|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by MarkO:
If there is such a disdain for the UN, why don't we leave ?
Again, they are a useful tool across a number of situations (militarily, foreign policy, human rights, disease control, etc., etc.).
No reason to throw the "baby out with the bath water", especially when our beef was with France and Germany and their "no" votes on the Security Council and NOT the entire UN.
Last edited by JaTo; 05/17/04 05:55 PM.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by MarkO:
If there is such a disdain for the UN, why don't we leave ?
Again, they are a useful tool across a number of situations (militarily, foreign policy, human rights, disease control, etc., etc.).
No reason to throw the "baby out with the bath water", especially when our beef was with France and Germany and their "no" votes on the Security Council and NOT the entire UN.
Plus, we basically run the damn show.
UN approval is NOT required for action, anyways... it is recommended, and at most times preferential, but when it comes down to with or without you, we've shown that we're not afraid to go without. They're often ineffective and slow to act... their "peacekeeping" missions are often nothing more than PR. When it is our national security at stake and two major members of the UN (not necessarily the entire UN itself) disagree, f*ck 'em.
Diesel owns you
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by MarkO:
- Why aren't we leaning on Syria a lot more if we suspect that is where the majority of WMD's went ? I admit that is a very plausible explanation for the non-findings in Iraq.
War on terror to date..
1) Iraq, Afganistan...terrorist supporting leaders removed by force.
2) Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia...negotiated (with some pressure) "terrorist intolerence"
3) N. Korea....using China to pressure
4) Syria was just "sanctioned"..and along with Iran are "on notice"....after some degree of stability achieved in Iraq, we may or may not need to decapitate their governments as well. Hopefully, they will "see the light".
I agree that (now 2) Sarin gas shells are not vindication on the WMD saga (just yet)...it may be a start. It would be desireble to find more WMD from the standpoint of validating our intell service, which has taken it on the chin. It is important that they are credible for future anti-terrorist endevours. However, no matter what the extent of the find, it will not supress hard core liberals or socialist countries like France who have a vested interest in the current administration looking bad. They will mearly change the retoric from "lied about WMD" to something slightly different.
Again, I still disagree with assertion that WMD were the only or even main reason for going to Iraq. Many reasons were given....WMD, harboring terrorists (see my other thread), violation of UN sanctions-rendering the organization "quite lame" (of course we know why now..read oil for food scam), murdering millions of citizens. But the read between the lines reason was to establish a "democratic like" government. Al Queda & other terrorist groups know this..hense an all out effort to stop the process. While the cause was clearly just, it remains to be proven how sucessful we will be in any of these endevours. I do remain cautiously optimisitic...
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118 |
Originally posted by sigma:
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Originally posted by sigma:
Tell me where I said Saddam didn't have these weapons?
Come on. You've exhibited poor reading comprehension in the past, but damn man, I only wrote 3 sentences. Certainly that's not hard to follow.
Hey sigma, follow this logic... You are an A$shole. There, was that even simple enough for you?
Still didn't answer my question.
I wasn't attempting to answer your question, if you couldn't tell. I took everything that I have read from you on here, coupled with you acting like a know-it-all, and came to the conclusion that you are an a$shole. So simple even you could understand it.
As for the rest of what you say, it's pointless to even respond to you, as like I said, the burden of proof for you and many others will likely never be met. You have your liberal mindset set in stone, as do I have my conservative values set. I am just thankful that as of right now, the conservatives are becomming more popular and powerful. We will just have to see if the American people are smart enough to re-elect in November, then I will have faith in the people to make right decisions again, after we elected Clinton and then re-elected him.
"Moore has also accused the American people of being the stupidest, most naive people on the face of the Earth. And after last weekend, he's got the box office numbers to prove it!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,166
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,166 |
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
I wasn't attempting to answer your question, if you couldn't tell. I took everything that I have read from you on here, coupled with you acting like a know-it-all, and came to the conclusion that you are an a$shole. So simple even you could understand it.
You're right. Its much easier to call someone an [censored] then actually answer his question. 
Seriously Nick, you've got to take a step back, take a breath, and come back when you're a little calmer about it. I've enjoyed following and participating in these debates. But when you start with personal attacks, it really reflects significantly worse on you than your intended target.
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
As for the rest of what you say, it's pointless to even respond to you, as like I said, the burden of proof for you and many others will likely never be met.
Are you kidding me! Is this really enough proof for you? I sure hope not! Please tell me it will take a little more than a couple of shells to prove they had WMD before we invaded. I don't think you'll here anyone deny that they were capable of having WMD, or that they had and used WMD on their own people. However, were they a threat to us? Did they have the technology to reach us? That's still unclear.
Nick, try and keep the debate a little less personal. Show some restraint with the name calling man. It really only makes you look like that ass. Debate is healthy and a learning process. Lets keep it on the issues and work from there. Take the little jabs with a grain of salt dude.
- Zack
WANTED: T-Red HEATED Side Mirrors
FOR SALE: 4 14" Alum Alloys and Nearly New Avid H4s Tires w/ Center Caps
2000 T-Red SVT
1995 LX V6 MTX (RIP)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by zgendron:
I don't think you'll here anyone deny that they were capable of having WMD, or that they had and used WMD on their own people. However, were they a threat to us? Did they have the technology to reach us? That's still unclear.
Technology of choice in 21st century is an airline ticket and suitcase.....ICBM no longer required. 
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118 |
Yes, I do think that this, combined with all that we know about what was going on over there is more than enough proof that Saddam had weapons and would have no problem selling them to someone who could get them over to the U.S. The technology to get them here is a suitcase on an airline, and an aerosol can. I definately think they had enough technology to do it. Hell, they took down ther World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and yet another flight in PA; all this with box cutters.
Iraq was a safe harbor for terrorists, and they certainly would help in any way. Even without the new evidence found, we had more than enough proof to invade and remove him. If you want to use your logic for staying out of Iraq, we should have also stayed out of Europe in WWII; afterall, it was Japan that attacked us right?
And yes, I do take personal attacks personally. When someone with a head bigger than he can hold comes on here and calls me stupid, tells me I can't formulate an argument, calls every one of my opinions uninformed, and is just all around an as$hole to me, I will call them that. In none of my posts before these attacks were launched at me did I ever say he was an idiot. I don't need to defend my intelligence against anyone, especiallt someone like that, but don't call me stupid and expect me to not take it personally.
The debate was never personal until the attacks on my intelligence began. Everything I have ever said was directed at anyone who opposed the war with the reasoning being that we had no proof. -Nick
"Moore has also accused the American people of being the stupidest, most naive people on the face of the Earth. And after last weekend, he's got the box office numbers to prove it!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,045 |
Originally posted by zgendron:
1) I don't think you'll here anyone deny that they were capable of having WMD,2) or that they had and used WMD on their own people. However, 3)were they a threat to us? 4)Did they have the technology to reach us? That's still unclear.
1)here, perhaps not but i have heard this before from others
2)true
3)yes, stated here
Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
technology of choice in the 21st century is an airline ticket and suitcase.....icbm no longer required.
4)no, but neither did hilter.......at the time. we know now that he had plans to attack us with equipment on the drawing boards. saddam was in fact a threat to the u.s. and more so than the dprk because they only passively want us gone whereas he actively wants us gone.
00 black/tan svt, #2052 of 2150, born 2/1/00
formerly known as my csvt
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
And yes, I do take personal attacks personally. When someone with a head bigger than he can hold comes on here and calls me stupid, tells me I can't formulate an argument, calls every one of my opinions uninformed, and is just all around an as$hole to me, I will call them that. In none of my posts before these attacks were launched at me did I ever say he was an idiot. I don't need to defend my intelligence against anyone, especiallt someone like that, but don't call me stupid and expect me to not take it personally.
I never called you stupid in this thread. I did say that you lacked comprehension, but that's based on the fact that judging by your replies, you did not comprehend what I said.
I believe I did explicitly call you stupid in that whole EU thread thing, but I was the last of a lot of people to finally cave in to your non-sensicalness (is that a word?) in that thread.
I only think that you can't formulate an argument because you, literally, rarely ever have one . You hardly actually rebuteanything; you just come back with "Liberal This" and "Liberal That" and a whole slew of assumptions every time. This is another one of those occasions. It's supposed to be Point -> Counter-Point.
On the 2 occasions I can recall you actually did make an actual rebuttal of a post of mine I thought you did an excellent job and I even made a point to say so. I was duly impressed with your arguments. Unfortunately I can't think of the topics right now.
I apologize if I am an "all around as$hole" to you. I do think you are often uninformed, highly reactionary, and are extremely stubborn, but I try my best not to be an [censored]. But you are very frustrating when you take things I said in an entirely different context, don't respond to any actual points made, and fire back with a bunch of non-sensical Anti-Liberal generalizations than actual facts, as you have in this thread.
You make HUGE assumptions in virtually every post you make that tarnish whatever it is you hope to say. In this thread alone they include:
1> I hate Bush.
2> I opposed the invasion of Iraq.
3> I think Saddam didn't have chemical weapons.
4> I think Saddam wasn't a threat.
5> I am a Liberal.
6> I oppose the continued occupancy of Iraq.
Believe it or not, you can like Bush, support the War, think Saddam likely had WMDs, think he was a threat, and still know not think that sufficient evidence exists to back the "WMD-Case" for entering Iraq.
Hell, I think OJ killed Nicole -- but I don't think the Prosecution did a good job of proving their case there either. Same thing we've got here. And a single shell is NOT a smoking gun.
Quote:
Everything I have ever said was directed at anyone who opposed the war with the reasoning being that we had no proof.
And we still don't. Not proof on the continued development and productions of CBNs anyways. There were plenty of other good reasons to invade.
If you can tell me how a shell that pre-dates the Persian Gulf War is proof that Saddam Hussein continued to develop and produce chemical weapons after the Post-Persian Gulf Sanctions, I would love to hear it.
Or, because obviously the first thing is impossible to prove...
How a single shell is proof that Saddam Hussein knowingly stock-piled and hid WMDs from UN inspectors that should have been destroyed in the mid-90's.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,066
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,066 |
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Sarin is not considered a WMD? This is news to me, if its true...
Mmmmeehhh ... depends on your definition of WMD. Its most definately a biological weapon, but WMD's to me consist of nuclear weapons, or antharax type biological capability.
Saddam has always had sarin gas, he used sarin to gas the Kurds way back.
Either way, I would have went in to Iraq regardless if Saddam had sarin, antharax, or camel [censored] on a warhead.
It is sorta convenient, that they find the sarin gas so close to the election 
|
|
|
|
|
