Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2006-06-12 13:22:00
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

Havazn wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Rygar wrote:

Even though 'we' have gone to Afghanistan in support.  Seems this might have been overlooked.
Afghanistan was far more of a legitimate war than the Iraq war, which was illegitimate.
Exactly, and there is even public debate whether or not we should continue our support in Afghanistan.

Just the audacity to criticize another country's actions and motives while your own country is in such political turmoil is beyond and comprehension I can muster.

Besides, we have got to be doing SOMETHING right if this 'alleged' terrorist plan is the only attack we have faced in the past 5 years. I like to think it has something to do with not provoking such attacks, its been working for us so far. I believe the only reason this 'plot' was to assasinate our prime minister was only due to his open co-operation with the U.S. Stephen Harper wants to nuzzle up against Bush and extend our foreign reach just as the U.S. has.
The reason the war was illegitimate is because the UN resolution that would have given the go-ahead for military intervention didn't exist. The language in the existing resolution on Iraq did not allow for military action under normal interpretation of the semantics of the document. Hence the reason the US and UK tried so hard to get a new resolution through to authorise the war, but to no avail. Blair in England has come in for serious flak from all and sundry since senior lawmakers have questioned the legitimacy of the war.

Whether or not WMDs were found is of no consequence.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-12 13:24:30)

2006-06-12 13:29:03
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6984|Peoria, Illinois

-F8-Scotch wrote:

What ever happened to "speak softly and carry a big stick"?
It got us Pearl Harbor and 9/11. So much for speaking softly.
2006-06-12 13:33:44
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6984|Peoria, Illinois

CameronPoe wrote:

Havazn wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Afghanistan was far more of a legitimate war than the Iraq war, which was illegitimate.
Exactly, and there is even public debate whether or not we should continue our support in Afghanistan.

Just the audacity to criticize another country's actions and motives while your own country is in such political turmoil is beyond and comprehension I can muster.

Besides, we have got to be doing SOMETHING right if this 'alleged' terrorist plan is the only attack we have faced in the past 5 years. I like to think it has something to do with not provoking such attacks, its been working for us so far. I believe the only reason this 'plot' was to assasinate our prime minister was only due to his open co-operation with the U.S. Stephen Harper wants to nuzzle up against Bush and extend our foreign reach just as the U.S. has.
The reason the war was illegitimate is because the UN resolution that would have given the go-ahead for military intervention didn't exist. The language in the existing resolution on Iraq did not allow for military action under normal interpretation of the semantics of the document. Hence the reason the US and UK tried so hard to get a new resolution through to authorise the war, but to no avail. Blair in England has come in for serious flak from all and sundry since senior lawmakers have questioned the legitimacy of the war.

Whether or not WMDs were found is of no consequence.
The UN is not our government. We did not invade Iraq with smurf hats. Had we worn smurf hats into Iraq flying the smurf flag, then it would have been "illegitimate". Bush and Blair tried to get the UN to "sponsor" the war, but since China, France, and Germany didn't want to attack one of their customers, Bush and Blair gathered several other nations to help.

Last edited by M1-Lightning (2006-06-12 13:34:13)

2006-06-12 13:35:54
bob_6012
Resident M-14 fanatic
+59|6908|Lancaster Ohio, USA
I'd like to point out a few things that may or may not have releavance here...depends on how you read it...back in WWII very few people wanted to go to war...as a matter of fact Bush had more support for the Iraq war than Roosevelt had for starting a war with Germany...and they showed no sign of aggresion towards us...I don't understand what the big deal is on who controls the oil...if the USA controls it then that means we have a good supply so OPEC can't fuck us over by raising prices for no apparent reason...and if the US doesn't control it so what? Lastly I don't understand why the US has to get the green light to do anything from the UN...maybe I'm small minded here but if our congress and all the other people give the go ahead why should we have to go to another orginization and ask their permission? It's like asking your parents to do something even though you're 48...come on...I know there are two sides to this and I'm trying to keep a calm rational discussion here...so there's my two cents...comment as you see fit...

Last edited by bob_6012 (2006-06-12 13:37:26)

2006-06-12 13:36:46
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

M1-Lightning wrote:

-F8-Scotch wrote:

What ever happened to "speak softly and carry a big stick"?
It got us Pearl Harbor and 9/11. So much for speaking softly.
OK then so you'll be safe when everywhere expect for the USA has been utterly destroyed. Fair enough. Launch the nukes then so. Any one of us could potentially get on a plane and fly it into the Sears Tower.
9/11 is an act of criminality not an act of conventional war.
Pearl Harbour - that was an act of war but if your fucking radar guys were doing their job you wouldn't have been shafted as badly. You should have seen it coming given the fact that Japan were part of the axis with Italy and Germany. Anyway - you won the war in the end and many years of relative peace ensued. I didn't see ye attacking any 'potential' or 'maybe' enemies.
2006-06-12 13:39:01
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

bob_6012 wrote:

I'd like to point out a few things that may or may not have releavance here...depends on how you read it...back in WWII very few people wanted to go to war...as a matter of fact Bush had more support for the Iraq war than Roosevelt had for starting a war with Germany...and they showed no sign of aggresion towards us...I don't understand what the big deal is on who controls the oil...if the USA controls it then that means we have a good supply so OPEC can't fuck us over by raising prices for no apparent reason...and if the US doesn't control it so what? Lastly I don't understand why the US has to get the green light to do anything from the UN...maybe I'm small minded here but if our congress and all the other people give the go ahead why should we have to go to another orginization and ask their permission? It's like asking your parents to do something even though you're 48...come on...I know there are two sides to this and I'm trying to keep a calm rational discussion here...so there's my two cents...comment as you see fit...
The reason they need the UN is because they can beat other countries with UN rules and regulations when it suits them, especially given that the US has a veto. It seems that only when the UN puts a spanner in the works of the US warpath do the US then stamp their feet. Hypocrites.
2006-06-12 13:41:04
bob_6012
Resident M-14 fanatic
+59|6908|Lancaster Ohio, USA

CameronPoe wrote:

M1-Lightning wrote:

-F8-Scotch wrote:

What ever happened to "speak softly and carry a big stick"?
It got us Pearl Harbor and 9/11. So much for speaking softly.
OK then so you'll be safe when everywhere expect for the USA has been utterly destroyed. Fair enough. Launch the nukes then so. Any one of us could potentially get on a plane and fly it into the Sears Tower.
9/11 is an act of criminality not an act of conventional war.
Pearl Harbour - that was an act of war but if your fucking radar guys were doing their job you wouldn't have been shafted as badly. You should have seen it coming given the fact that Japan were part of the axis with Italy and Germany. Anyway - you won the war in the end and many years of relative peace ensued. I didn't see ye attacking any 'potential' or 'maybe' enemies.
It's time for a brief history lesson!!! Is everyone ready? OK!!!
Actually our radar opertators did see the planes on radar...they even reported it up the chain...BUT the guys up in command just dismissed it as a flight of B-17's that were coming in from California. One of our destroyers even sunk a Japanese midget sub an hour before the attack commenced...however I don't remember why that wasn't also a clue. It was nothing more than a high ranking fuck up...and a bunch of men were in some pretty deep shit over it too...
2006-06-12 13:44:44
bob_6012
Resident M-14 fanatic
+59|6908|Lancaster Ohio, USA
The reason they need the UN is because they can beat other countries with UN rules and regulations when it suits them, especially given that the US has a veto. It seems that only when the UN puts a spanner in the works of the US warpath do the US then stamp their feet. Hypocrites.
When you say they can beat other countries with rules and regulations do ya mean the UN? I presume you do but I just wanna make sure...and I find it funny that if it is the UN...that you said they do it when it suits them...and that may be part of the reason we went. We just got tired of dicking around with the UN...diplomacy takes a long time to accomplish something and I'll admit the US is full of impatient people...
2006-06-12 13:52:50
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6984|Peoria, Illinois

CameronPoe wrote:

M1-Lightning wrote:

-F8-Scotch wrote:

What ever happened to "speak softly and carry a big stick"?
It got us Pearl Harbor and 9/11. So much for speaking softly.
OK then so you'll be safe when everywhere expect for the USA has been utterly destroyed. Fair enough. Launch the nukes then so. Any one of us could potentially get on a plane and fly it into the Sears Tower.
Do you respond to everything with irrational posts like that or are you just a smartass when people don't agree with you?

9/11 is an act of criminality not an act of conventional war.
War is loosely defined and can even include fights between gangs and police squads. It's already been determined by our government that this is no conventional war.

Pearl Harbour - that was an act of war but if your fucking radar guys were doing their job you wouldn't have been shafted as badly. You should have seen it coming given the fact that Japan were part of the axis with Italy and Germany. Anyway - you won the war in the end and many years of relative peace ensued. I didn't see ye attacking any 'potential' or 'maybe' enemies.
Had we attacked Hitler before he made his move on Poland, there would have been a much more limited war.
2006-06-12 13:54:58
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6947|San Francisco

M1-Lightning wrote:

The UN is not our government. We did not invade Iraq with smurf hats. Had we worn smurf hats into Iraq flying the smurf flag, then it would have been "illegitimate". Bush and Blair tried to get the UN to "sponsor" the war, but since China, France, and Germany didn't want to attack one of their customers, Bush and Blair gathered several other nations to help.
You do know that because Bush and Blair were lacking so much support at one point (due to my reasons), that they were considering painting planes with the UN Blue and flying them over the NFZ in order to spark Iraq into make the first move?

Good ol' Downing Street memos
2006-06-12 13:57:06
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6984|Peoria, Illinois

CameronPoe wrote:

bob_6012 wrote:

I'd like to point out a few things that may or may not have releavance here...depends on how you read it...back in WWII very few people wanted to go to war...as a matter of fact Bush had more support for the Iraq war than Roosevelt had for starting a war with Germany...and they showed no sign of aggresion towards us...I don't understand what the big deal is on who controls the oil...if the USA controls it then that means we have a good supply so OPEC can't fuck us over by raising prices for no apparent reason...and if the US doesn't control it so what? Lastly I don't understand why the US has to get the green light to do anything from the UN...maybe I'm small minded here but if our congress and all the other people give the go ahead why should we have to go to another orginization and ask their permission? It's like asking your parents to do something even though you're 48...come on...I know there are two sides to this and I'm trying to keep a calm rational discussion here...so there's my two cents...comment as you see fit...
The reason they need the UN is because they can beat other countries with UN rules and regulations when it suits them, especially given that the US has a veto. It seems that only when the UN puts a spanner in the works of the US warpath do the US then stamp their feet. Hypocrites.
Rules and regulation does nothing for the UN if they don't enforce it.
2006-06-12 13:59:56
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6885|949

When I read the original post, I see that the author has two points - Multiculturalism breeds terrorism; and "sucking up to the U.N." breeds terrorism.

1) why is tolerance and respect for other cultures a bad thing?  Goldberg makes the argument that because we applaud multiculturalism, we invite Muslim radicals to take advantage of our naivety.  Also, he argues that tolerance of Islam leads to "born-again" Muslims becoming active in "Marxist and anti-colonial bugaboos."  I do not agree with that assessment whatsoever.  We have people here in the US that are already interested in Marxism and anti-colonialism.  People that may see the western way of life as one of Dionysian excess and understand that we (US) as a country say one thing and do the other.  Protect the environment, yet the US uses a huge percentage of all fossil fuels and creates an enormous amount of waste.  No nuclear weapons, yet the US is in possession of the largest nuclear force and still building nuclear warheads.  Perhaps this is the reason people are angry, not just Muslims, but a lot of people.  The fact of the matter is that certain people feel it necessary to resort to violent means to express their beliefs, and that is not restricted to Muslims.

2) As for the second part of the author's argument, he offers no reason why he makes this statement or why it would be considered relevant.  I am not sure if this is because the poster cut off the rest of the article, but if that is the reason I would like to hear the rest of it.  I would like to know how a country's involvement in a multinational organization would foment terrorism.  The U.N. is controlled by its members, especially the Security Council, of which the U.S. is a permanent member.  How would belonging to an organization which espouses Western thought/policy/industrialization....foment terrorism.....right.

Edited for spelling/grammar

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-06-12 14:04:53)

2006-06-12 14:03:14
easy-skanking
Member
+43|6789

CameronPoe wrote:

. Terrorism will NEVER end. What are you gonna do? Kill every muslim in the entire world!? Didn't Hitler try that with people of another creed? Hmmm.... similarities!!
try to be rational ....
2006-06-12 14:05:39
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6984|Peoria, Illinois

Marconius wrote:

M1-Lightning wrote:

The UN is not our government. We did not invade Iraq with smurf hats. Had we worn smurf hats into Iraq flying the smurf flag, then it would have been "illegitimate". Bush and Blair tried to get the UN to "sponsor" the war, but since China, France, and Germany didn't want to attack one of their customers, Bush and Blair gathered several other nations to help.
You do know that because Bush and Blair were lacking so much support at one point (due to my reasons), that they were considering painting planes with the UN Blue and flying them over the NFZ in order to spark Iraq into make the first move?

Good ol' Downing Street memos
That was a brilliant idea. Too bad Iraq somehow got inside word on it. That still doesn't make the war "illegitimate".
2006-06-12 14:51:59
Havazn
Member
+39|6947|van.ca

M1-Lightning wrote:

Marconius wrote:

M1-Lightning wrote:

The UN is not our government. We did not invade Iraq with smurf hats. Had we worn smurf hats into Iraq flying the smurf flag, then it would have been "illegitimate". Bush and Blair tried to get the UN to "sponsor" the war, but since China, France, and Germany didn't want to attack one of their customers, Bush and Blair gathered several other nations to help.
You do know that because Bush and Blair were lacking so much support at one point (due to my reasons), that they were considering painting planes with the UN Blue and flying them over the NFZ in order to spark Iraq into make the first move?

Good ol' Downing Street memos
That was a brilliant idea. Too bad Iraq somehow got inside word on it. That still doesn't make the war "illegitimate".
How, then, was the war 'legitimate'?

Your civil laws allow for an accused murderer to walk free as long as there is reasonable doubt towards the verdict of guilty. Yet reasonable doubt is not enough to prevent an invasion of a country?

Last edited by Havazn (2006-06-12 14:52:31)

2006-06-12 14:54:12
spastic bullet
would like to know if you are on crack
+77|6794|vancouver

Jonah Goldberg wrote:

A FEW YEARS AGO I wrote a cover story for National Review with the subtle and nuanced title, "Bomb Canada: The Case for War." It caused quite a stir up there. My argument at the time was that Canada needed to be slapped out of its delusions and forced to stand up for itself...
That's about as far as I got.  I do appreciate when wingnuts come right out with their absurdities so early on in an article, thereby saving me the trouble of reading any further.

Forced to stand up for oneself indeed -- on a par with fucking for virginity.
2006-06-12 14:58:45
revolution.inc
Pass
+35|7024|Phoenix, Az
They are a nation of peacekeepers.
They end ALOT of conflicts before they escalade onto a next level. Although they rank 50th in amount of soldiers, they have done many good.
Also, I'd say that would be acceptable seeing how they have about 64k troops.
I mean, if I had my own country with that same number of troops I wouldnt  like sending 10k of them away.
2006-06-12 15:04:44
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|6908

I haven't read any comments, but I'd have to say that's a good article. And I bet all these lengthy comments above mine are delusional Canadians saying the article is utter bullshit
2006-06-12 15:13:22
remo
Member
+20|6830

Marconius wrote:

You do know that because Bush and Blair were lacking so much support at one point (due to my reasons), that they were considering painting planes with the UN Blue and flying them over the NFZ in order to spark Iraq into make the first move?
Does it matter what they were "considering"?  They didn't actually do this.  Both Parliament and Congress gave the authorization to go to war, which makes it legit / lawful.

Doing so on intelligence that wasn't accurate/falsified ... it's after the fact they found this out, and it doesn't make the war illegitimate.  If Parliament / Congress voted to remove the troops from the field by repealing the authorization to go to war, then they could/would do so, and if so would make the war unlawful.

Problem is, our (US) gov't is majority-controlled by republicans, and won't stand up to GW ... that could hurt their re-election campaigns.
2006-06-12 15:28:03
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

M1-Lightning wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

M1-Lightning wrote:

It got us Pearl Harbor and 9/11. So much for speaking softly.
OK then so you'll be safe when everywhere expect for the USA has been utterly destroyed. Fair enough. Launch the nukes then so. Any one of us could potentially get on a plane and fly it into the Sears Tower.
Do you respond to everything with irrational posts like that or are you just a smartass when people don't agree with you?

9/11 is an act of criminality not an act of conventional war.
War is loosely defined and can even include fights between gangs and police squads. It's already been determined by our government that this is no conventional war.

Pearl Harbour - that was an act of war but if your fucking radar guys were doing their job you wouldn't have been shafted as badly. You should have seen it coming given the fact that Japan were part of the axis with Italy and Germany. Anyway - you won the war in the end and many years of relative peace ensued. I didn't see ye attacking any 'potential' or 'maybe' enemies.
Had we attacked Hitler before he made his move on Poland, there would have been a much more limited war.
1) I was responding in a sarcastically drastic manner to highlight the ridiculous attitude of people who believe that the way in which the US are waging war right now is diminishing terror. That is simply not true. Terrorism is multiplying rapidly as a consequence of the actions of the US. Even US and UK government reports concede that. Read my IRA example in this thread (maybe another can't remember).
If you dropped your ally Israel, who incidentally does nothing for the US but sucks billions from the US budget, I'd be surprised if any anti-western attacks took place. Obviously that is a fairly brave and uncertain assertion to make and noone could possibly be sure if that would stop terrorism, but I for one would think that the international community and middle-eastern relations with the west would benefit immensely.

2) Fair enough. The war in not conventional. You seem to think however that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 obviously. Or maybe just anyone who wears a keffiyeh (arab headscarf). If you think the former then your simply wrong and if you think the latter then you're no better than a fucking nazi.

3) God bless retrospection. Brilliant. I don't think Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/Syria can quite compare to the threat posed by Nazi Germany nor can the political climate. None of the countries I have listed are currently openly threatening to invade another country, unlike some countries I know...

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-12 15:45:11)

2006-06-12 16:14:23
M1-Lightning
Jeepers Creepers
+136|6984|Peoria, Illinois
1) I was responding in a sarcastically drastic manner to highlight the ridiculous attitude of people who believe that the way in which the US are waging war right now is diminishing terror.
So you are a smartass to people who disagree with you. Nice.

2) Fair enough. The war in not conventional. You seem to think however that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 obviously. Or maybe just anyone who wears a keffiyeh (arab headscarf). If you think the former then your simply wrong and if you think the latter then you're no better than a fucking nazi.
This is the second time in only a few post of yours I 've read you making assumptions of people you don't even know. Not cool.

There's no point in arguing with smartasses who assume everything.

Last edited by M1-Lightning (2006-06-12 16:16:18)

2006-06-12 16:17:14
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

M1-Lightning wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

M1-Lightning wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

OK then so you'll be safe when everywhere expect for the USA has been utterly destroyed. Fair enough. Launch the nukes then so. Any one of us could potentially get on a plane and fly it into the Sears Tower.
Do you respond to everything with irrational posts like that or are you just a smartass when people don't agree with you?


War is loosely defined and can even include fights between gangs and police squads. It's already been determined by our government that this is no conventional war.


Had we attacked Hitler before he made his move on Poland, there would have been a much more limited war.
1) I was responding in a sarcastically drastic manner to highlight the ridiculous attitude of people who believe that the way in which the US are waging war right now is diminishing terror.
So you are a smartass to people who disagree with you. Nice.

2) Fair enough. The war in not conventional. You seem to think however that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 obviously. Or maybe just anyone who wears a keffiyeh (arab headscarf). If you think the former then your simply wrong and if you think the latter then you're no better than a fucking nazi.
This is the second time in only a few post of yours I 've read you making assumptions of people you don't even know. Not cool.
There's no point in arguing with smartasses who assume everything.
1) Sue me for using emotive language. I'm not the only one on this forum.

2) You have just assumed I 'assume everything'. Guilty of same crime. If you don't believe what I accused you of then I stand corrected. The manner in which you refer to 9/11 made me deduce that you thought Iraq was linked to 9/11. I guess I was wrong.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-12 16:18:25)

2006-06-12 16:34:53
Havazn
Member
+39|6947|van.ca

mtb0minime wrote:

I haven't read any comments, but I'd have to say that's a good article. And I bet all these lengthy comments above mine are delusional Canadians saying the article is utter bullshit
Then really take a look, because as far as I can see, everyone who is posting has a location listed other than Canada.

And the article is utter bullshit.
2006-06-13 00:20:19
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6809

Havazn wrote:

mtb0minime wrote:

I haven't read any comments, but I'd have to say that's a good article. And I bet all these lengthy comments above mine are delusional Canadians saying the article is utter bullshit
Then really take a look, because as far as I can see, everyone who is posting has a location listed other than Canada.

And the article is utter bullshit.
I'm from Ireland and I can see through that neo-conservative pigswill. I don't have any particular allegiance to Canada.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-06-13 00:20:43)

2006-06-13 00:58:24
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6928|Canberra, AUS
You cannot fight a network using conventional military techniques. That's why the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan has done squat to limit world terrorism.

You guys are trying to fight a 21st century war with 1980 techniques.

More intel, less troop involvement.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard