Government and power to civilians

[FoFa]

and thanks again for confirming our thoughts that the Americans don't give a toss about anyone who gets in the way of their continuing world domination programme.

Wasting their nuclear weapons development facility is not world domination.
Taking over the UK and forcing you to eat McDonalds instead of bubble and squeak is

 

[Kraj]

IMO if diplomacy doesn't work in a two year time frame (give or take a little depending on the circumstance), it is a failure.

Again, what's you're criteria for saying diplomacy wasn't working against Iraq? Did they invade someone in 2003 and I missed it?

 

[jsanders]

ok, if you say so


Apparently not the Americans thats for sure

and thanks again for confirming our thoughts that the Americans don't give a toss about anyone who gets in the way of their continuing world domination programme.

Col

No worries, and stay the hell out of our way, if you know what's good for you.

 

[Rich]

No worries, and stay the hell out of our way, if you know what's good for you.

Well I do so hate to be pedantic but unless we're there holding your hand, you've a tendancy to loose

 

[Rich]

of bubble and squeak is

ah real food, whatever happened to it

 

[ColinEssex]

No worries, and stay the hell out of our way, if you know what's good for you.

I find it extremely odd that on one thread you profess to be a christian and all that goes with it - yet on another thread you actively dribble at the prospect of Americans bombing another country and have no apparent care who gets killed.

Just think for each person you kill - thats a father,brother,mother,sister of someone. Americans sure got upset when the reality of killing came to the twin towers.

If you're giving an example of how christianity works, I'm glad I didn't fall for it.

As an aside, I was reading in the paper a while ago about some of the people who's spouses were killed in the towers.
Some admitted it was a godsend and perfect timing in that they hated their spouses anyway, were already having affairs and marriages were at an end - then the spouse gets killed and they collect $3million compo. So no mucky divorce, no alimony to pay and $3 million better off.

Col

 

[jsanders]

I find it extremely odd that on one thread you profess to be a christian and all that goes with it - yet on another thread you actively dribble at the prospect of Americans bombing another country and have no apparent care who gets killed.

Just think for each person you kill - thats a father,brother,mother,sister of someone. Americans sure got upset when the reality of killing came to the twin towers.

If you're giving an example of how christianity works, I'm glad I didn't fall for it.

As an aside, I was reading in the paper a while ago about some of the people who's spouses were killed in the towers.
Some admitted it was a godsend and perfect timing in that they hated their spouses anyway, were already having affairs and marriages were at an end - then the spouse gets killed and they collect $3million compo. So no mucky divorce, no alimony to pay and $3 million better off.


Col

So we shouldn't use war to deter terrorist. And you say we shouldn't kill them with goon squads. And we can’t bomb the plutonium enrichment facilities.

So what can we do Col? Play opossum?

 

[FoFa]

Again, what's you're criteria for saying diplomacy wasn't working against Iraq? Did they invade someone in 2003 and I missed it?

Well, the UN said they were not following their directives as yall' pointed out in other threads. And it was way more than 2 years between desert storm and the current conflict. So yes, it was not working.

 

[FoFa]

So what can we do Col? Play opossum?

There you go, that would be new, sounds like Col has been in France too long

 

[Kraj]

Well, the UN said they were not following their directives as yall' pointed out in other threads. And it was way more than 2 years between desert storm and the current conflict. So yes, it was not working.

I don't think anyone pointed that out. As far as I'm aware, the only UN directive Iraq wasn't following was to give weapons inspectors full access to everything. Now that we have full access, we're finding that Saddam didn't have the weapons he was told not to have.

Yes, Saddam was a pain in the ass and he even had the appearance of hiding something. Hell, I'd even be willing to admit his behavior was provoking an attack. But the reality is that the diplomatic/economic tatics and precision military strikes were perfectly effective in keeping Saddam in check.

And to take it a setp further... even if you could justify the war (and that's a big "if"), I don't think a war should be waged when it is justified, I think a war should be waged when it is neccessary. There is no basis whatsoever to claim the war in Iraq was neccessary.

 

[ColinEssex]

So we shouldn't use war to deter terrorist. And you say we should kill them with goon squads. And we can’t bomb the plutonium enrichment facilities.

So what can we do Col? Play opossum?

I was referring to you Josie. You claim to be a christian yet your posts show no compassion for any innocent people who may be killed.

15000 lb Daisy Cutters, and who gives a damn about collateral damage

I have no idea what a "goon squad" is

and no you shouldn't bomb the Iranian plants - whats the point? you have nuclear weapons, so have we, and the Chinese, Russians, Isralies, French. So why bomb the crap out of Iran? They said they're not making weapons.

Col

 

[jsanders]

I don't think anyone pointed that out. As far as I'm aware, the only UN directive Iraq wasn't following was to give weapons inspectors full access to everything. Now that we have full access, we're finding that Saddam didn't have the weapons he was told not to have.

Yes, Saddam was a pain in the ass and he even had the appearance of hiding something. Hell, I'd even be willing to admit his behavior was provoking an attack. But the reality is that the diplomatic/economic tatics and precision military strikes were perfectly effective in keeping Saddam in check.

And to take it a setp further... even if you could justify the war (and that's a big "if"), I don't think a war should be waged when it is justified, I think a war should be waged when it is neccessary. There is no basis whatsoever to claim the war in Iraq was neccessary.

This war was not in the interest of the US. Period.
The failure of diplomacy was not with Iraq, but with the rest of our Allies.

The United States has to step down as the global police. We cannot afford it any longer.

What supporters of the war effort fail to realize is that the US economy can not sustain this level of war machine any longer. We’re actually spending a larger portion of our economy on containing upstart dictators than we did containing the Soviet Union.

The cost of “projection of power” must be shared equally by ALL of the Westernized Countries.

 

[Kraj]

you have nuclear weapons, so have we, and the Chinese, Russians, Isralies, French. So why bomb the crap out of Iran? They said they're not making weapons.

Well that's what they say but it's not neccessarily true. I'm willing to believe they do intend to build weapons, since apparently there's evidence of such, but then again we were told there was evidence Saddam had WMDs too.

I was going to say the difference between Iran and the nations you listed is that Iran has a stated agenda of wiping another country off the map, whereas thos countries don't. But then I remembered that Pakistan is rather vocal about their willingness to nuke India but we're not all axis-of-evil about them. So... I guess it all just boils down to who's the biggest kid on the block and who does that kid not want to have any toys.

 

[jsanders]

Well that's what they say but it's not neccessarily true. I'm willing to believe they do intend to build weapons, since apparently there's evidence of such, but then again we were told there was evidence Saddam had WMDs too.

I was going to say the difference between Iran and the nations you listed is that Iran has a stated agenda of wiping another country off the map, whereas thos countries don't. But then I remembered that Pakistan is rather vocal about their willingness to nuke India but we're not all axis-of-evil about them. So... I guess it all just boils down to who's the biggest kid on the block and who does that kid not want to have any toys.

And why should we allow any rogue nations to threaten our sovereignty.

The very cultures that are threatening, do not respond to diplomacy, it is interpreted as weakness and weakness needs to be destroyed.

 

[FoFa]

And to take it a setp further... even if you could justify the war (and that's a big "if"), I don't think a war should be waged when it is justified, I think a war should be waged when it is neccessary. There is no basis whatsoever to claim the war in Iraq was neccessary.

Yep, and since diplomacy wasn't working, war became neccessary

 

[Kraj]

And why should we allow any rogue nations to threaten our sovereignty.

We shouldn't. ("sovereignty" is in interesting word choice, by the way) However... the term "rogue nation" has little real meaning and is more a convenient label than anything else. Furthermore, no "rogue" nation has displayed any real threat toward the security of the U.S. Sure, they talk tough but when's the last time a nation presented a clear danger to the United States?

The very cultures that are threatening, do not respond to diplomacy,

Especially considering the current administration, the same thing could easily be said about us. Bush has displayed aggression and bravado while ignoring diplomacy. Would it be fair for other nations to consider the U.S. a "rogue nation" at this point?

it is interpreted as weakness and weakness needs to be destroyed.

And how's that strategy been working for them?

Yep, and since diplomacy wasn't working, war became neccessary

Sorry, that makes no sense whatseover. I explained how diplomacy did, in fact, work. You pretty much just said "Nuh uh".

 

[FoFa]

and no you shouldn't bomb the Iranian plants - whats the point? you have nuclear weapons, so have we, and the Chinese, Russians, Isralies, French. So why bomb the crap out of Iran? They said they're not making weapons.Col

You don't have to make weapons. What if those bombs that went off in London contained their by products that are not being used for weapons? Dirty bombs are more a reality than atomic weapons. And I could see Iran giving some to "terrorist" for use.
Not really advocating bombing them, just pointing out atomic weapons are not the only reason to create weapons grade by products. No you don't have to have weapons grade, but it is also nice to have the option of atomic weapons when the eyes are turned else where

 

[FoFa]

Well that's what they say but it's not neccessarily true. I'm willing to believe they do intend to build weapons, since apparently there's evidence of such, but then again we were told there was evidence Saddam had WMDs too.

Actually lack of proof is not proof he didn't. What do you want, to invade Sudan to prove it?

I hate Bush so I am going to continue with this retoric even if it is not true!

 

[FoFa]

Sorry, that makes no sense whatseover. I explained how diplomacy did, in fact, work. You pretty much just said "Nuh uh".

Sorry, I explained how it didn't work, and you pretty much said "Nuh uh".

 

[Kraj]

Actually lack of proof is not proof he didn't.

It mystifies me how strongly you hold onto this terrible logic. Bush made claims about Iraq and used them to justify a war. The burden of proof lies in proving the claims are true. Lack of any evidence to suggest the claims are true is proof enough that they are false.

To parallel your logic in the justice system, your way goes something like this:

Your neighbor calls the police and says you killed someone. The police investigate, find no evidence whatsoever that you did so, but you are tired, foudn guilty, and sent to prison because... they couldn't prove you didn't kill someone.

What do you want, to invade Sudan to prove it?

What does invading the Sudan have to do with anything?

I hate Bush so I am going to continue with this retoric even if it is not true!

Would you care to direct me to where I said that? Nevermind. A simple search of the forums reveals that I've never said that, even in jest.

Pulling that kind of crap is unacceptable.

Sorry, I explained how it didn't work, and you pretty much said "Nuh uh".

Actually, you didn't explain how, you just said it didn't and gave a vague reference to UN directives. I didn't "pretty much say 'Nuh uh'", I said you were wrong and gave reasons. If you could show why my reasons were wrong, then we have a discussion. But you didn't, you just contradicted without anything to back it up.