Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:32
VIEWED: 15590
PAGE 3 of 15
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME