fafalone Posted March 21, 2003 Author Share Posted March 21, 2003 And I always bash blike, normally I just do it through IMs. It's all in good fun anyway, me and blike are good friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone The information I'm looking at comes from far more than the mass media. You're still ignoring the UN demand the Iraq ACTIVELY COOPERATE in providing evidence of their disarmament. They had them. They did not destroy them. Where'd they go???? It's far more likely they're still there than magically vanished without a trace. Are you going to reveal your special source to us now? Last time I checked, iraq wasn't a UN member. They aren't obliged to follow UN demands due to this concept of which you may have heard - it's called "sovereignty". Again, just because we haven't seen traces or evidence of something, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact is that we don't know. Further argument is pointless, and could go on ad infinitum if nothing is found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 21, 2003 Author Share Posted March 21, 2003 So now you're back to saying insane dictators have a right to conceal horrible weapons. My sources include foregin media, professors who study that area of the world, comments from people living in Iraq, and some intelligence materials not accessible to the general public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Yes they do. We may not like it, but to use one of your countryfolks' delightful phrases, "whatcha gonna do?" - well, bomb the crap out of their country in an illegal war I suppose. I am going out now for an evening of FUN (about time too) so you'll have to entertain yourself I'm afraid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Faf, you're missing the argument. The argument is NOT whether Saddam has WMD (he almost certainly does, given that the USA gave Iraq them, and this normally anal country does not have a paper trail ten miles long to show them being destroyed). The argument is NOT whether Saddam is a jolly nice person who I'd invite round to one of the vicar's lovely little garden parties. The issue is whether the US are justified in attacking this country. Links to Al-Qaeda remain unlikely and unproven, Saddam has not been a busy little bee and invaded another country, the no-fly zone is still in place. Neither can the US use the excuse that 'they were persuing a solution through the UN, but the attitudes of (among others) the French stopped this, and the US ignores their bolshy ways on the course to INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE!' because of the number of Resolutions they've vetoed on Israel. Iraq may have WMD (which are almost certainly not Nuclear, given the report from the IAEA), but have a stable government which is currently nonaggressive and appeared to be remaining so. Lets have a quick peak at another 2 countries. Pakistan. Pakistan DEFINITELY has WMD, in the form of Nuclear Warheads, and the delivery systems. They have had a recent military coup, and are currently engaged in hostilities with India over the ownership of Kashmir, and are prepared to use their Nuclear devices. India would no doubt respond in kind. Israel. Isreal DEFINITELY has WMD, in the form of Nuclear Warheads, and the delivery systems. Although they have a stable government, they are currently engaged in a war of aggression with Palestine. They were prepared to use nuclear weapons in the past, and probably will again. They have by far the strongest military in the region. Which of these three nations do you think needs military intervention? Not Israel, obviously, otherwise the US wouldn't keep pouring money in. Not Pakistan, because they were so nice in letting the US have military bases there during the invasion of Afghanistan. Oh, and Originally posted by Matzi I mean Hussein throw the inspectors out of the country some years ago They were withdrawn by the UN, not 'thrown out'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone My sources include foregin media, professors who study that area of the world, comments from people living in Iraq, and some intelligence materials not accessible to the general public. Aside from the fact that most of the evidence so far presented has been debunked by academics, and that many top academics are against the war, how did you get privy to this inaccessible information, pray tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 21, 2003 Author Share Posted March 21, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ Yes they do. We may not like it, but to use one of your countryfolks' delightful phrases, "whatcha gonna do?" - well, bomb the crap out of their country in an illegal war I suppose. And we have to live in fear knowing an unstable country can attack us? Rights come with responsibilities, and Saddam is clearly not a responsible leader. We have the right to security. Take this analogy: in the United States, every citizen has the right to bear arms. However, if you shoot and kill another person in cold blood, you lose that right. Iraq has a right to sovereignty, however the instability and agression shown by their government should have consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone And we have to live in fear knowing an unstable country can attack us? Rights come with responsibilities, and Saddam is clearly not a responsible leader. We have the right to security. Take this analogy: in the United States, every citizen has the right to bear arms. However, if you shoot and kill another person in cold blood, you lose that right. Iraq has a right to sovereignty, however the instability and agression shown by their government should have consequences. Rights do come with responsibilities, and you do have the right to security. What you don't have is the right to attack a sovereign nation - without provocation - against the regulations of the UN, of which you are a permanent member. Your analogy is flawed. Iraq have not 'shot and killed' you. This time I'm really going. First proper night out in ages, so hopefully will be a ball. I'll check in later but I might be a bit drunk so apologies in advance for any weirdness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted March 21, 2003 Author Share Posted March 21, 2003 From the statement one can deduce you believe protecting your allies is wrong. Kuwait is an ally, and Iraq attacked (and continued to threaten to attack again) them. Under R1441, serious consequences were authorized if Iraq did not fully cooperate, which they did not by the words of Dr. Blix. The exact meaning of serious consequences is not absolute, so saying the attack is completely illegal is not accurate. It is of questionable legality. And my analogy is not flawed... I didn't shoot and kill the police that arrested me or the judge that sentenced me. They are acting on behalf of another party who is not capable of acting. This is a different world, where waiting for a threat to come to you is not an acceptable option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Since I'm fucking wankered, you're getting off easy. I think the main diifference wee have here is what we're brought up to belive in and the environment in which we are reared. We're seeing the same situation from different standpoints. Go go USA bombing action! And some other stuff, I'm drunk. Is thismore like it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the GardenGnome Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 You but the option against the ultamatum in french. So no one would choose that one because they dont speak french. Well you can't fool me.(maybe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now