Senator says WMD's found in Iraq.

Thematic-Device @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:30 am

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

In the 1920's and 1930's the USA played ball with the leftist and pacifist disarmament crowd and we got our asses handed to us in the opening of WW2. We learned that it is far safer to be the most powerful country in the world and we will continue to work to maintain that as our status quo.

It seems you also forget the lessons of WWI, in that if you rush into war without good reason you cause more problems then you can solve. Its particularly worrying if the problems caused are ignored because an isolationist sentiment was started by the war.

Arrow @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:41 am

So Bart,

Where's all the handwringing wall-to-wall coverage this 'news' demands? Why is it deathly quiet?

An enquiring mind wants to know.

DerbyX @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:41 am

$1:

Derby, I'm disappointed that you've gone back to your old tactic of making shit up if you have nothing real to argue with. *Anyone* has the right to go to a US Embassy or Consulate and apply for a visa to enter the USA and anyone approved for such entry is just fine with me. I've never, ever said otherwise. And, yes, anyone entering the USA or Iraq in violation of law should be stopped and met with deadly force if necessary. The same goes for any criminals aiding and abetting such criminal acts.

You missed the point. You seem to feel that the US has the right to send its citizens (re: soldiers) en masse into other countries illegally and without reason to do so. You don't. Its wrong.

$1:

Your second sentence in the subject paragraph borders on nonsense. The dominant clause and the subordinate clause are incoherent.

Put down the bong at least sixty minutes before typing from now on and I'm sure you'll be fine. That BC weed can be pretty strong stuff so I won't fault you too much here.

Insults don't become you.

$1:

I don't believe much of anything coming out of the UN and would be content to see it disbanded in favor of structures like NATO. It's just that folks like yourself put so much...faith...in the UN that I relish those occasions when I get to beat you over the head with information whose very source is the UN. It is people like you who refuse to question the UN that makes my referencing the UN (when convenient) so damned much fun! It's just so satisfying to hoist you and yours upon your own petard. Wink

I don't much faith in the UN but I don't think the US should be enforcing its rules when they themselves don't adhere to them.

$1:

The USA has learned a few painful lessons over the years and one of those lessons is that when nations whose leaders publicly announce their willingness to obliterate American cities commence the effort to obtain the means to obliterate American cities it is best to kill them before they make good on their intent.

You have ceased being the victim and are now the victimizer. Its the US striking without provocation and threatening countries with violence when the US is in no danger. Its the US that is acting badly this time.

$1:

If Britain or even France nuked, say, Syria, after a Syrian sponsored NBC attack on Paris or London I'd be just peachy with it. So would my country.

But if Iran nukes Tel Aviv as they have expressed their desire to do then the mullahs might be well-advised to go put on their 45,000,000,000,000,000 SPF sunscreen because it will be getting rather hot in Tehran & Qom. And I'd be just peachy with that, too.

If Iran decides to strike the US first using the same first strike principle you hold dear then you would ne OK with that?

How about if an Iraqi decides to strike back at the US on US soil. Would you think that it was completely fair.

You keep stating reasons about why you can hit them for revenge but fail to understand thats entirely why they want to hit the US.

$1:

Anti-leftist crap and you know it.

$1:

Everything?

We can put Saddam back in charge if it'll make you feel better.

That post from a US marine serving over there said as much. In any case it was never your right to remove him, especially since you guys kept him in power.

You continue to claim that the US is above the law and is allowed to do whatever it wants and thats just wrong. You wouldn't allow your politicians to be above the law would you?

BartSimpson @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:41 am

Thematic-Device Thematic-Device:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

We didn't rush into WW1. You did.

As I recall, one of the ongoing criticisms of the USA on this site is that we didn't rush into WW1.

Also, the war itself did not cause the isolationist movement in the USA it was the peace that brought this about.

You need to study your history a tad more carefully if you're going to debate it.

BartSimpson @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:44 am

Arrow Arrow:

So Bart,

Where's all the handwringing wall-to-wall coverage this 'news' demands? Why is it deathly quiet?

An enquiring mind wants to know.

Why the deathly quiet about the North American Union taking away both of our nations sovereignty effective with 2010? I don't know.

You're asking the wrong person, perhaps you should call the CBC.

BartSimpson @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:36 am

DerbyX DerbyX:

You missed the point. You seem to feel that the US has the right to send its citizens (re: soldiers) en masse into other countries illegally and without reason to do so. You don't. Its wrong.

We are not alone in Iraq. It seems even Canada has some troops operating in Najaf lately.

DerbyX DerbyX:

Insults don't become you.

Nor do they make you look all that good, either. You put the music on and I'm just dancing to it is all. :wink:

DerbyX DerbyX:

I don't much faith in the UN but I don't think the US should be enforcing its rules when they themselves don't adhere to them.

Again, my disdain for the UN is what it is. What we do or don't do with their rules matters little to me except as convenient fodder for arguments with people for whom the UN is a sacred institution.

DerbyX DerbyX:

When we attacked Iraq the consensus of our key allies was that it was necessary based on what was known at the time. Is it time to leave? The Iraqis seem to want us there and the current PM Nuri-al-Maliki asked the US Ambassador if the USA would now leave Iraq if asked to do so and the response was, "Immediately."

While I'd personally like to see us out of there as I believe our mission was completed when Hussein came into custody I'll also respect that we are now in Iraq at the discretion of the democratically elected government.

DerbyX DerbyX:

If Iran decides to strike the US first using the same first strike principle you hold dear then you would ne OK with that?

Iran need not worry about that if their President would stop threatening to murder several million Israelis. His Holocaust denials don't do much to further his popularity, either.

DerbyX DerbyX:

How about if an Iraqi decides to strike back at the US on US soil. Would you think that it was completely fair.

The Iraqis are pretty fond of us right now. It's the terrorists and jihadis from outside of Iraq who are causing trouble.

DerbyX DerbyX:

You keep stating reasons about why you can hit them for revenge but fail to understand thats entirely why they want to hit the US.

Revenge? I thought we were arguing about pre-emption?

DerbyX DerbyX:

$1:

Anti-leftist crap and you know it.

http://www.sagehistory.net/worldwar2/to ... II1940.htm

"Although Hughes's proposals were welcomed by many peace advocates"

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/040306

"The western peace movement began in earnest during the bitter aftermath of World War One. The horror and futility of that catastrophic war was so remarkable that many intellectuals sank into a dark disillusionment. This was the perfect breeding ground for Marxism which thrives on popular discontent like maggots on a decaying carcass. Communist agents recruited a small number of persons to join the Communist Party but recruited large numbers of disillusioned liberal intellectuals to join the peace movement. From 1920 to 1990 the peace movement was to have a Marxist flavor."

2+2=4

Sorry if that's making you uncomfortable but you know damned well that you'd take issue with me were I to say that the peace movement of the 1920's and 30's was actually a majority conservative movement.

DerbyX DerbyX:

That post from a US marine serving over there said as much. In any case it was never your right to remove him, especially since you guys kept him in power.

Other than whatever assistance we gave him against Iran he did just fine keeping himself in power.

DerbyX DerbyX:

You continue to claim that the US is above the law and is allowed to do whatever it wants and thats just wrong. You wouldn't allow your politicians to be above the law would you?

The only law I want the USA and our leaders beholden to is the United States Constitution. Any law, treaty, or agreement that would trump the Constitution is not valid and I will stand against it at the peril of those who would enforce it. I have sworn to do precisely that no less than seventeen times now.

Any international organization whose membership includes in positions of leadership such nations whose goals are at odds with the USA, well, their rules and laws are irrelevant to me.

That includes the UN.

Tricks @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:56 am

DerbyX DerbyX:

You missed the point. You seem to feel that the US has the right to send its citizens (re: soldiers) en masse into other countries illegally and without reason to do so. You don't. Its wrong.

What made the invasion illegal?

DerbyX @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:58 am

$1:

We are not alone in Iraq. It seems even Canada has some troops operating in Najaf lately.

That doesn't make it right.

$1:

Nor do they make you look all that good, either. You put the music on and I'm just dancing to it is all.

When did I insult you?

$1:

Again, my disdain for the UN is what it is. What we do or don't do with their rules matters little to me except as convenient fodder for arguments with people for whom the UN is a sacred institution.

If you won't adhere to UN rules then you can't defend them. Period. Black letter law.

$1:

Bullies with friends are no less bullies and having a puppet who publically ask you to stay isn't any different then the Vichy collaborating with the Nazis. I think there are quite a few people who want you to leave and demonstrate it daily.

$1:

While I'd personally like to see us out of there as I believe our mission was completed when Hussein came into custody I'll also respect that we are now in Iraq at the discretion of the democratically elected government.

Spread it thin because its a big field. You were wrong to go to Iraq and are wrong for being there. That fact will never change no matter how you attempt to justify it. Hitler justified his invasions as well and using the same political language that bush did.

$1:

Iran need not worry about that if their President would stop threatening to murder several million Israelis. His Holocaust denials don't do much to further his popularity, either.

A gangster he may be but when the US threatens other countries they are no less so.

$1:

The Iraqis are pretty fond of us right now. It's the terrorists and jihadis from outside of Iraq who are causing trouble.

You are either joking or haven't a clue about whats going on over there, either way its unacceptable. Thats the kind of thinking that saw bush thinking the US would be greeted as liberators. He was wrong and so are you. The US is despised by everybody accept the puppets that are kept in power by the US. As for Iraqis being helped by allies its only the worst in arrogance and hypocracy that sees the US complaining that another country is helping the country that it is beating up. The absolute worst.

$1:

Revenge? I thought we were arguing about pre-emption?

Afganistan & Iraq were acts of revenge. Pre-emptive is what you propose against Iran.

$1:

Sorry if that's making you uncomfortable but you know damned well that you'd take issue with me were I to say that the peace movement of the 1920's and 30's was actually a majority conservative movement.

Sorry that it makes you uncomfortable knowing that its always conservatives fighting conservatives. Conservatism has failed humanity. All this BS about commies is just the load of garbage you expect from people who can't grasp concepts such as peace. You don't actually want it, you just want to keep the reasons for fighting going so you can continue to fight.

$1:

Other than whatever assistance we gave him against Iran he did just fine keeping himself in power.

The US aided him knowing full well the kind of person he was. That fact can never be altered.

$1:

Then start acting like it. Stop acting as iff the world has to abide by your personal set of laws when you yourselves do no such thing. The US ignores its own laws yet demands that other countries adhere to them.

$1:

Any international organization whose membership includes in positions of leadership such nations whose goals are at odds with the USA, well, their rules and laws are irrelevant to me.

That includes the UN.

Once again we are left with the inescapable conclusion that you have no right to demand others follow your laws when they are irrelevant to them.

You seem to think that the US has the absolute right to go anywhere and do anything regardless of whatever anybody else thinks of it. It is nothing but a bully mentality. You want to protect your constitution then fine do it, just do it in your own country.

If you want the right to run your own country as you see fit then you must afford others that right even if they run it in a way you don't like.

Tricks @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:59 am

DerbyX DerbyX:

You: State emphatically that the UN is a crock and the US has no obligation to listen to anything it says and want out, however you have no problem with that same UN making demands of other countries and using your military to enforce those same resolutions that you would never adhere to. In addition you only ever believe what the UN says when it supports what you think.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

DerbyX @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:06 pm

Tricks Tricks:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Meaning what?

Tricks @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:08 pm

DerbyX DerbyX:

Tricks Tricks:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Meaning what?

I dunno, thought it sounded good :lol:

Pissed @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:17 pm

$1:

Reading from unclassified portions of a document developed by the U.S. intelligence community, Santorum said, "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

As in, no longer good anymore, no longer functional, not a concern.

In order for something to be a weapon of mass destruction it must first be able to cause destruction. Expired weapons can't do that.[/quote]

No shit. Next thing you know my potatoe gun is going to be a weapon of mass destruction.

www.pissed.ca

BartSimpson @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:53 pm

DerbyX DerbyX:

If you won't adhere to UN rules then you can't defend them.

Sure I can. That makes me a hypocrite and given the nature of the UN that puts me in the company of people you hold in high esteem.

BartSimpson @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:28 pm

DerbyX DerbyX:

When did I insult you?

When did I "State emphatically that aliens seeking to enter your country are wrong for illegally entering it and that US citizens who help them should be met with deadly force? In essence you deny the right of anyone to enter your country, however that is exactly what the US does time and again and they do it to countries like Iraq that were no threat to you."?

DerbyX DerbyX:

Bullies with friends are no less bullies and having a puppet who publically ask you to stay isn't any different then the Vichy collaborating with the Nazis.

There you go equating me and my country to the Nazis. :roll:

Ten demerits for violating Godwins Law.

DerbyX DerbyX:

I think there are quite a few people who want you to leave and demonstrate it daily.

Too bad they aren't Iraqis or their opinions would matter in this debate.

DerbyX DerbyX:

$1:

Ten more demerits. :roll:

DerbyX DerbyX:

$1:

Iran need not worry about that if their President would stop threatening to murder several million Israelis. His Holocaust denials don't do much to further his popularity, either.

A gangster he may be but when the US threatens other countries they are no less so.

We've made no threats regarding Iran. They've made threats and we've politely spelled out what our response will be should they carry out those threats. We've also made it clear that if their leaders choose to hide in deep bunkers that we have weapons with which to hold them accountable.

If Iran carries out their threat to nuke Israel and then the USA immolates a couple of Iranian cities I doubt Canada will have much to say about it.

DerbyX DerbyX:

$1:

The Iraqis are pretty fond of us right now. It's the terrorists and jihadis from outside of Iraq who are causing trouble.

You are either joking or haven't a clue about whats going on over there, either way its unacceptable.

Which one of us has actually been there?

DerbyX DerbyX:

Thats the kind of thinking that saw bush thinking the US would be greeted as liberators. He was wrong and so are you. The US is despised by everybody accept the puppets that are kept in power by the US. As for Iraqis being helped by allies its only the worst in arrogance and hypocracy that sees the US complaining that another country is helping the country that it is beating up. The absolute worst.

You've been watching too much TV. The majority of the people fighting us in Iraq are not even Iraqis. And the majority of Iraqis are quite fond of the 2,000+ public schools we've opened, the railroad we restored to service, the clean water they're enjoying for the first time (they never had modern water treatment plants before), and then there was the 72% turnout at the elections in January which showed the support of the Iraqis for what has happened.

Hmph. Have you ever noticed how many Iraqi expatriates show up at the anti-war rallies?

I haven't seen any.

DerbyX DerbyX:

$1:

Revenge? I thought we were arguing about pre-emption?

Afganistan & Iraq were acts of revenge. Pre-emptive is what you propose against Iran.

And that's where we'd started here, or so I thought.

DerbyX DerbyX:

$1:

"BS about Commies"? LOL!!! Did you miss the entire 20th Century in your history classes? ROTFL

And if conservatism is such a failure then why is that the poorest people on earth live in socialist countries?

Why did conservatism beat communism? Because it was a failure? ROTFL

Ireland was socialist and the poorest country in Europe in 1987 and now they're conservative and as of last month the RICHEST country (per capita) in Europe. The Irish are happy as fucking clams! You go tell them they're failures and they'll laugh in your face!

DerbyX DerbyX:

$1:

Other than whatever assistance we gave him against Iran he did just fine keeping himself in power.

The US aided him knowing full well the kind of person he was. That fact can never be altered.

We once aided Josef Stalin. So did Canada. Any thoughts on that little fact?

DerbyX DerbyX:

$1:

"The defence of ************ is a discussion not suitable for international debate."

Who said that?

-Mario- @ Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:29 pm

is this what we are talking about!!!!

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

Board index » Politics » International Politics