Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN by Ghoulman

Keep the Shiny side up

I think Annan's statement was designed to deflect attention from the UN's failure to do anything about the crisis in Sudan. 1.5 million are displaced, 50,000 are already dead, and international agencies estimate up to 10,000 additional are dying each month from disease, starvation and murder by the government's paramilitaries. The latest round of peace talks has just broken down due to the government's unwillingness to rein in the Janjaweed paramilitary force.

The latest draft proposal for sanctions against the Khartoum government can't even get out of the Security Council due to veto threats from China and Russia. They, along with Security Council members Pakistan, Algeria, and Angola have problems with the resolution's "...declaration of "grave concern" that the Sudanese government "has failed to comply fully" with its previous commitments to curb the militias and provide security for the civilians who fled; its call for an independent commission to investigate "whether or not acts of genocide have occurred;" and its call for a halt to all military flights over Darfur."

http://wtop.com/index.php?nid=105&sid=202174

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 17, 2004 3:53 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ Agent Mulder? Is that you? *chuckle*, take your conspiracy theories to FOX pal.

The topic is that when GWB went to Congress and asked for the power to go to War the Congress said; "sure, but only if you prove there is a threat to the USA (finding the WMDs Bush promised existed) and Saddam is connected to 9/11".

Neither turned out to be true. The Cheney Gov... er, the Bush Government lied to the American people. Impeach him!

Now, the death toll in Iraq is growing faster and longer every day, more than a year after GWB declaired "Mission Accomplished". And still nearly half of Americans believe Saddam DID have something to do with 9/11. Impeach him!

Insane. Impeach him or else?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 17, 2004 6:38 AM

I think you have it half right,

GWB's illegal use of the resolution against Iraq, may very well paralyze the security council... as how will the Americans take what we just said out of context and use to their own means.... again

I think the veto has to be taken out of the process, instead a majority rule vote carries and if a member state doesn't want to participate there you go. Pre Iraq the council then could have shot down GWBs claim he was enforcing a UN sanctioned action by condemning it beforehand. Perhaps a few more permenant members ie India, and more rotated members bring the number to 15 or so.

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 17, 2004 7:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think you have it half right,

GWB's illegal use of the resolution against Iraq, may very well paralyze the security council... as how will the Americans take what we just said out of context and use to their own means.... again

China is the major veto threat against any meaningful resolution. Guess which country is Sudan's major trading partner?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 17, 2004 8:00 AM

Originally posted by Geezer:

China is the major veto threat against any meaningful resolution. Guess which country is Sudan's major trading partner?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

And the US is the only one who vetos resolutions against Israel... toss the veto

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 17, 2004 8:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

Sorry, big response for a big issue.

Wow. He opposed the war then and now. Big surprise. Dozens of nations disagreed. There has been no Security Council action to condemn the war.

Actually 3 resolutions authorized the use of force against Iraq. The first was prior to the 1991 Gulf War. That war lasted until a cease fire. The cease fire was violated in a number of ways by Iraq. These included the expulsion of inpsectors in 1998 (right around the time of Clinton's Lewinsky War which started with military strikes on Iraq the day the House voted to impeach Clinton, lasted a week or so...and nobody complains about that one), the failure to return or account for several thousand Kuwaiti prisoners (later found to have been tortured and killed in Iraqi prisons in the '90s) and the almost daily attacks on US and UK planes in the no fly zone.

The second was in the mid-nineties, but I can't remember when or why.

The last was the "accept UN demands or else" resolution before the Iraq war last year. Its the "or else" part that is in issue. "Or else" what? Annan says "or else means nothing else, France says it means something, but not war. The US says that it either means war "or else" the UN itself has no meaning (empty threats indicate a lack of power and resolve which reduces the UN to a debating society).

Now here's my two cents. This war was actually caused by weakness by the international community. France, Annan, and ten thousand protesters signaled a division in policy. Saddam then exercised his influence with France to seek support and undermine US efforts to build a solid coalition of the "power players" of Europe. He was successful. The US countered Saddam's efforts by courting 2nd tier European powers such as Poland and Romania. Then, using the sufficiently vague resolution (made of language insisted on by France), launched the war without seeking the support of France, Germany, or Russia. They succeeded and Saddam is now out of power.

So lets rewind to the Fall of '02. Bush goes to the UN and makes the big speech. France, Russia, and Germany, along with the lessor powers in Europe and around the world rally to the US with a post 9/11 spirit. Standing shoulder to shoulder the make the same demands and substitute "or there will be war" for the "or else" that China would prefer. The vote is 14-0-1 with China abstaining. France sends a light armor brigade to Kuwait along with the US, UK, Polish, Bugarians, Romanians, and Spain. They spread out through Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which happily extends its full support. They also stage troops in Turkey, which proudly joins honors what it sees as its NATO commitments.

Which scenario is more likely to lead to war? An international community divided in its commitment and strategy to oppose terror, or one united against terror and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Further, I doubt Iran and North Korea feel so comfortable with their own programs in the wake of such a united stand.

There. That should end debate except for the Bush-haters for whom hating Bush is more important then a realist approach to international relations and domestic security.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 17, 2004 9:04 AM

SGTGUMP

Maybe, someday, I might care what Kofi Annan has to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 17, 2004 9:39 AM

GHOULMAN

^^^ There never was a Jesus.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

Sorry, big response for a big issue.

Wow. He opposed the war then and now. Big surprise. Dozens of nations disagreed. There has been no Security Council action to condemn the war.
SNIP!!!

You blame the UN for the invasion of Iraq by the USA ??? ... lol!!!

Biggest pile of crap I've seen here in, oh, must be a week!

What colour is the sky in your world HERO?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 17, 2004 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ There never was a Jesus.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

Sorry, big response for a big issue.

Wow. He opposed the war then and now. Big surprise. Dozens of nations disagreed. There has been no Security Council action to condemn the war.
SNIP!!!

You blame the UN for the invasion of Iraq by the USA ??? ... lol!!!

Biggest pile of crap I've seen here in, oh, must be a week!

What colour is the sky in your world HERO?

Sky was a lovely shade of grey today. Ironic.

Actually the blame falls to Saddam, who had it within his power to avoid war right up until a day or so before the invasion. He misread US intentions and misread the international dynamic. Once Bush issued the "leave Iraq or else" ultimatum in the last days before the War, the choice to go to war was placed in Saddam's hands.

But Saddam was not totally at fault. The opposition to the war he percieved in the UN, the thousands and protestors, and the split in the Western Block led Saddam to believe that war might be avoided, or if not avoided then it would be limited and survivable.

This was the result of a long term strategy on Saddam's part. He subverted the UN with oil money, played up to France and Russia, provided financial support to international protest organizations, and continued to support terror (particularly against Isreal) in order to emerge the Arab champion once sanctions were lifted. Split the west, end sanctions, and emerge stronger and with more regional influence then he had before the Gulf War.

His strategy was successful, but 9/11 changed the political dynamic. He failed to consider that the nature of the new US policy of premptive warfare, even though he had seen that policy exercised with great success by Isreal in response to its long running conflict with both terror and Arab aggression.

The ultimate blame lies with the nations like France and Germany (and Russia, but they are not a traditional US ally). Saddam's diplomacy and financial corruption split these nations from the US and UK. This anti-American faction of the Western Block actively opposed US policy towards Iraq after the mid-nineties. Had these nations rallied to the US in opposition to Saddam in 2002 and before the war I believe Saddam would have backed down and might be in power today. (Hmmm...so I'm glad things worked out this way, and so are the tens of thousands who would have been tortured, raped, and murdered each year Saddam might have been in power.)

Annan holds little blame, after all he believes the UN stands for nothing, so his opinions hold little weight. I do note that his family made a fortune off Iraqi oil. Annan is like the Pope only without the religous part, and we already have a Pope so we don't need some armchair diplomat running around saying how bad things are and how we need to do more and be all loving our neighbors.

We need international leadership willing to kick some ass in the name of truth, justice and the American way. Ok, maybe not "American" way, but certainly the way of freedom, liberty, and prosperity for all mankind, sorry, that IS the American way.

Maybe you have a problem with that, that's ok. Really its ok. Your free to have your problem with that. Think anything you want...but if you oppose liberty then you are on the losing side. Just ask Hitler, the Soviets, Slobo the Yugo, Osama Bin-Inna Cave, or Saddam. Or ten thousand dead terrorists wondering why paradise is so hot and lacking in virgins.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:31 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Actually the blame falls to Saddam, who had it within his power to avoid war right up until a day or so before the invasion. Once Bush issued the "leave Iraq or else" ultimatum in the last days before the War

'Hero,' quote any part of any UN resolution that calls for Hussein to leave Iraq.

Ghoulman, and there you have it. America's shame, breathtakingly naked.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:40 AM

I think we should take up a collection to send Hero on a trip to some of these places he feels that the US has helped so much.

The one condition... He has to walk the streets wearing the American flag either on his jacket or shirt

A little public opinion on his ass may just turn into a healthy dose of reality

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 18, 2004 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think we should take up a collection to send Hero on a trip to some of these places he feels that the US has helped so much.

The one condition... He has to walk the streets wearing the American flag either on his jacket or shirt

A little public opinion on his ass may just turn into a healthy dose of reality

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

LOL! I'll pitch in twenty bucks.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 18, 2004 11:52 AM

FLYINGTAMS

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I think Annan's statement was designed to deflect attention from the UN's failure to do anything about the crisis in Sudan.

No, that's what Bush would have done. And bombed everybody probably. The UN tries to HELP - not just kill people.

Quote:

The latest draft proposal for sanctions against the Khartoum government can't even get out of the Security Council due to veto threats from China and Russia.

The alternative is world war 3 - we have to find a peacefull solution - force doesn't work (witness Iraq) you can't bomb your way to peace.

You have to talk your way to peace - and if someone dies along the way that is terrible, but the alternative might be even more people dying.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think we should take up a collection to send Hero on a trip to some of these places he feels that the US has helped so much.

The one condition... He has to walk the streets wearing the American flag either on his jacket or shirt

I'd proudly fit right in with the thousands of my friends and neighbors and many people who post on this board. That is the US servicemen who walk the streets of Iraq, Germany, Romania, Italy, Spain, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Cuba (ok, that tiny strip that isn't under Castro's control) South Korea, and on, etc, and don't forget Japan. They walk those streets and proudly wear the flag on their jackets, do you really think I'd do any less if called?

Send your collection to them, they prove my point every day.

Quote:

A little public opinion on his ass may just turn into a healthy dose of reality

I hardly think that the rule of the terrorist or the mob represent public opinion.

I agree however that many people, although I doubt a majority except in certain countries (France)really hate the US to the extent the extremists and liberals claim they do. We Americans have a word describing those kind of people who, for whatever reason, hate America...WRONG. These people were wrong about the Cold War, wrong about the economy, wrong about freedom, and wrong about terror. But, like those who do appreciate America they are right about one thing. That is their deep down faith that America will be there to bail them out or save their ass when the next Hitler comes to town or planes (and buildings) start falling from the sky.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Actually the blame falls to Saddam, who had it within his power to avoid war right up until a day or so before the invasion. Once Bush issued the "leave Iraq or else" ultimatum in the last days before the War

'Hero,' quote any part of any UN resolution that calls for Hussein to leave Iraq.

Ghoulman, and there you have it. America's shame, breathtakingly naked.

Its the part about "serious consequences". We tried to be more clear, but France said that those two words were the best form to communicate our intent.

The ultimatum delivered by Bush was a final diplomatic effort to avoid war. Thats why the war didn't come immediately with the passage of the resolution.

Its like due process. Resolution, then Saddam fails to comply, then diplomacy and military buildup (sabre rattling), then Congress (use of force), then final diplomacy, then shock and awe (although we were ten miles deep into Iraq before the shock and halfway to Baghdad before the awe).

Each step requires Saddam by action or inaction to choose the next step. He could have stopped the process at any point simply by giving in or giving up. The US had no choice once the process started then to prosecute as far as needed to force Iraqi compliance, but the power to stop the march to war was left in Saddam's hands.

Lets compare this process to Iraq's process during the last war they started. Step one invade Kuwait. Thats it. Democracies practice an involved process designed to avoid war, dictators don't.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 18, 2004 5:48 PM

SUCCATASH

This is all so very interesting, really.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 18, 2004 7:43 PM

@Hero
"serious consequenses" does _*/not/*_ equal war. It's only war mongers like you that think this way. The civilized world can (and wanted to) do far more before bombs are dropped.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

The ultimatum delivered by Bush was a final diplomatic effort to avoid war. Thats why the war didn't come immediately with the passage of the resolution.

This "final diplomatic effort" was pathetic at best. All of the UN was wanting the inspectors to finish there job *before* any action was taken, as a means to evaluate what action should be taken, if any. But that didn't seem good enough for blood-thirsty un-president Bush.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Its like due process. Resolution, then Saddam fails to comply, then diplomacy and military buildup (sabre rattling), then Congress (use of force), then final diplomacy, then shock and awe (although we were ten miles deep into Iraq before the shock and halfway to Baghdad before the awe).

What due process? The UN had a process and the US decided to circumvent said process and create its own "world order." Well by the looks of it, this sick experiment has failed.

And what has happened on the Afgan frount? Don't like talking about that, eh? Just another american failure. America drops out of that war and leaves it up to the rest of the world to pick up the slack (what happened to all that 9/11 vengance stuff?) while the US goes off to Iraq illegally. Smells funny if you ask me. Especially since Iraq had done nothing to deserve this (provide evidence if you have any, which you don't, because it was all known to be false by the rest of us *before* this all began).

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Each step requires Saddam by action or inaction to choose the next step. He could have stopped the process at any point simply by giving in or giving up. The US had no choice once the process started then to prosecute as far as needed to force Iraqi compliance, but the power to stop the march to war was left in Saddam's hands.

This sounds almost like an abusive husband saying, "I'm sorry honey, but you know what I'm like when I get mad. Why did you make me do this? You know it's your fault, you know how I am." It's no excuse for the husband, and it's no excuse for the US.

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Lets compare this process to Iraq's process during the last war they started. Step one invade Kuwait. Thats it. Democracies practice an involved process designed to avoid war, dictators don't.

Um, you do realize that Bush just decided to go to war without due process, right? He did have the authority to do it and he did. I hate to say it, but america as a country is headed in the direction of a dictatorship and unfortunatly it already is in many respects (ie no senate approval required to go to war). Is a sad thing indeed.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:05 AM

Yeah, there is so many US servicemen that share the same un-reality that you do, that the USG has to threaten the ones they have suckered in to stay

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_318
5596,00.html

or as Succatash posted before the promise of boob jobs ?

Why not go back the way of the British Army and just toss them a bottle of rum every day

" Send your collection to them, they prove my point every day "

I would be more prone to help people fighting for their freedom, support the mujahideen for only pennies a day

" I hardly think that the rule of the terrorist or the mob represent public opinion. "

So everyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist? you really are a Bushite

" We Americans have a word describing those kind of people who, for whatever reason, hate America...WRONG. "

If I thought all Americans felt like you, I likely would be planning attacks myself

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 19, 2004 7:42 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"If I thought all Americans felt like you, I likely would be planning attacks myself"

You need to choose your arguments more carefully. You can't accuse the US of unnecessarily using force to solve its problems, and then say that if you thought the majority of Americans held the Bush philosophy, you'd be planning attacks yourself.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 19, 2004 9:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"If I thought all Americans felt like you, I likely would be planning attacks myself"

You need to choose your arguments more carefully. You can't accuse the US of unnecessarily using force to solve its problems, and then say that if you thought the majority of Americans held the Bush philosophy, you'd be planning attacks yourself.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

You need to read a little more carefully. Your argument only holds if his comment was serious. Which I gather isn't the case.

I find it interesting that this was the only comment that he made that you commented on... interesting.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 19, 2004 10:49 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

There. That should end debate except for the Bush-haters for whom hating Bush is more important then a realist approach to international relations and domestic security.

Hate's such a strong word - but all signs point to the fact that the war on Iraq was illegal (if the Attorney General's advice in the UK was genuinely foolproof, why hasn't it been released, particularly with what the Sec Gen has now said-

to point out, he never said the war was illegal, just contrary to the UN Charter - he accepted the word when put to him, but did his level best not to use the word himself.

Back on track - do I think Saddam should be leader of Iraq? No.

But then I also have issues with Muwgabe, yet we aren't in there. There are many many areas of the world where the ruler is "unpleasant" to undersell the issue, but there is no argument - whether that's the oil or otherwise - that we should go in there.

And if there was, where do you draw the line. What about Putin in Chechnya?

Since there is as much, if not more evidence linking Bush and previous US governments to Osama Bin Laden as there is Saddam, that argument for going in has been shown to be a fallacy - Blair never used it as he knew he couldn't. There's no evidence of WMD that were a threat, so the real reason was the decision was taken that the US didn't like the Iraq regime - just as the US/UK have done previously (and didn't that work out well - we're as responsible for Saddam being in power as anyone).

Anyway, that should end the debate for all bar the Bush-lovers... ahem

Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 19, 2004 11:04 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You need to read a little more carefully. Your argument only holds if his comment was serious. Which I gather isn't the case.

Actually, and I say this as someone arguing on that poster's general side of the debate - his choice of words was ill thought out, whether the comment was serious or not.

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 19, 2004 11:13 AM

I am not saying the use of force is unnessersary, it many cases it is

What I am saying is the US for many years now has been subverting governments all over the world through economic, political, and other means.

I am saying if Heros attitude was that of all the people of the United States, any negotiation, any act of civil diplomacy would be pointless...

force becomes the only option

and how does one without the resources of the United States fight to win

either WMD, or guerilla warfare

and I believe we will see generations of this unless we see a complete overhaul of how the US interacts with the rest of the world

and I can't even say that is wrong anymore

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 19, 2004 5:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You need to read a little more carefully. Your argument only holds if his comment was serious. Which I gather isn't the case.

Actually, and I say this as someone arguing on that poster's general side of the debate - his choice of words was ill thought out, whether the comment was serious or not.

Whether the comment was well thought out is not the issue that I was addressing. The fact is that
Anthonyt was attempting to debunk the argument based on something that was clearly false. This was my point, which made A.T.'s comment moot.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 19, 2004 6:02 PM

SUCCATASH

I agree with Gino and his words ARE well thought out. Gino means what he says.

I'm an American, and Hero doesn't speak for all Americans. If my country continues to act like a global bully, the mighty hand of Liberty will eventually get shoved back into our own ass.

Bush is only making more enemies, more terrorists. I want him gone, he is terrible.

But if another country invaded the USA and said, "We're gonna get rid of Bush for you," I would fight back with every bit of dirty sneaky treachory I could. Their media would call it terrorism but I would consider it defending my country, by any means necessary, an honor.

Gino, if America suddenly becomes 100% Hero, please shoot me first.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 20, 2004 1:00 AM

Succatash, I don't think their is any danger of you becoming Hero-ish, therefore the whole exercise would hopefully be moot...

Mind you, wouldn't you be in the same position as say a German Soldier in 1944

" but I would consider it defending my country, by any means necessary, an honor "

A position I can respect

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 20, 2004 2:52 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyingTams:
The alternative is world war 3 - we have to find a peacefull solution - force doesn't work (witness Iraq) you can't bomb your way to peace.

You have to talk your way to peace - and if someone dies along the way that is terrible, but the alternative might be even more people dying.

Because the UN works so well.

U.N. Threatens Sanctions Against Sudan
Updated: Sunday, Sep. 19, 2004 - 8:20 AM

By EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - A divided U.N. Security Council approved a resolution Saturday threatening oil sanctions against Sudan unless the government reins in Arab militias blamed for a killing spree in Darfur and ordered an investigation of whether the attacks constitute genocide.

The vote was 11-0 with four abstentions _ China, Russia, Pakistan and Algeria.

China, a permanent council member, said immediately after the vote that it would veto any future resolution that sought to impose sanctions on Sudan.

http://wtop.com/index.php?nid=105&sid=202174

Yes. The UN is 'Declaring Grave Concern' and 'Deploring' at a mile a minute. Unfortunately, if they try to actually implement any sanctions, China will veto them (that's China, Sudan's #1 trading partner). I'm sure the government in Khartoum is shaking in their boots. Meanwhile, 10,000 people a month are dying, but as they bury their children I'm sure they understand that it's all for the greater good.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 20, 2004 6:04 AM

ARAWAEN

You have highlighted the problem with the U.N., the security council, specifically the permanent members of the security council.

Each has the power to veto anything which is not in their best interest. France had interest in Iraq hence their 'veto' (resolution withdrawn because we knew they would use it). China has interest in Sudan hence their threatened veto. America has interest in Israel so we veto anything negative against them.

As oil supplies tighten up we are going to see an ever increasingly ineffective U.N. as the big powers maneuver to get access and control over various reserves. No nation is going to risk their access to their favored sources.

Given how poorly the U.N. is set up I am surprised it has lasted this long. You are never going to have peace with a weak central government and nobody is going to give up autonomy voluntarily.

Might as well quote Heinlein in this thread too,

Quote:
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.

I believe World War III is coming, not necessarily soon, but it is coming, about the time when China reaches the U.S. in energy consumption per capita.

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 20, 2004 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Because the UN works so well.
[snip]

Remind me how Sudan has anything to do with this thread. We're talking about Iraq. Stop trying to side track the discussion.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 20, 2004 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
You have highlighted the problem with the U.N., the security council, specifically the permanent membersof the security council.

And that problem is that they exist, or is it that they don't go along with what ever the US wants anymore? Specify.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

Each has the power to veto anything which is not in their best interest. France had interest in Iraq hence their 'veto' (resolution withdrawn because we knew they would use it).

This is here-say. France never said that they would veto any resolution. They just said that they would veto any solution that would immediately lead to war. I guess that the last part of that sentence never made it to the US, eh?

And you never know what they might have done. At least if the US tried to get the resolution passed they could say they tried. Now all they can say is that the other countries weren't playing nice (read as: had there own opinions and wouldn't move in the face of poor evidence) and then when off and had a bombing fit.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

China has interest in Sudan hence their threatened veto. America has interest in Israel so we veto anything negative against them.

Both are shameful.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

Given how poorly the U.N. is set up I am surprised it has lasted this long. You are never going to have peace with a weak central government and nobody is going to give up autonomy voluntarily.

It is only poorly setup for how things are today. This statement implies that it has always been this way, which isn't the case. In the beginning the structure was great for the small amount of countries that were members. But as the number increased, and no changes were made, problems started to arise. In this light, it is no surprise that it has lasted this long.

Quite frankly I don't see much of a problem with how things are running. Everyone seems to get things done (albeit slowly, inefficiently, yes things *need* to change, but no problems are there that aren't typical of politics that wouldn't exist without the UN). I believe that the major problem arose with the US acting like a child having a temper tantrum and went off alone to start a war (illegally).

I'm just happy that someone has finally said it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:

Quote:
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.

This is one of the stupidest statements that I've seen to date (which is saying something as I've done tech support for FedEx).

The only reason why this would be true is that in the past the world governments were (quite frankly), a little barbaric. They lacked the capacity to handle things by (and this is clearly a crazy idea to some) talking.

I'd like to think that we've evolved some since and that we can solve our problems diplomatically.

But, for those who thinking is along the lines of this quote. You are as barbaric as those from yester-year. You are dinosaurs. Please go off and get extinct before you kill those who would act in the name of peace and

us all.

EDIT: Talking to the wife revealed a little tid-bit more.

There is a difference between solving a problem and ending it. The former is done by talking (ie by the civilized) and the latter is done by bombs and such (by the barbarians). But even then, the latter is typically an endless escalating cycle (note: no real end. That is until the former is completed by the civilized).

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 1:01 AM

ARAWAEN

The problem with the U.N. as I thought I indicated clearly in my post was that a single member of the security council can veto any proposal even if the rest of the U.N. is unanimous.

The U.N. has been poorly set up from the very beginning. The world powers have always had this power and it makes the U.N. impotent. Weak central governments with no authority can at best be ineffective.

The quote from Heinlein is an objection to the notion that violence solves nothing and that talking resolves problems from the previous poster.

Personally I haven't seen resolution of any human problems at any point in history. Human beings have either used force to make the dissenting position go away or have used technology to temporarily side step the issue. It is temporary because the technology deals with a symptom not the root of the problem that is human nature.

Your post assumes a great deal about me and attacks based on those assumptions, so now lets clear up a few things, SigmaNuki:

1. I don't support the war in Iraq. I never did.
2. I am generally considered liberal as the term is bandied about, enough so I am insulted by the notion of Kerry being liberal.
3. I believe American foreign policy has more to do with terrorism than any other factor.
4. I would actually support a strong world government.

Your post was hostile.

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 3:02 AM

I don't have time to go into detail right now, but I did want to speak to that ugly Heinlein quote. Women's sufferage and women's rights in general, have been gained entirely through peaceful means. Gay rights have advanced without a single shot fired (by gays, plenty of shots fired and lynchings and throat slittings and beatings from the other side, of course). I could go on. Human life has advanced plenty without coercive force.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 3:56 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I don't have time to go into detail right now, but I did want to speak to that ugly Heinlein quote. Women's sufferage and women's rights in general, have been gained entirely through peaceful means. Gay rights have advanced without a single shot fired (by gays, plenty of shots fired and lynchings and throat slittings and beatings from the other side, of course). I could go on. Human life has advanced plenty without coercive force.

In Nazi Germany, Gays and other "defectives" went to the gas chambers along with the Gypsies and Jews. Coercive force applied by the Allies to Germany ended that. Generally the rights you speak of exist only because someone is willing to defend, with violence if necessary, the political systems that make them possible.

Here's another quote you won't like, from George Orwell.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 1:22 PM

@Arawaen
You wrote:
"""
The problem with the U.N. as I thought I indicated clearly in my post was that a single member of the security council can veto any proposal even if the rest of the U.N. is unanimous.
"""
This only becomes a problem if the members with veto rights make a habit of using said right. As far as I know it's pretty much only the US that abuses this with vetoing any resolution against Israel (ie vetoing the resolution that basically just stated that the "security wall" that Israel was bring/did build was wrong). So, as far as I'm aware, this right is currently responsibly used by members not the US.

This is also where that crazy term, compromise comes in. Nobody, ever, will be happy with everything. It is a function of the needs of the different countries and what they find important. What one must do is find a balance and all the countries involved must be mature enough to accept it. I must point out at this time that this is exactly what the US doesn't do.

Currently I see only one large problem with the UN. It is that there is no repercussions for the actions for the members if they should do something horrible. This should be fixed and soon.

In the case of Iraq, the resolution stated that they would suffer dire consequences if they didn't, blah blah blah. Which the weapons inspectors where figuring out to what, if any degree, was said infraction.

Now at some point in time the US (among others) decided to "go it alone" and attack (illegally) Iraq because of things they thought that the rest of us knew not to be true.

Now at this point we have a member (the US and others) that have committed an major infraction against another state. So, then what consequences should befall the US (and others)? Clearly, they have done something wrong. Clearly, they have done some illegal. Clearly, something should be done to punish the US (and the others as well) for this horrible crime. So, let's fix this problem. What would your suggestions be?

You wrote:
"""
The U.N. has been poorly set up from the very beginning.
"""
I think you said this before. But just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Perhaps some justification is in order, eh?

You wrote:
"""
...the root of the problem that is human nature.
"""
Human nature only becomes a problem if we let our cave-man like qualities come out. So, as I stated before, humans have comes a long way. We now have the ability to control ourselves and act in the interest of the common good. To say that it is unavoidable and to say that it's only our "human nature" is to give up on order and delve into chaos.

Maybe you have, maybe not. But clearly some have. The civilized world would disagree. We are hear to talk and to find peaceful resolutions to problems. HkCavalier has provided some excellent examples of this that have been resolved in the not so distant past. Clearly we as humans are capable of this and to expect anything less is to temp us humans to go back to the cave.

To add to HkCavalier's list:

Canada got it's independence through diplomacy
Scotland is doing the same
The EU is another excellent example

You wrote:
"""
Your post was hostile.
"""
My post was hostile to the US and its policies. I have opinions that *many* people around the world have (and mine are based on experiences that I had *while living in the US*). Also, to say *many* is to put it lightly. Perhaps the administration in the US should take that as a clue to change its ways.

But, if you have taken things to heart that weren't directed explicitly at you personally, that is your problem. And that is how I gather you felt my "hostility."

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 1:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

with violence if necessary

stand ready to do violence

Perhaps you should read those quotes again. Or just read those few words that I have highlighted above.

You might notice that these statments imply that violence is used _*/only/*_ as a _*/last/*_ resort.

Kind of takes the bit out of your response, doesn't it.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:02 PM

ARAWAEN

I cannot believe that I forgot how inflammatory Heinlein is for some people. For that I apologize, it serves no purpose to rile people up, especially when you are trying to have a discussion.

I used the quote in response to this post:

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyingTams:
The alternative is world war 3 - we have to find a peacefull solution - force doesn't work (witness Iraq) you can't bomb your way to peace.

You have to talk your way to peace - and if someone dies along the way that is terrible, but the alternative might be even more people dying.

In Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers this particular line is offered in response to a character saying that, her mother says violence doesn't solve anything.

SigmaNuki seems to be of the opinion that violence = barbarism and that the civilized are above it.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I don't have time to go into detail right now, but I did want to speak to that ugly Heinlein quote. Women's sufferage and women's rights in general, have been gained entirely through peaceful means. Gay rights have advanced without a single shot fired (by gays, plenty of shots fired and lynchings and throat slittings and beatings from the other side, of course). I could go on. Human life has advanced plenty without coercive force.

I find it ironic that you (HKCavalier) chose a suffrage issue to decry the Heinlein quote about violence.

The irony stems from the fact that a theme of novel is that voting is the use of political force and should be limited to those who have demonstrated that they can put the needs of the group above their own needs and desires. While I think he raises interesting issues that have validity, I don't believe his solution would work {I think it would lead to fascism, as opposed to him advocating fascism}. Leo Tolstoy thought it such a violent act that he felt it conflcited with Christian teachings of pacifism. Thoreau thought that the act of voting made the voter an accomplice to the actions of the government and advocating abstaining.

Before I begin on the women's suffrage movement let me say that I support the right of a woman to vote, is interesting in that a small minority of women effected a change against the will of the majority of women. Those women opposed apparantly felt that voting was unwomanly, that it was an aggressive trait contrary to femininity {I say apparantly because I have only seen this information from secondary sources}.

Your post suggests that you limit violence to physical harm (though I cannot say if this is true) but what is violence but the use of force to have one's will realized over that another. The form that this force takes does vary from culture to culture, but the end result is that somebody gets his will realized and another gets his thwarted. The principle mode throughout history has been the threat of physical harm (as opposed to actually inflicting it), most people acquiesce and submit rather than incur that harm. If I violate the laws of my society, even those I think unjust, I risk punishment by the society as a whole.

You argue that progress has been made in the area of womens and gay rights without resorting to coercive force, but all government is inherently coercive. The act of voting is coercive as it is an attempt to shape the direction of the society according the will of the voter and in opposition to others. The use of courts to circumvent the will of the majority is also the use of force.

Quote:
The first essential element of government; coercion; a necessary but not a noble element... Government does not rest on force. Government is force; it rests on consent or a concept of justice. A king or a community holding a certain thing to abnormal, evil, uses teh general strength to crush it out; the strength is his tool, but the belief is his only sanction.
G.K. Chesterton, What's Wrong with the World

At no point have I advocated the moral correctness of the use of force, nor have I condemned it as morally wrong. I recognize the need for a society to have means of resolving conflict between its members, human nature given its current state prevents me from thinking we can dispense with government {this being the reason why I cannot accept the anarchist position, despite having many valid points}.

I interpret FlyingTams 'talking your way to peace' {way back up at the top} as meaning convincing people rather than forcing them by violence of any means, even through legitimate means established by society. That is convincing the women who think voting unwomanly that it is in fact womanly and convincing the person who feels homosexuality is immoral that it is not immoral. I don't see this happening nor do I envision it changing anytime soon.

That said, I do believe the best possible society is one in which coercion isn't necessary. While I am far to emotional to ever be an effective pacifist, I hold that force should always be a last resort and it should always be regretted.

Sincerely,

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Yeah, sometimes even Orwell was full of

. That is a hopelessly white, middle class statement. A lot of people sleep peaceably in their beds despite the armed men roaming the streets. Being a soldier must be a lot like being the king in The Little Prince. "I make the sun come up every morning!" "People sleep peaceably in their beds because I kill colored people in foreign countries! Yay me!"

The rule of might is a logical fallacy. Six months of martial arts training can make you safe from a box cutter to the throat--not because you you can beat the guy's ass, but because you can get the silly knife out of his hand. Does anyone sign up? No, we'd rather have our poor go out and kill foreigners. It's the best and only way to be safe.

Actually, no. Ain't nothing but a choice, a style, a posture. We are the greatest military force in the world mainly because we like it that way, never because we have to.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 2:23 PM

Arawaen, I appreciate your contribution to this discussion, but do you seriously think voting is a violation of some kind? Forget what the dead guys say, is that what you think?

It may be very poetical to not want to sully your hands with voting/politics (certainly I'm all kinds of skeptical about the efficacy of the political process), but is voting violent? If I run for office and I lose, should I feel abused in some way? I will agree that there are all kinds of violence other than the merely physical, but I still don't see participation in democracy as a violation.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 3:03 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

with violence if necessary

stand ready to do violence

Perhaps you should read those quotes again. Or just read those few words that I have highlighted above.

You might notice that these statments imply that violence is used _*/only/*_ as a _*/last/*_ resort.

Kind of takes the bit out of your response, doesn't it.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Not really. I consider that the violence used against the Axis in WWII was the last resort. I actually consider that it was quite possibly applied too late, and that many more people may have died due to that delay.

As for Iraq, we'll never really know. If we'd left Hussein alone, he might have just sat there and never caused a problem. He might also have decided that since no one was stopping him, it was time to invade someone else's country again, or wipe out the Kurds or Shia once and for all.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 3:41 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Actually, no. Ain't nothing but a choice, a style, a posture. We are the greatest military force in the world mainly because we like it that way, never because we have to.

I guess it is a choice. We chose in 1941 to help prevent Germany, Japan, and Italy from taking over the rest of the world. In 1950 we chose to help prevent North Korea and China from taking over South Korea. Also in the '50s/'60s/'70s/'80s we chose to help prevent the Soviet Union from taking over Europe. We chose to help liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. We chose to remove the Taliban government that supported the 9/11 terrorists from Afghanistan.

For a couple of centuries those "rough men" have defended the system of government that gives you the freedom to insult them. You apparently don't believe that such defense is necessary, and you probably won't agree with this statement. Tell me then, what does guarantee your freedom?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I guess it is a choice. We chose in 1941 to help prevent Germany, Japan, and Italy from taking over the rest of the world.

Actually, that war started in 1939. For two years your country sold steel and other war material to both sides

Quote:

Also in the '50s/'60s/'70s/'80s we chose to help prevent the Soviet Union from taking over Europe.

You also used this as an excuse to install and support dozens of dictators and regimes around the world to acomplish this.

Quote:

We chose to help liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein.

After having assisted them in their war of aggression with Iran. Questionable way to treat your friend and ally ?

Quote:

We chose to remove the Taliban government that supported the 9/11 terrorists from Afghanistan.

The Taliban government government you were in negotiation with for an oil pipeline, as with the Saudi government whose country has been shown to more of a " support ". In addition, the Taliban offered to have an internationally moderated extridiction hearing, but instead you invaded and set up a puppet government... perhaps your evidence resembles the OJ trial ?

While I agree the application of force is sometimes quite nessersary, as Von Clausewitz said, war is simply foreign policy by extreme means. Force applied to cause another country to do, or stop doing something which they find objectionable. The United States is not the only one who may do this, if the Americans practice foreign policy which alienates and radicalizes segments of the world against them, should we support and help the US. I say no.

For this conflict to have any sort of resolution, both sides will have to modify their positions and future actions. One superpower, one country cannot be allowed to dominate the globe in such a way. Opposing the US, to me is the only sane course. Let us hope it doesn't come to Mr Von Clausewitzs last resort.

Gott min uns

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 3:22 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Misguided By Voices:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You need to read a little more carefully. Your argument only holds if his comment was serious. Which I gather isn't the case.

Actually, and I say this as someone arguing on that poster's general side of the debate - his choice of words was ill thought out, whether the comment was serious or not.

Whether the comment was well thought out is not the issue that I was addressing. The fact is that
Anthonyt was attempting to debunk the argument based on something that was clearly false. This was my point, which made A.T.'s comment moot.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Sorry for the delay, gents. What I said was that Gino needed to choose his arguments more carefully, and that promising to perform attacks against the US under certain conditions wouldn't help his case.

It's the only part of Gino's posts I commented on because it is the part of Gino's posts that I had issue with. But I'll do you the favor of not dissecting the word assume.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:25 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Actually, that war started in 1939. For two years your country sold steel and other war material to both sides

...
You also used this as an excuse to install and support dozens of dictators and regimes around the world to acomplish this.

...
After having assisted them in their war of aggression with Iran. Questionable way to treat your friend and ally ?

...

We chose to remove the Taliban government that supported the 9/11 terrorists from Afghanistan.

Gott min uns

You know, you're right, we were a little slow off the mark in those instances. If we had slapped Hitler down in 1937, or took out the Soviets in the late '40s, or taken care of Iran right aftr the Islamic revolution, things would have probably turned out better. Probably should have kept Italy, Germany, and Japan after WWII. then your concern about global domination would have actually been justified.

Was your final line supposed to be Gott Mit Uns?
Interesting that you'd use a motto from the army that actually did bring on two world wars to close your comments about America trying to take over the world.

As the British Tommies said after thay found Wehrmacht belt buckles with that motto on them "We got mittens too".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 3:34 PM

You also helped slap down Irans pro democracy movement when your CIA and Marine Corp helped re-install the Shah in 1951... another trading your values for oil deal.

Hands off from the start, history could have been alot different.

America is quite a bit different than the old colonial powers in that they do not want to own or colonize other countrys, they want other countrys to run themselves in the manner they feel is correct and if an area of mutual interest arises, they want to call the shots. In many ways, by maintaining your forces in Germany, Japan, and Italy you are pushing your interest. After all, once the Soviet Union came apart it became clear that the Soviet Army was never as capable as everyone had feared... to whose advantage was that misconception.

" Gott Mit Uns " Thank you for your spelling correction, written my German is horrible

I believe the translation is God is with us

I meant it as a play on the old saying " If god is with us, how can he be with them "
as you President likes to invoke his God to justify many of his actions, but is then critical of his enemies doing the same ....

I find it kind of funny, ironic applied history trivia.

Mind you I do like that British Tommies quote too... thanks for a good chuckle

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 4:32 PM

Hey Anthony,

My argument centers on that there are times when the application of force is neccersary.

My twist from the pro-bush types, is I am saying that force applied against the US is also justified. I merely reinforced that statement with the added fact that I feel strong enough about this, if the situation arises....

I personally have no trouble with the thought of applying that force myself, as a former soldier I was willing to take up arms in the defence of my country, and I would do so again... on my own if our political leaders felt it neccersary to sell us out.

Just wanted to be clear,

" If you can't say what you mean, how can you mean what you say ? "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 22, 2004 4:54 PM