was done, in this case the action taken and how it violated the resolution.
2006-07-21 07:23:38
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6720|Πάϊ

lowing wrote:

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

If your country is so damned concerned about Africa, stand a fucking post there, if not stop bitching about what others are or are not doing there.

If you are not bitching about the US NOT in Africa and how we need to do something, you are bitching that the US needs to stop playing world police and mind our own business.So which is it today??
My country has nothing to do with anything. I am concerned about Africa as well as the rest of the world because your fucking government is fucking with all of us.

What is it today? Today the United States Government is trying to implicate Tehran with what Hezbolah allegedly are doing so they can invade Iran and steal their oil.

And if you have something to say that differs from my opinion just say it and stop bitching about how I'm supposedly bitching cause that only makes you look like a goddamn retarded redneck.
Show me one example where the US has stolen oil from anyone. We buy it , just like everyone else does.

Those were not "alleged" missiles that constantly, day in and day out, were shot into Israel by Hazbolah.

As far as me having something to say to you, I don't believe that I have beaten around any bushes, letting you all know how I feel about your apologist, appeasing, peace at any price, attitude toward the terrorism. 


You also nailed it right on the head when you said "My country has nothing to do with anything". All this tells me is you must be fucking french or something along the lines of their attitude, that nothing matters in the world unless they have to surrender to it. If I didn't make myself clear enough to you, let me know and I will gladly rephrase.
You buy it?? Clearly you have no idea of your government's actions in the Middle East and in all of South America. In a few words, the USA are either invading themselves or funding coups. In both cases a US friendly government emerges which then proceeds to sell out the country's natural wealth (friendly prices) and to assign the rebuilding of the destroyed infrastructure (not so friendly prices) to American cooperations. That's how you buy it. Free market yes?

You choose to focus on some missiles Hezbolah throws as retaliations to the massive killing of Arabs by the Israeli Government. If you are interested in numbers check out how many people lose their lives each day from each side. Oh but Israel is merely protecting its own? NEWSFLASH: Israel are the invaders into Palestinian land. So be careful who you call a terrorist next time.

If you want my opinion they both are terrorists, only difference is that Israel chose to be whereas the Palestinians had no choice.

As for my "apologizing attitude, peace at all costs" etc, it is once again clear you have no idea what terrorism is. You are merely using the term selectively to legitimize your expansionism.

"My country has nothing to do with it" means I do not speak for my country, I speak for myself. Fuck my country and its government. If you choose to limit yourself with made-up boarders, I pity you.
ƒ³
2006-07-21 11:28:26
GR.:.Lt._Squall
I am an X-Phile
+0|6692|USA
I don't have a problem with having set 'Rules of Engagement' during times of war. It's the part of the military that proves that the US army and other US military groups has self control and order. It's what sets the US military service apart from groups of trigger happy insurgents. I feel that there are other ways than eliminating the ROE to take out threats that will blend in with the surroundings. Revisions, exceptions, changes, and so on.
2006-07-21 15:05:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

The UN passed reolution after resolution in response to Iraqs' non-compliance of the cease fire agreement ( the orginal resolutions), You are trying to tell me that Iraq never violated the cease fire agreement and you are 100% wrong, and you know you are wrong. Stop being a little bitch about it, and move on.
I will try to put this as clearly as I can:

You said that Iraq violated the last resolution made by the United Nations Security Council against them.  I want to no how.

Note:

Last:  Same as final, most recent, the one with the latest date etc.

How:  The manner in which something was done, in this case the action taken and how it violated the resolution.
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.
2006-07-21 15:13:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6852|USA

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

oug wrote:

My country has nothing to do with anything. I am concerned about Africa as well as the rest of the world because your fucking government is fucking with all of us.

What is it today? Today the United States Government is trying to implicate Tehran with what Hezbolah allegedly are doing so they can invade Iran and steal their oil.

And if you have something to say that differs from my opinion just say it and stop bitching about how I'm supposedly bitching cause that only makes you look like a goddamn retarded redneck.
Show me one example where the US has stolen oil from anyone. We buy it , just like everyone else does.

Those were not "alleged" missiles that constantly, day in and day out, were shot into Israel by Hazbolah.

As far as me having something to say to you, I don't believe that I have beaten around any bushes, letting you all know how I feel about your apologist, appeasing, peace at any price, attitude toward the terrorism. 


You also nailed it right on the head when you said "My country has nothing to do with anything". All this tells me is you must be fucking french or something along the lines of their attitude, that nothing matters in the world unless they have to surrender to it. If I didn't make myself clear enough to you, let me know and I will gladly rephrase.
You buy it?? Clearly you have no idea of your government's actions in the Middle East and in all of South America. In a few words, the USA are either invading themselves or funding coups. In both cases a US friendly government emerges which then proceeds to sell out the country's natural wealth (friendly prices) and to assign the rebuilding of the destroyed infrastructure (not so friendly prices) to American cooperations. That's how you buy it. Free market yes?

You choose to focus on some missiles Hezbolah throws as retaliations to the massive killing of Arabs by the Israeli Government. If you are interested in numbers check out how many people lose their lives each day from each side. Oh but Israel is merely protecting its own? NEWSFLASH: Israel are the invaders into Palestinian land. So be careful who you call a terrorist next time.

If you want my opinion they both are terrorists, only difference is that Israel chose to be whereas the Palestinians had no choice.

As for my "apologizing attitude, peace at all costs" etc, it is once again clear you have no idea what terrorism is. You are merely using the term selectively to legitimize your expansionism.

"My country has nothing to do with it" means I do not speak for my country, I speak for myself. Fuck my country and its government. If you choose to limit yourself with made-up boarders, I pity you.
How nice that you are free to go on the internet and talk all the shit you want about your country ( or anyone elses) I bet not everyone can do that. And for your attitude of "fuck my country", you wouldn't be saying that if your past countrymen had not died for your freedom to do so. You are basically a fucking leech, that will stand tall and talk all the shit you want but not recognize that someone sacrificed so you can. You ARE a pathetic  fuckin' apologist and appeaser. Bottom line.........the world tried and "talked" to Hitler as well, dumb ass.

As far as Israel goes, they have made their good will jestures only to be continued victims of terrorism. They pulled completely out of Gaza for example, did the violence agains tthem stop??, nope. Who exactly is the one threatening grnpcide and wiping an entire country off the face of the earth?/ Oh yeah........the peace loving muslims that surround Israel.

Last edited by lowing (2006-07-21 15:31:30)

2006-07-21 15:28:51
MoChief
Member
+67|6803
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.
2006-07-21 15:30:45
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6751|CH/BR - in UK

Yeah...they wanted to avoid a war, and even let him annex a country...not a smart move, m8 ...
But then again... I don't see the similarity between one person and a whole country...

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 15

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard