Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:17 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 12:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:05 pm
Posts: 423
[quote author=whatchamacallit link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=15#24 date=02/28/03 at 02:21:35]Here is my reply fuelled by a sudden rash of emotion:<br><br>Go stuff "OLD EUROPE" up your ass. <br><br>I could engage in that sort of talking, too. But i try NOT to generalize, as you might have guessed from my posts. <br>[/quote]<br><br>Right. Well, if this "ermerican" can find room in his middle-aged ass for Old Europe I'll see what I can do.<br><br>What with the politicians you guys elect you'll probably feel right at home (and the French won't even notice the smell). :o<br>

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 8:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:05 pm
Posts: 423
[quote author=whatchamacallit link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=15#26 date=02/28/03 at 03:04:13]Oh, I see, you like being personal and feeding generalized clichees. I just read through some of your posts and it seems to be a thing you like to do.<br><br>"with the politicians you guys elect ".<br><br>Who are those "guys" you are talking about? Me? Who tells you that I voted for the people in power? Who told you I voted at all? <br><br>Oh, and while you're at the ass-shoving business, make sure you use some vaseline. Old Europe has all those sticking-out parts like swastikas and stuff. [glow=red,2,300]:D[/glow]<br>[/quote]<br>True, true. And the jackboots are going to render me extremely uncomfortable.<br><br>In "ermerica" a country's name is frequently used as a synonym for its government, its sports teams or its economy; one can say "Germany beat Belgium in the World Cup semifinals" and it is understood that Frau Mueller (sorry, no umlaut on my keyboard) did not score the winning goal; one can state that Germany's exports are at an all-time high and feel comfortable that Frau Mueller isn't an industrialist; one can say that Germany does not support a new resolution on Iraq and know that Frau Mueller might not agree with the German government's policy.<br><br>I do find it odd that you'd take such offense to such a common usage of language, having listened to as much Zappa as you surely have in order to have come to this place. I have merely used language that has been in common usage for hundreds of years. I admit that I am probably among the first wave to use the term "Old Europe" to describe the governments of France and Germany, but unless the policies of those governments change, I won't be the last.<br><br>I think it's probably the case that you just don't like my politics, and that's fine with me. Just know that no disrespect for any individual, anonymous Deutschlander was ever intended in my post...so please knock off the mock outrage.

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:18 am
Posts: 437
Location: USA
Here Here!

_________________
"There's only two ways to sum up Music: Either it's good or bad. If it's good you don't mess about it: You enjoy it."
-Louis Armstrong-
(1901-1971) American Jazz Musician


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3406
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=15#22 date=02/28/03 at 01:33:51]I believe that the international (and American domestic) "peace movement" is fueled by an anti-Bush furor that borders on lunacy.![/quote]<br><br>You got it wrong. It's the other way around. Before that war, there was not really peace movements going on !<br> <br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=15#22 date=02/28/03 at 01:33:51]<br>It is clear that Saddam is in violation of several UN resolutions[/quote]<br><br>So is Israel. Should we start a war on Tel-Aviv, my friiend ?<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=15#22 date=02/28/03 at 01:33:51]1) end repression of [Iraq's] civilian population; <br>2) provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq; <br>3) return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq (political prisoners!); and that he <br>4) return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq.![/quote]<br><br>Here we go again. USA as the world police ! Thinking they'll do it for, ahem... "Freedom of the people", "Liberty of the nation". There were so many cases ressembling to Iraq's one in the past. Where was the police then ? "No oil ?, not interested !". There'll be a war cause there's something in it for US and that is not for humanitarian reasons. I have long pass the age of fairy tales.<br> <br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=15#22 date=02/28/03 at 01:33:51]<br>Why isn't the "peace movement" demanding, via protests and demonstrations, that Saddam comply with UN resolutions to avoid war?<br>Because Saddam is not the enemy of the "peace movement." George Bush is. Make no mistake.[/quote]<br><br>Because, my friend, a "Peace movement " cares about peace first. Sounds reasonable to me.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=15#22 date=02/28/03 at 01:33:51]<br><br>The "peace movement" didn't rear its head when President Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998; the "peace movement" didn't protest the Clinton-led NATO war<br>in Serbia, the bombings in the Sudan or the campaign in Somalia. In fact, Clinton's attack on Iraq in 1998 was a unilateral action!![/quote]<br><br>You may be right on this one. If so, no need to repeat the same error ! Maybe they're just waking up cause now they realise the importance of this one.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=15#22 date=02/28/03 at 01:33:51]<br><br>President Bush, far from seeking to act unilaterally, has attempted to lead the UN to show some spine with regard to Saddam and show that its own resolutions have teeth. There is no way short of the threat of military force to enforce Saddam's compliance.<br>Bush and Blair know this, and have been attempting to show the UN that a unanimous demand from its member-nations will serve to provide the needed threat to Saddam that failure to comply will result in his ouster by way of military power provided by a unified world.![/quote]<br><br>If the vote is not favorable to Bush, do you really think he will refrain from starting this war. He'll be in violation too. Now, two wrongs don't equal a right I was told.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=15#22 date=02/28/03 at 01:33:51]<br>France and Germany have been leading a (small) coalition to buy time for Saddam; they don't support the use of military might to enforce the resolutions to which they have demanded he be held.![/quote]<br><br>80% of the world don't seem "small' to me. It may not be "governments", but it's normal people for crissake.<br>Don't you want to find a solution where your children could leave at peace in this world. Maybe you found a way to escape to Mars, if so, tell me.<br>

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3406
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=15#22 date=02/28/03 at 01:33:51]<br>This split in the UN has emboldened Saddam, who continues to play hide-and-go-seek with the UN inspectors (as he readies his arsenals full of chemical weapons [gas, nerve agents] and biological weapons [anthrax, smallpox]). He has gone so far as to warn that he will use these weapons on any invading force (and these are weapons he claims not to have. What the fuck???).![/quote]<br><br>Invaded by force, I guess I'd do the same and people would call it self-defence. And he's got arms ? So many countries do. Should we start a war on each of them ? We'll start that one cause Saddam is a tyrant ? He's the only one in this world ? Do we have solid proofs that he's the one who is responsible for 9/11 ? Wasn't it supposed to be Osama ? And where is that guy US was supposed to catch ? Is Saddam a disgression because US couldn't find Osama, or maybe because of the sad state of the US economy since Bush took over ? Is it possible to hypnotise a whole nation in making them believe that a war in Iraq would solve many troubling problems US can't solve ?<br> <br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=15#22 date=02/28/03 at 01:33:51]<br><br>Bush and Blair have said that they will lead a coalition of nations to disarm Saddam if he refuses to disarm himself and if the UN refuses to act as a body.<br>There's no other way to get him to comply if he refuses to do so on his own! Is this not clear to everyone reading my words?[/quote]<br><br>In doing so, Bush and Blair will prove to the face of this world how stupid they can be. And THAT is clear to a very vast majority of people on this Earth.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=15#22 date=02/28/03 at 01:33:51]<br>If the UN isn't going to enforce its resolutions, why is the UN making them? If it isn't going to enforce its resolutions, it is irrelevant!<br>Bush and Blair are trying to keep it relevant...but the sophisticates of Old Europe (and their apologists) are apparently deeply offended at the prospects of being led by an ignorant cowboy.[/quote]<br><br>UN hasn't finished its work now. Wait and see. To the world's peace, is Saddam really the threat they're trying to make us believe ? Sorry to say that, but apart from people in his own country (and I don't approve but that's not my point here), we haven't had any serious threath from Iraq. And you're perfectly right about Bush being an ignorant cowboy cause that's what he is. He didn't even know about us, up North Canada, when he took charge. Apart from his own backyard, you must admit that the guy doesn't know very much about the world.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=15#22 date=02/28/03 at 01:33:51]<br>The result may well be that the U.S., U.K., Spain, Italy, Poland, Hungary, The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Latvia, Slovenia, Denmark, Turkey, Romania, Portugal, Bulgaria and Australia might just have to go this one alone. [/quote]<br><br>I truly hope you're right on this one. I would have preferred none, but, hey, it's not done yet.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=15#22 date=02/28/03 at 01:33:51]<br>Somebody's got to do it or the UN will cease to be an entity that matters; in that case you'll see an entirely new alliance led by the U.S. and U.K. protecting the interests of the free world by itself. Is this what Old Europe wants? Apparently. And it blows![/quote]<br><br>There was no need for a war in Iraq to begin with. It came as the Bush solution cause he didn't have any or couldn't think of something else to do after he realised he couldn't get his hands on Bin Laden.<br>Now some warlords are willing to start a fire that won't extinguish itself. All you school bullies who want to play "who's the strongest" with the world never seem to see farther than meet the eyes. War is not the solution. War is the worst thing that could happen. Is that what America wants ? Apparently. And it sucks !

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 12:09 pm
Posts: 2476
Location: arse
i have not read the above by anyone but i just caught a snatch - i agree with them , the so called anti war faction has more to do with objections to bush / the usa / eco issues and a whole host of other issues than it has to do with the imminient action in iraq. iraq is an issue  the disgruntled use to voice their objections to other aspects of us policy. <br><br>one women who attended the anti-war march in london was asked why she was there - her reply - i work with disturbed teenagers and i know from experience that confrontation is never the answer to problems. i mean - that kind of mentality - non thinking faulty analogy -  is beyond me. yes be nice to saddam , respect him and he will behave well - jesus fuckin christ .<br><br>mungo

_________________
Drink..............it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3406
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
Maybe we should list all the dictators on this planet. It may be interesting and it should keep our boys in US occupied for the 21st century for sure. We could have  THE WAR OF THE MONTH. Why not make it a lottery ? You could win a two weeks vacation anywhere on Earth where there's no trouble. Hummm.... Could be harder to find such a spot in the next few years.<br>But hey, what the heck ! Didn't we showed them how strong we are. Too bad we're no safe anymore anywhere. <br>Is that guy with a beard, following me, a good fellow or another terrorist ? What a funny looking belt he wears...

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:05 pm
Posts: 423
Mij: Do you actually believe that the UN should allow Saddam Hussein to defy its resolutions for the sake of "peace?"<br><br>Why aren't you demanding that he abide by the resolutions in order to avoid war, if you're such a peacenik? I mean, are you the genuine article or are you just another Bush-hating dictator appeaser?

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 8:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3406
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=30#34 date=03/01/03 at 00:09:14]Mij: Do you actually believe that the UN should allow Saddam Hussein to defy its resolutions for the sake of "peace?"<br>Why aren't you demanding that he abide by the resolutions in order to avoid war, if you're such a peacenik? I mean, are you the genuine article or are you just another Bush-hating dictator appeaser? [/quote]<br><br>RIGHT ! IF WE HAVE THE COURAGE TO BE HONEST AND ASK THAT ISRAEL DO THE SAME ! OR ELSE WE'LL START A NEW FRONT IN TEL-AVIV !<br><br>WAY TO GO, MAN. SHOW 'EM HOW STRONG WE ARE. <br>Hey, we can even destroy that planet with a remote control !<br><br>I'm stunned to realise that all pro-war don't see the consequences of what's going up now. For them, it's just another war that US will win easily. It looks like they can't see farther than that. It reminds me of a Simon-Garfunkel song "a man hears what he wants to hear and he disregards the rest".<br><br>You should read the other thread about that guy in US government who resigned because of Bush administration politics. That should, maybe, give you a clue.<br><br>And for many observers, Bush has done more damages to US now that Saddam and Osama combined. I think they're right .

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 9:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:05 pm
Posts: 423
Mij, please.<br><br>Is it impossible for you to address the issue of Saddam Hussein's defiance of the UN's resolutions without dragging Israel into the discussion?<br><br>The question is, why aren't you out there protesting Saddam's non-compliance with the UN resolutions? His non-compliance is putting the world at risk. Why aren't you mercilessly holding his feet to the fire? Why aren't you demanding that Canada and Quebec do more to influence other governments to put unanimous pressure on Saddam by threatening force if he refuses to disarm?<br><br>A unified UN demanding Saddam's compliance, under threat of multilateral force from a unified UN, could avert war! I was under the impression that averting war was the most important thing in your life short of your family!<br><br>It's time to put up or shut up, Mij!

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 4:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3406
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=30#36 date=03/01/03 at 11:12:43]Mij, please.<br><br>Is it impossible for you to address the issue of Saddam Hussein's defiance of the UN's resolutions without dragging Israel into the discussion?<br><br>The question is, why aren't you out there protesting Saddam's non-compliance with the UN resolutions? His non-compliance is putting the world at risk. Why aren't you mercilessly holding his feet to the fire? Why aren't you demanding that Canada and Quebec do more to influence other governments to put unanimous pressure on Saddam by threatening force if he refuses to disarm?<br><br>A unified UN demanding Saddam's compliance, under threat of multilateral force from a unified UN, could avert war! I was under the impression that averting war was the most important thing in your life short of your family!<br><br>It's time to put up or shut up, Mij![/quote]<br><br>And you to wake up !<br><br>If you're discussing disgressions about UN resolutions, you can't elude Israel, can you ?<br><br>As far as me rallying in a pro-war demonstration, well, in your dreams maybe...<br><br>And protesting against Saddam eluding UN resolutions would have the same effect as if I was to do it against Israel who kept eluding it for 30 years. Did you see any result in that ? Let's focus on Peace ! And let the big thinkers of this world find another way out of this. Somebody else than Bush who's not really Mr. Big Brain so far.<br><br>I think you're confused by your hate (justified) against Saddam but you don't see where it will lead us to. I don't like the guy more than you. But I personnaly think that war is not the answer and it won't solve anything.<br><br>You made your case. I made mine. It's a draw so far. Let the readers make up their own mind. But worldwide, I have a nearly 80% on my side. But 20% is not a small number either.  

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2003 10:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:05 pm
Posts: 423
I think most of the 80% are people who either hate George Bush or who resent America's perceived new status as the "world's only superpower." And I think that their (and your) thinking is clouded by your hatred and utter disrespect for the President.<br><br>Bush-haters want Bush to fail more than they want peace; if they truly wanted peace they would be demanding that Saddam disarm for the sake of peace, instead of marching around carrying signs equating Bush with Hitler.<br><br>I am for peace. I don't know anyone who believes that war is a good thing...and I also know that if the nations of the UN were to stand up and demand that Saddam disarm or face the unanimous, multilateral use of force to remove him from power and to destroy his weapons, the chances of peace would increase dramatically.<br><br>Instead we have this pathetic anti-Bush power play that will ultimately render the UN meaningless.<br><br>The "peace movement" is a joke. The "peace movement" doesn't protest wars started by communist governments; the "peace movement" doesn't protest North Korea's restart of its nuclear reactors; the "peace movement" doesn't protest Saddam's funding of suicide bombers in Israel; the "peace movement" doesn't protest Pakistani incursions in Kashmir; but the "peace movement" shifts into high gear anytime an American Republican President even considers the use of force. (I have to use the term "Republican" here; the "peace movement" didn't protest the Clinton Administration-led Serbian war, his Somalian action, his Haitian action, his unilateral bombing of Iraq and the Sudan.) <br><br>If the "peace movement" would react and behave consistently and without hypocrisy, they'd be jumping all over Saddam for his butchery, his theft, his torture and his chemical and biological weapons proliferation, all in violation of UN sanctions; these are the violations that will cause this war. But they won't. Know why?<br><br>Saddam is their friend. He is confronting George Bush.

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2003 10:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:05 pm
Posts: 423
You want language to be used accurately. I understand.<br><br>[quote author=whatchamacallit link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=30#39 date=03/02/03 at 11:07:35]<br><br>No, i don't respect george bush jr, president of the united states. why should I? [/quote]<br><br>In the two sentences above there are several errors:<br><br>Firstly, the pronoun "I" requires capitalization.<br><br>Secondly, the name "George Bush Jr." requires capitalization.<br><br>Thirdly, the name "George Bush Jr." is incorrect; the President's actual name is George W. Bush.<br><br>Fourthly, the title "president of the united states" should be written thusly: <br><br>"President of the United States."<br><br>Fifthly, the word "why," which begins your second sentence, should be capitalized.<br><br>[quote author=whatchamacallit link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=30#39 date=03/02/03 at 11:07:35]<br><br>what does he need to be respected for?[/quote]<br><br>There are more errors in this sentence:<br><br>The "w" in the word "what" should be capitalized, as it is the first word in the sentence;<br><br>You ended the sentence in a preposition; the proper structure of the sentence is "For what does he need to be respected?"<br> <br>[quote author=whatchamacallit link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=30#39 date=03/02/03 at 11:07:35]<br><br>And "them", i have listened to Frank a lot. remember when he talked about the damage been done to language? Just because it's "Common" to say "Germany is fucked up" when you mean the government, doesn't make it any better.[/quote]<br><br>A few more errors are featured above:<br><br>My screen name is "Them," which is capitalized due to my own choosing;<br><br>Again, the pronoun "I" should be capitalized;<br><br>You have improperly capitalized the adjective "common."   <br><br>[quote author=whatchamacallit link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=30#39 date=03/02/03 at 11:07:35]<br><br>There is also no outrage at this end. i am just trying to explain to you how your comments are being perceived at this end.<br>I have better things to do than get angry at anything posted in a forum for longer than a splitsecond. opinions are clearly different here and they won't meet, no matter what.[/quote]<br><br>Oops! <br><br>Again, the pronoun "I" should be capitalized;<br><br>The word "opinions" should be capitalized, as it begins your second sentence.<br><br>[quote author=whatchamacallit link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=30#39 date=03/02/03 at 11:07:35]<br><br>Just as Bush wants the war, no matter what.  ;D[/quote]<br><br>This is an incomplete sentence.<br><br>********************************************<br><br>The rules for Romance and Germanic languages explicitly state that the first letters of words beginning sentences require capitalization unless the word is inherently stylized, which none of the words in your erroneous sentences were; the rules also require that proper names, nouns and titles be capitalized.<br><br>Toward improved language, I remain,<br><br>Your humble servant,<br><br>Them

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2003 11:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3406
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=30#38 date=03/02/03 at 00:52:02]<br>Bush-haters want Bush to fail more than they want peace[/quote]<br>WRONG ! Before that Iraq thing, Bush was just a regular clown, now he's a dangerous clown. Before, I couldn't care less. Now, I have to.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=30#38 date=03/02/03 at 00:52:02]<br>if they truly wanted peace they would be demanding that Saddam disarm for the sake of peace, instead of marching around carrying signs equating Bush with Hitler.<br>[/quote]<br>Not at a price of a war. Because, making war to gain peace is a non-sense. Sorry, I don't follow you on that one.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=30#38 date=03/02/03 at 00:52:02]<br>I am for peace. I don't know anyone who believes that war is a good thing...and I also know that if the nations of the UN were to stand up and demand that Saddam disarm or face the unanimous, multilateral use of force to remove him from power and to destroy his weapons, the chances of peace would increase dramatically.<br>[/quote]<br>And if Israel do the same ? Wouldn't there be chances that peace would find a way if they abide by these UN resolutions they eluded for 30 years. Sorry to come up again with that but I feel that I can't have two measures for the same thing. One for Israel, one for Saddam. They're both guilty. Ready to fight in Jerusalem ?<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=30#38 date=03/02/03 at 00:52:02]<br>Instead we have this pathetic anti-Bush power play that will ultimately render the UN meaningless.<br>[/quote]<br>I think now UN has more troubles with Bush than with Peace movements.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=30#38 date=03/02/03 at 00:52:02]<br>The "peace movement" is a joke. etc...<br>[/quote]<br>Did it occur to you, in your brain, that this one oppose the super power of this world who's enraged and could blow the world off, starting a fire that will consume this so modern world. You think this is just another ORDINARY CNN WAR OF THE WEEK ! . Let this happen and be prepared to shit in your pants in the next few years. I know the vast majority of people living on THIS planet has already measured up the consequences you seem to elude.<br>You don't like Saddan. I don't like Saddam. That's the only thing on which we'll agree.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=30#38 date=03/02/03 at 00:52:02]<br>Saddam is their friend. He is confronting George Bush<br>[/quote]<br> Now my friend, you're being simply RIDICULOUS

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2003 2:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 12:09 pm
Posts: 2476
Location: arse
have to say mij that you do have a habit of answering a question with another question or throwing in an unrelated topic to avoid having to give a propor answer.<br><br>for example when them asked you about saddam complying with 1441 you dont answer or when in the FRANCE thread you replied to my  french cultural imperialism piece with a bit about american imperialism.<br><br>the fact is that two wrongs dont make a right - whatever the sins of the united states or israel or whoever - that dont justify french or iraqi behavior does it ? replying in such a manner also gives the impression that you dont have much of an argument and appear a little short on the facts and indeed a basic set of moral values - it really is an infantile schoolyard way of conducting a debate. <br><br>AND<br><br>oh whatya - are you ready to get involved here - last i heard from you was a whole lot of nothing , just one thing - when you say things appear quite different on your side of things i presume you are refering to france and germany cause in my bit of europe and 90% of other countries your position is indeed quite different.<br><br>- just hoping your speakin for yourself thats all - cause nobody else asked you to speak for them - they can do that for themselves thanks. ( thanks to the USA that is ).<br><br>btw - i never did get to hear an exposition about this oil theory whatya - if you have it figured out yet i am listening.<br> <br>MUNGO

_________________
Drink..............it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2003 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3406
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
[quote author=mungo link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=30#43 date=03/02/03 at 16:41:07]when them asked you about saddam complying with 1441 you dont answer or when in the FRANCE thread you replied to my  french cultural imperialism piece with a bit about american imperialism.<br>the fact is that two wrongs dont make a right - whatever the sins of the united states or israel or whoever - that dont justify french or iraqi behavior does it ? replying in such a manner also gives the impression that you dont have much of an argument and appear a little short on the facts and indeed a basic set of moral values - it really is an infantile schoolyard way of conducting a debate. <br>AND<br>oh whatya - are you ready to get involved here - last i heard from you was a whole lot of nothing , just one thing - when you say things appear quite different on your side of things i presume you are refering to france and germany cause in my bit of europe and 90% of other countries your position is indeed quite different.<br>- just hoping your speakin for yourself thats all - cause nobody else asked you to speak for them - they can do that for themselves thanks. ( thanks to the USA that is ).<br>btw - i never did get to hear an exposition about this oil theory whatya - if you have it figured out yet i am listening.  MUNGO[/quote]<br><br>A question may be bring another question for some who tend to see one side and not the other. May you understand that the black plague you see on one side may reside on the other too (still with me ?).<br>If it's a no-no thing that Saddam don't obey UN resolutions, it's also a no-no thing that Israel don't either. What I think about the question is irrelevant to some degree. I just wanted you to link these two situations so, maybe, light would shine inside of your head, so you would at last consider that there's more that meet the eyes here. In a world where one would want only to see one side as being good and the other as being bad, one tend to think things a very simplistic way that has nothing to do with the complex matter we're dealing with !<br><br>OK, to make it simplier for you, yeah Saddam should comply with UN resolutions. Glad ? But, the difference between me and you is that I don't see how a war is really needed to solve it. Specially since US never declared war on Israel, should we say that they're a bunch of hypocrites ? I would !<br><br>If you didn't understand the link between your french disgression and my American imperialism remark, sorry. I think I can't explain it you.<br><br>If you think that wanting peace is a childish attitude in replying in this debate, I can't explain it to you too. So far, the "WAR" side had no really arguments to convince me that this was the way to go with this situation. Since you can't see the implications, I can't help you with that either. I would say that playing the world school bully is more childish to me than wanting to preserve this world against the madness of some deranged political figures who won't even be on the front line to prove their point.<br><br>I don't speak in behalf of no one. When I said 80% of the world is against this war, I just say what we hear in every news bulletin and radio and newspapers. Would you say that they're all wrong at the same time. What about all these peace demonstrations. More people than in the 60s ! But I guess it means nothing to you since you want that fight so bad. Anything anyone would say that is not in favor of "show that badass Saddam who's the boss in this world" would be considered by you like "a lot of nothing" and "no arguments" ! What's the use trying to convince you ? None. But be behind what you say ! Go to war !<br><br>The oil argument ? For a country willing to risk a $300billionUS on this fight ? Just to get one guy ? Who's quiet from 1991 (on the world outside Iraq that is) ! Are you that naive ? There in for some things and oil is one of them ! Wasn't it supposed to be Ben Ladin we're after ? This "US goes to war" is a poor masquerade of a great failed operation. It helps keep Americans quiet, so they won't see that Bush has really no idea what to do !<br><br>Are you the kind of guy who thinks everything US do is OK ? You look a lot like that ! Maybe you should become American ? <br><br>No hard feelings, man ! In fact, PEACE !  

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2003 8:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:05 pm
Posts: 423
Mij:<br><br>You have been shown over and over and over again <br><br>1) That Saddam is linked to the terror organization that flew planes into the World Trade Center; <br><br>2) That he funds suicide bombers in Israel; <br><br>3) That he is torturing political prisoners; <br><br>4) That he has killed hundreds of thousands of Marsh Arabs, Kurds, Shiites and dissenters in Iraq alone;<br><br>5) That he has used weapons of mass destruction upon his own people, including women and children; <br><br>6) That he is firing on British and American planes enforcing the UN-created no-fly-zone;<br><br>7) That he is still in possession of Kuwaiti property; <br><br>8) That he is hiding chemical and biological weapons from the UN inspectors;<br> <br>9) That he is developing nuclear weapons; <br><br>10) That he is in violation of a host of UN resolutions.<br><br>Plus, you are aware that during Desert Storm he invaded and attempted to annex Kuwait and launched scud missiles into Israel...a non-combatant.<br><br>He has shown himself to be an enemy of peace for 30 years.<br><br>Yet your voice isn't raised against him. It's raised against George Bush.<br><br>What has President Bush done?<br><br>He's waited; he hasn't acted unilaterally; he's attempted to unify the UN, so it won't sink into irrelevance, against a man who is a warmonger, a torturer, a murderer and a funder of terrorism. <br><br>For this, Bush is ridiculed by the left and reviled by the "peace movement," although Saddam's voluntary disarming is the only chance for peace. You should be putting pressure on him to disarm. The onus is on him.<br><br>

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: IRAQ - revisited
PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3406
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1045218507;start=45#45 date=03/02/03 at 22:17:44]Mij:<br><br>You have been shown over and over and over again...etc... <br><br>[/quote]<br><br>Some of the things that you say are true, some aren't proved, some are what americans are trying to sell us.<br><br>But let me say again, and I hope for the last time cause I'm getting tired of repeating it<br><br>WAR IS NOT "THE" SOLUTION CAUSE IT WILL CAUSE MORE HARM IN THE END. THINK ABOUT THE "CONSEQUENCES" (can you ?) AND ASK YOURSELF IF YOU REALLY WANT TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE YOU HAVE TO CHECK YOURSELF THOROUGHLY DAY AFTER DAY, EVERYWHERE YOU GO, BECAUSE ALL THESE CRAZY TERRORISTS ARE AFTER US ! .<br><br>Do you really think that everything will be OK after that ?<br>If war is the only solution Bush can come up with, it proves that he's a no-brainer. HE HAS TO COME UP WITH A BETTER SOLUTION THAN ONE WHO WILL DIVIDE THIS WORLD FOREVER IN TWO CAMPS ! . When the remedy is worse than the pain, what do you do ?<br><br>I don't buy your "Bush has done this and that". First, he was no president until late 2000-early 2001, so no power. And since he's there, I don't see what he's done that could be helpful to UN so far. But if you like the man that much, so be it. Let him fight his war. After that, see in what kind of world we'll live and I think you won't like him anymore. Cause, you see, these terrorists, they won't stand still. They'll fight back. And they'll multiply !<br><br>Sweet dreams...

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group