snafu
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
wardmd said:Again, my reference to the 17 United Nations
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
wardmd said:Again, my reference to the 17 United Nations
wardmd said:Unilateral, my misinformed friend, means “done or undertaken by one person or party” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary); the United States is NOT the only Armed Forces engaged in Iraq, so your use of the word “unilateral” is A LIE (to use your preferred assertion).
snafu said:And I agree with everything you said except what a terrorist is. It's plain to see that a terrorist uses terror to gain there objective.
Cogito Ergo Sum said:Poor wardmd...you are even more stupid and incompetent than I thought.
1. I have no idea what you mean about a font color. I do not change font colors and nothing appears out of the ordinary on my screen so I cannot say.
2. Unilateral is exactly what it was and still is. Bush badgered a few insignificant troops from other nations because they want to maintain good relations as well as their huge US cash subsidies, but the brunt of the fighting force in Iraq is the US and was initiated by the US and the cost is being bore by the US. Unless I was sleeping, the UN never agreed with the US's invasion and still to this day does not agree.
F.Y.I. - Data for mid-June 2005 show that the US accounted for 85.4 percent of coalition troops. The United Kingdom was second, with 5.1 percent. South Korea, Italy and Poland rounded out the top five coalition countries. The remaining 22 coalition countries account for 4.24 percent of coalition forces.
Aside from the obvious, this sure seems to still be pretty unilateral to me.
There have been 2,409 coalition deaths, 2,210 Americans (91.74%), one Australian (0.04%), 98 Britons (4.06%), 13 Bulgarians (0.54%), two Danes (0.08%), two Dutch (0.08%), two Estonians (0.08%), one Hungarian (0.04%), 26 Italians (1.08%), one Kazakh (0.04%), one Latvian (0.04%), 17 Poles (0.71%), one Salvadoran (0.04%), three Slovaks (0.12%), 11 Spaniards (0.46%), two Thai (0.08%) and 18 Ukrainians (0 .77%) in the war in Iraq as of January 11, 2006.
Again, same story, same conclusion.
3. I am amazed at your psychic powers which allow you to ascertain the feelings of most Iraqi citizens and to state that they are so happy now. Oh, I'm sorry, that's the party song you
Well said!snafu said:And that I believe is the media's fault. Like the term Insurgents.
Iraqi's have every right to fight for what they belive is right. It sounds stupid but there are rules of ingagment in this day and age of so called human dignity and should be practiced. If not we need to do our best to wipe it of the face of the earth.
Hey, nice title for a book - "It takes an apple tree".eisanbt said:Unilateral Action in the theatre of international relations is defined as action undertaken for the soul gain of one party (Or state) with disregard of the consequences as they effect other states/peoples.
AKA: I'm hungry so I steal the village's apple tree to feed myself for the next couple of day whilst everybody else is stuck eating ants and grass because some dipwad stole the only damn apple tree in town!
If however you were trying to state that it is not unlaterial in that other parties are involved on the side then you must also realize their own intentions such as piggybacking can be seen as unilateral in their own right. This by no mean that the main party is not acting first and foremost on their own behalf.
wardmd said:I have NO DOUBT that you have no idea what I mean (regarding the font color and the substance of the arguments [that much is obvious]). But when all of your text was wrapped with COLOR="Black" markup directives, that's an indication that you selected a text color (I see that those directives are no longer present in your post).
wardmd said:Using your definition of unilateral, then Federal Taxes in this country are assessed unilaterally (by "the rich" [83.88% of taxes paid are paid by the top 25% of income earners]). Clearly one cannot assert that ALL taxes are paid by
wardmd said:I fully understand the context in which the Secretary-General made his comments… What YOU, obviously, do not grasp, is that, regardless of the context, he CLEARLY and UNABIGUOUSLY stated that “including full combat” (as a proper response from the United Nations forces) – which completely debunks YOUR assertion that the U.N. is ONLY concerned with sanctions (clearly a LIE on your part, because YOU KNOW that it’s not true).
wardmd said:There have been ”huge sociological, religious, ethnic, and political rifts in Iraq” for hundreds of years before the United States set foot on Iraqi soil (or is the entire world WRONG in it’s belief that Saddam used WMD on the Kruds and Shiite Muslims?). Human rights officials put the number of Kurds and Shiite Muslims buried in mass graves in Iraq close to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.
wardmd said:We could have save BILLIONS of dollars and THOUSANDS of lives, if Saddam Hussein had simply COMPIED with the United Nations Resolutions! Contrary to your continued assertions that President Bush was just chomping at the bit to go to war, if Saddam had simply COOPERATED with the inspectors, and provided the evidence that Iraq was in compliance, then there would not have been a need for 1441, nor the resumption of military action, AND Saddam would, probably, still be the President of Iraq.
wardmd said:The problem, Sir, is that Saddam had NO INTENTION of living peacefully with his neighbors (again, HE invaded Kuwait).
wardmd said:Finally, as to your assertion that the country is “bankrupt”, The largest annual U.S. federal budget deficit, as a percentage of gross domestic product, was at the height of World War II when it hit 30.3% of GDP. By comparison, the federal budget deficit for 2004 as a percentage of GDP was 3.6% of GDP. Last year, it was 2.7%. This year, it is projected at 2.4% (that’s a downward trend – good thing we’ve got tax cuts stimulating the economy and generating jobs, huh?). We’re FAR from “bankrupt”.
Cogito Ergo Sum said:PART II.
Are you completely brain dead? You must smoke crack. "Full combat" refers ONLY to the ability to mount a full combat DEFENSIVE. The United Nations Charter prohibits military aggression. It only provides for peacekeeping forces. Where in the hell did you get your viewpoint of the United Nations anyway? Perhaps from Rush "I'm an illegal prescription drug dope head hypocrite
Cogito Ergo Sum said:PART II.
Are you completely brain dead? You must smoke crack. "Full combat" refers ONLY to the ability to mount a full combat DEFENSIVE. The United Nations Charter prohibits military aggression. It only provides for peacekeeping forces. Where in the hell did you get your viewpoint of the United Nations anyway? Perhaps from Rush "I'm an illegal prescription drug dope head hypocrite
snafu said:In all the resolutions that the U.N. gave to Saddam they were backed up by sanctions. Yes the U.N. doses not engage in war. They rely on us to do that. How many sanctions or chances do we give them?
That
wardmd said:Sorry, I forgot to ask you to clarify where, EXACTLY, does "DEFENSIVE" appear in the Secretary-General's comments?
Or is that another example of a "living, breathing document" (it's meaning changes with the need of Liberals to make their points)?
wardmd said:And to relate this back to the "Bush stole the election" crap...
Curious, is it not, that the Iraqis didn't seem to have ANY trouble locating their desired candidates EVEN THOUGH there were 7,000+ candidates (too bad we don't have more Iraqi Immigrants living in Miami-Dade County - I bet THEY could have found Al Gore's name on the DEMOCRAT designed "butterfly" ballot).