27 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by marinakatombOk. I will read this several times... hang on...
No one elected them, your right. However when you replace the UN with the government of a country, you could argue that that country is acting undemocratically, like a dictator if you will. The people who don't reside in that country ...[text shortened]... gs ever perfect, which one do you think is closer to a compromise?
I don't see a way of parsing your question/statement "when you replace the UN with the government of a country, you could argue that (said) country is acting undemocratically, like a dictator if you will"
At least three logic errors disallow the consideration of that. Sorry. You just spouted a whole bunch of nothing.
I THINK what you meant to say was that "just because a nation is slave to a dictator doesn't mean they have no rights".
I will agree with that. With the caveat that "they are also responsible for allowing a petty crook and killer to rule them". It is their responsibility to kill him. By not doing so, they give up any and all rights to "self-determination". They are happy slaves. Happy slaves pay the price of emancipation -- eventually.
What you didn't answer was the FACT that the US is acting lawfully, according to seventeen UN resolutions, passed in the ten year period of the illegal attacks on UN aircraft.
27 Jan 05
1 edit
Four wars perpetrated by Saddam.
1 - The Invasion of Iran.
2 - The Invasion of Kuwait.
3 - The Failure to retreat before the ultimatum of the UN.
4 - The Failure to abide by the UN cease fire agreement.
Four wars.
The US supported him in the first one. Mistake. We need to make amends? Yes. How? By removing him. Eventually.
The US makes partial amends by joining the UN coalition to expel him from Kuwait. The UN fails to remove him. Another mistake. Total moral bankrupcy by the US and UN. This is why Bush one lost to Clinton. "Values". He and the left thought that the UN was more important than "Good And Evil". Values. Pragmatism at it's worst.
Thus are born the Neo-cons.
Saddam pays off the UN with billions. Only the coalition of the brave dare to remove him when he continues to attack UN aircraft, trying to CONTINUE GENECIDE IN SHIITE SOUTH.
UN creeps watch their fortune turned on it's head when one single brave soul, G.W. Bush takes out Saddam the killer. They are pissed. All those billions dried up. And no more arms sales to the killer Saddam.
27 Jan 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI THINK what you meant to say was that "just because a nation is slave to a dictator doesn't mean they have no rights".
Ok. I will read this several times... hang on...
I don't see a way of parsing your question/statement "when you replace the UN with the government of a country, you could argue that (said) country is acting undemocratically, like a dictator if you will"
At least three logic errors disallow the consideration of that. Sorry. You just spouted a wh ...[text shortened]... venteen UN resolutions, passed in the ten year period of the illegal attacks on UN aircraft.
I will agree with that. With the caveat that "they are also responsible for allowing a petty crook and killer to rule them". It is their responsibility to kill him. By not doing so, they give up any and all rights to "self-determination". They are happy slaves. Happy slaves pay the price of emancipation -- eventually.
I didn't say any of that, you did.
What you didn't answer was the FACT that the US is acting lawfully, according to seventeen UN resolutions, passed in the ten year period of the illegal attacks on UN aircraft.
This is really off topic.
At least three logic errors disallow the consideration of that. Sorry. You just spouted a whole bunch of nothing.
This looks like it's on topic, what are these three things?
27 Jan 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWOW, Thank heavens for that! So how would US democracy work if the rest of the world sank into the sea? 🙂
Four wars perpetrated by Saddam.
1 - The Invasion of Iran.
2 - The Invasion of Kuwait.
3 - The Failure to retreat before the ultimatum of the UN.
4 - The Failure to abide by the UN cease fire agreement.
Four wars.
The US supported him in the first one. Mistake. We need to make amends? Yes. How? By removing him. Eventually.
The US makes pa ...[text shortened]... r. They are pissed. All those billions dried up. And no more arms sales to the killer Saddam.
27 Jan 05
Originally posted by marinakatombNot too well.
WOW, Thank heavens for that! So how would US democracy work if the rest of the world sank into the sea? 🙂
It would be left in the hands of people like you. People incapable of seeing right from wrong.
You do still support Saddam, don't you? That is to say, you oppose his removal?
I'll bet you don't even see your opposition to his removal as support for him. Do you?
27 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIm glad Saddam was removed. Im uncomfortable with the way it was done but that's history now. Im a Liberal, yes. I am also capable of seeing that a Liberal would never have gotten round to removing Saddam. They would have talked about it for ever and done nothing, i know. Neville Chamberlain wanted to make peace with Hitler. It took a Conservative to take action.
Not too well.
It would be left in the hands of people like you. People incapable of seeing right from wrong.
You do still support Saddam, don't you? That is to say, you oppose his removal?
I'll bet you don't even see your opposition to his removal as support for him. Do you?
These being true however, doesn't make Liberal Opinion redundant. For there to be balance there must be dialogue between differing opinions. Without Liberals there would be no discussion and thus, no democracy.
27 Jan 05
Originally posted by marinakatombI am a bit mystified. A moment. To recover, please.
Im glad Saddam was removed. Im uncomfortable with the way it was done but that's history now. Im a Liberal, yes. I am also capable of seeing that a Liberal would never have gotten round to removing Saddam. They would have talked about it for ever and done nothing, i know. Neville Chamberlain wanted to make peace with Hitler. It took a Conservative to t ...[text shortened]... etween differing opinions. Without Liberals there would be no discussion and thus, no democracy.
Why do you attack Bush and his war to remove Saddam and give the people of Iraq at least a "chance" to become a democracy?
What am I missing here? Or are you now going to say that you support the Iraq war? I'm all confused. You can't be against the war and still SUPPORT the people (coalition forces) who did away with the dictator and his so called "government". Can you?
No. You have stated over and over that you OPPOSE THE WAR. So, ipso facto, you support that which was before the war.
Help me out here. Do you support Bush? Or oppose him?
27 Jan 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI suppose we should attack every non-democratic government around the globe?
Lefty "Magic" syndrome...
"I am glad that Saddam is no more. But, I oppose Bush!"
The magic is in removing Saddam without Bush.
How about North Korea? Let's attack them. At least give the North Korean people a shred of a chance at democracy, right? Or I guess you love Kim Jung Il?
Seriously, do you see the ridiculousness of the thinking in the above example as well as in your post?
27 Jan 05
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionYes. I see "Ridiculessness" only in letting slavery persist. Your example of North Korea is perfect to win my point.
I suppose we should attack every non-democratic government around the globe?
How about North Korea? Let's attack them. At least give the North Korean people a shred of a chance at democracy, right? Or I guess you love Kim Jung Il? ...[text shortened]... of the thinking in the above example as well as in your post?
Now or later?
I propose now. When the crazy only has a couple of nukes.
Think of it. How many millions will no longer be slaves? You do the research. But, you support slavery, so what is the use of discussing it?
Hell. You still support Saddam. Over the people of Iraq? Or do you now also support Bush?
27 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyOk, i'll give up the topic to discuss this cos it's interesting and your not going to talk on topic anyway.
I am a bit mystified. A moment. To recover, please.
Why do you attack Bush and his war to remove Saddam and give the people of Iraq at least a "chance" to become a democracy?
What am I missing here? Or are you now going to say ...[text shortened]... the war.
Help me out here. Do you support Bush? Or oppose him?
Im a realist. If something doesn't work, i have to understand why. The Liberal party in this country doesn't work. Their stance i agree with, that being a Liberal stance. Discussion over conflict, Leave people to do as they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, etc....
However, this doesn't convert into a good political party. This is a problem with their stance. When your country is draged into a scrap, you need a guy with balls to swing a few punches. Liberals don't swing punches, that is why they are unelectable.
The problem i have with the invasion is that the reasons for it changed by the minute. It had been decided that Saddam would be removed before Bush was elected, the 'reason' (WMD, he's an evil dictator, broke UN resolution whatever...) for removing him didn't matter. There was no discussion. There was no democratic, unanimous decision to remove him. Im glad he's gone, but had he been removed under the banner of the UN i'd be really happy.
I am capable of seeing the short comings of Liberalism, but i am also capable of seeing the short comings of Conservatism. The Neo Con agenda is concerned only with the interests of business. This is justified by saying that if the big guy makes money, the little guy makes money too. Sounds good, doesn't work. It's a totally selfish attitude. The Iraq war was not solely for the benefit of the Iraqi people, it was also for the benefit of American business and no doubt has a good effect on US oil prospects too.
So you see my dillema. It's like Dalph Vader liberating the ewoks as far as im concerned. I don't hate him, he's doing what he thinks right. I just don't think he's doing it for the right reasons.
EDIT... on one hand he'll say he is upholding democracy, bringing democracy to Iraq. But in doing so he is destroying democracy by not going through the UN. What can i say, it's a catch 22. Bush has used up his usefullness now though 🙂
27 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by marinakatombYou may be a "realist", but a realist without a clue is still a lefty.
Ok, i'll give up the topic to discuss this cos it's interesting and your not going to talk on topic anyway.
Im a realist. If something doesn't work, i have to understand why. The Liberal party in this country doesn't work. Their ...[text shortened]... s right. I just don't think he's doing it for the right reasons.
So they lied.
The real reason for removing Saddam was ??? Think.
Was is to gain "Iraq"?
No. The real reason was to intimidate the worlds biggest Terrorist Supporting Government... indeed the "founder" of "wahabiism"... Saudi Arabia.
So. Did removing Iraq from the roles of "Just Another UN Dictator Nation" affect Saudi Arabia?
Yes. There had never been an attack within Saudi Arabia before the Iraq war. Do you dare to think of why this is a fact?
Because they are the chief sponsor and founder of Islamofacism.
By invading Iraq, the US has hastened the fall of Saudi Arabia.
Who do you suppose will go in and establish a democracy there when the last of the kings have been killed?
By the way... I chuckled for five minutes on your attempt to get off subject by accusing me of not being on subject. Very childish, and amusing. But that's you. Isn't it?
27 Jan 05
Originally posted by marinakatombI am amused and saddened.
The problem i have with the invasion is that the reasons for it changed by the minute. It had been decided that Saddam would be removed before Bush was elected, the 'reason' (WMD, he's an evil dictator, broke UN resolution whatever...) for removing him didn't matter. There was no discussion. There was no democratic, unanimous decision to remove hi ...[text shortened]... m glad he's gone, but had he been removed under the banner of the UN i'd be really happy.
🙂
What do you call a full vote of the US congress... both the House Of Representatives and the Senate? With only three "No" votes?
Are you really so out of touch with facts that you don't know that this happened? That the ENTIRE CONGRESS VOTED TO GO TO WAR?
I'll bet you are. Because you don't really care for facts. You only want to be "right". Good luck. They did vote. We did go to war. As per the UN resolution that said we "must enforce the rights of the UN to uphold it's resolutions, or else 'Severe' consequences will result".
27 Jan 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou've obviously been drinking. I can find no other reason why you would be so obnoxious otherwise. Im no genius, i know enouph to know i haven't got it all worked out and never will.
You may be a "realist", but a realist without a clue is still a lefty.
So they lied.
The real reason for removing Saddam was ??? Think.
Was is to gain "Iraq"?
No. The real reason was to intimidate the worlds biggest Terrorist Supporting Government... indeed the "founder" of "wahabiism"... Saudi Arabia.
So. Did removing Iraq from t ...[text shortened]... by accusing me of not being on subject. Very childish, and amusing. But that's you. Isn't it?
You may be a "realist", but a realist without a clue is still a lefty.
I find this offensive!
Who do you suppose will go in and establish a democracy there when the last of the kings have been killed?
Democracy doesn't always have to be established, it can grow by itself too. In fact, most of the democratic countries grew their own.
By the way... I chuckled for five minutes on your attempt to get off subject by accusing me of not being on subject. Very childish, and amusing. But that's you. Isn't it?
I started this thread my man. Here we are talking about iraq when it's suppossed to have sunk into the sea. I've tried my best to have a civilised conversation with you. You don't like me cos im not a Neo Con. That is immensly shallow, i don't know why you bother posting on the internet on a UK site if all you want to do is talk to yourself. Your a very sad and i suspect lonely individual. Stop critising people you've never met and take a good old look at yourself for a minute.
27 Jan 05
Originally posted by marinakatombOk. Now I'm pissed.
I am capable of seeing the short comings of Liberalism, but i am also capable of seeing the short comings of Conservatism.🙂
Liberalism is my trade and my reason for being. The french have no idea.
Why do lefties fail to acknowledge that only the death of millions of brave soldiers have won our currently held -- extremely precarious -- position of civility?
I don't really expect an answer. Not one in a million can reason out the history that has been lived, drop by drop, of our blood that brought about "civilization".
Why? Because we are rather stupid chimps. We adopt a clan and a view and we never look forward or backward. We just "Believe" with all our souls.
Silly, stupid chimps.
What are the shortcomings of Liberalism?
There are none. As a true liberal, ie, One Who Is Willing to consider any and all thought... I dare you to equate silly leftist propaganda of your current chimp pattern to true Liberalism. What a joke.