Letter to Europe

[snafu]

Of course wardmd has been saying everything I’ve tried to say in the past. Only in a much more highly educated manner. Thank You very much!
I would say he’s winning by far. Not to say that CES has very good points also. I would believe he's trying to be the Devil advocate.
I’m a free thinker too.
It just happens that the way I think is the conservative way. I’ve been waiting for something the lefties do that’s right. It just hasn’t happened.

OK another play on words. What constitutes Peace keeping?
Do we need a form of Roberts Rules in order to determine Politically correct phrases? How would a Peacekeeping force be able to obtain its objective by not mandating some form of engagement? Another feeble flaw of the U.N. Double talk there way onto the fence. So that America and its allies can be the bad guys when we determine “serious consequences” and “Peace Keeping – Peace making” can only be accomplished by military intervention. Is there another way that we haven’t tried yet? Is Peacekeeping a term that means we use ourselves as targets? The rule "do not engage unless fired upon"?
**** That!

 

[wardmd]

No, I'm sorry, I guess you cannot read...

Remarks by
Professor Ibrahim A. Gambari
Under-Secretary-General and
Special Adviser on Africa
United Nations

at

The National Convention
Zumunta Association, USA Inc.
Chicago, Illinois
October 14, 2000

...The three conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone and the Angola also reaffirm one of the most important lessons we have learned in Namibia: the need to intimately link peacekeeping with peacemaking. In Namibia, peacekeepers were constantly engaged in negotiations with parties concerned about issues relevant to the final resolution to the conflict. Namibia was again an innovation for peacemaking because it proved that peacemaking is not an activity restricted only to a phase prior to the deployment of peacekeeping but it is a constant aspect of the entire peace process. But perhaps, the most important lesson being learned by the United Nations from the recent debacle in Sierra Leone and the difficulties of deployment of peace-keepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is for the Organisation to match "robust" mandates or rules of engagement with equally robust means of accomplishing them. As the Secretary-General also reminds us all: "we have in the past prepared for peace-keeping operations with a best case scenario. The parties sign an agreement, we assume they will honour it, so we send in lightly armed forces to help them. The time has come for us to base our planning on worst -case scenarios to be surprised by co-operation, if we get it. And to go in prepared for all eventualities, including full combat, if we don't"...

The UN as mandated in its charter is a DEFENSIVE Peace-Keeping organization with regard to military force.

Get a grip and do your homework. It's funny that you bear such a hatred to an organization you don't even understand.

BUZZ! Thanks for playing!

As I expected, you CAN'T point out where the Secretary-General said "DEFENSIVE", because HE DIDN'T. Your feeble attempt to INFER that "peace-keeping operations" means "DEFENSIVE", does NOT change the FACT that he did not SAY it!

Hell, I can assert that EVERY military action taken by the United States (and every other armed conflict by every nation, for that matter) is a "peace-keeping operation" (for THEIR nation's "defense").

I'm sure the "insurgents" look upon THEIR actions as "peace-keeping", too, but that does not make it so!

The 9/11 hijackers might very well have considered THEIR actions "peace-keeping", too, but, again, that does not make it so.

You simply CANNOT re-define "full combat" as "sanctions", which is what the assertion was, no matter how hard you try to twist the quote.

Again, for clarity, the ASSERTION was that the U.N. didn't engage in military action, only "sanctions" (go read the posts).

They may very well WANT to be a defensive peace-keeping organization, but when the Secretary-General speaks of "full combat", he is CLEARLY NOT talking about "sanctions".

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

BUZZ! Thanks for playing!

As I expected, you CAN'T point out where the Secretary-General said "DEFENSIVE", because HE DIDN'T. Your feeble attempt to INFER that "peace-keeping operations" means "DEFENSIVE", does NOT change the FACT that he did not SAY it!

Hell, I can assert that EVERY military action taken by the United States (and every other armed conflict by every nation, for that matter) is a "peace-keeping operation" (for THEIR nation's "defense").

I'm sure the "insurgents" look upon THEIR actions as "peace-keeping", too, but that does not make it so!

The 9/11 hijackers might very well have considered THEIR actions "peace-keeping", too, but, again, that does not make it so.

You simply CANNOT re-define "full combat" as "sanctions", which is what the assertion was, no matter how hard you try to twist the quote.

You are hopeless.

What part of this do you not understand?

The United Nations by virtue of its charter is prohibited from AGGRESSIVE military action. The mission of the United Nations with regard to ground forces is restricted to a mission of peacekeeping DEFENSE. Bottom line is, the UN does not ATTACK, it responds. You are a damn idiot!

Perhaps you've read the Secretary General's writing on the D.R.C. where he details the DEFENSE and Peacekeeping efforts?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/congo/2003/1117sg_report.pdf
As expected, you make ludicrous analogies yet once again. Bravo. 2 points for consistency even if you are a complete whack job.

How you can even begin to claim that OFFENSIVE (attacking) actions of the US would constitute a DEFENSE is beyond comprehension and simply laughable.

I'm quite sure how the insurgents view themselves. They publish it all over the web for anybody to read. They clearly view the US and the "coalition forces" as INVADERS of their country, and they are prepared to undertake any action to subvert and repel this invasion, including killing their own citizens who they feel are collaborating. I do not agree with their methods, but I can certainly understand their position.

Lastly, your claim about the 9/11 hijackers just goes over the top and is neither even in the realm of reality nor worthy of comment other than perhaps you need professional help for your delusions.

You are a devote practitioner of doublespeak and it shows.

Oh, and just to give you the line to follow, let's highlight the key points just once more; I know, you're slow.

"...we have in the past prepared for peace-keeping operationswith a best case scenario." (He is referring to lightly armed ground forces, i.e. small arms only.)

The parties sign an agreement; we assume they will honor it, so we send in lightly armed forces to help them. (Oh my God, he confirms that he is referring to lightly armed forces.)

The time has come for us to base our planning on worst -case scenarios to be surprised by co-operation, if we get it. And to go in prepared for all eventualities, including full combat, if we don't"... (Here he is confirming that as was the case in 3 different places, the UN peacekeeping forces were woefully unarmed to provide an adequate defense. You see genius; the bad guys do bad things which make them lots of money. With this money they are able to purchase much more than mere guns on the worldwide arms market. They buy light and heavy machine guns, mortars, RPG, landmines, heavy explosives and the list goes on and on. What is being stated here is that sending in peacekeeping troops with rifles against that kind of firepower is futile and stupid and that in the future, peacekeeping troops need to be prepared to be engaged in full combat with those types of weapons from the aggressors and accordingly, they need to have the proper tools at their immediate disposal in order to respond. One does not bring a knife to a gun fight, nor use a rifle against a machine gun.)

I've spent over 20 years of my life in US military service, and have fought war and provided peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance on 3 different continents. You don't have a ****ing clue what you are talking about and it clearly shows.

Why don't you go back to the Fox news channel and get another fix of whitewash; it's almost like cocaine for you isn't it?

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

...You simply CANNOT re-define "full combat" as "sanctions", which is what the assertion was, no matter how hard you try to twist the quote.

Again, for clarity, the ASSERTION was that the U.N. didn't engage in military action, only "sanctions" (go read the posts).

They may very well WANT to be a defensive peace-keeping organization, but when the Secretary-General speaks of "full combat", he is CLEARLY NOT talking about "sanctions".

Hey dogshit breath!

Get your story straight. You are an excellent twister of the truth. Here's the original first quote.

http://Off Topic Forum.com/showpost.php?p=608709&postcount=12

"...The result of non-compliance of UN resolutions is never war, but rather sanctions. Nice try. The UN does not wage war, it intervenes to stop it or prevent it..."

The assertion is that the UN does not engage in AGGRESIVE warfare. They do not attack. They defend against attack.


Here's the post where I explained the quote from the Secretary General and what it meant (for the first time)...read again for yourself.

http://Off Topic Forum.com/showpost.php?p=610172&postcount=23

"What this was in reference to was the use of ill prepared UN forces for the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone and the Angola. What he was saying was that they were woefully unprepared for the level of fighting and that next time they must be fully prepared (troops and weapons) to fight back on a defensive strategy with the same level of firepower and intensity, not to make outward aggressions as you would like to believe. You should do your research better. "

Lastly, I never said that "full combat" referred to "sanctions". You concocted that bullshit out of thin air. My statement regarding the word "full combat" is clearly quoted above.

You are a worthless piss ant trying to twist my words and I will not let you.

 

[wardmd]

Oh, and I suppose you believe all of the information fed to you by the US Military controlled media in Iraq.

I am especially fond of the paid for articles that the US government arranged.

With each futile grasp at credibility, you and your political party only further reveal the levels to which you will stoop down to in order to hoodwink yourselves and the American public at large.

Oh and for the record, I'm not a liberal nor a conservative. I'm a free thinker. I examine issues and decide based upon the facts and information I have at my disposal. Political parties are for mindless sheep such as yourself, who gladly march up and into the doors of the political slaughterhouse.

Okay, I'll see if I can find your name in the "who's who of 'Great Moderates of the World'" (after all, there's been such a long and distinguished list of moderates [aka "free thinkers"] who have made such a name for themselves in World History... Let's see, there's.... Umm.... Errr.... Hey, there aren't any, are there?).

So, which "fact" were you basing your decision on (that the United Nations ONLY recourse was "sanctions" [as opposed to the now PROVEN reference to "full combat"])?

You can wrap yourself in whatever bumper sticker mantras you like...

Isn't it fair, however, to say that you were, simply, mistaken (with respect the the sanctions assertion), rather than chant that you "lied" (which is the constant refrain against the President)?

I believe, Sir, I have demonstrated that (A) YOU were INCORRECT in your assertion (that the United Nations' ONLY recourse is "sanctions") and (B) it is UNFAIR to assert that making a mistake is NOT the same thing as LYING.

Are you honest enough to admit your mistake? President Bush was!

 

[wardmd]

Oh, and I suppose you believe all of the information fed to you by the US Military controlled media in Iraq.

I am especially fond of the paid for articles that the US government arranged.

With each futile grasp at credibility, you and your political party only further reveal the levels to which you will stoop down to in order to hoodwink yourselves and the American public at large.

Oh and for the record, I'm not a liberal nor a conservative. I'm a free thinker. I examine issues and decide based upon the facts and information I have at my disposal. Political parties are for mindless sheep such as yourself, who gladly march up and into the doors of the political slaughterhouse.

Again, let's state the FACTS, shall we? Would you like to cite EVEN ONE of the paid articles which was factually inaccurate? (I'll give you a hint, they were ALL factually correct)... YOUR point goes more to MY assertion than to yours - the "Main Stream Media" is NOT accurately reporting what is taking place (otherwise, the U.S. Government wouldn't have to pay to get the WHOLE TRUTH out, would they?).

I remind you of Eason Jordon's admission that CNN DELIBERATELY withheld the TRUTH about Saddam's atrocities (just so that they could remain in Iraq).

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Okay, I'll see if I can find your name in the "who's who of 'Great Moderates of the World'" (after all, there's been such a long and distinguished list of moderates [aka "free thinkers"] who have made such a name for themselves in World History... Let's see, there's.... Umm.... Errr.... Hey, there aren't any, are there?).

So, which "fact" were you basing your decision on (that the United Nations ONLY recourse was "sanctions" [as opposed to the now PROVEN reference to "full combat"])?

You can wrap yourself in whatever bumper sticker mantras you like...

Isn't it fair, however, to say that you were, simply, mistaken (with respect the the sanctions assertion), rather than chant that you "lied" (which is the constant refrain against the President)?

I believe, Sir, I have demonstrated that (A) YOU were INCORRECT in your assertion (that the United Nations' ONLY recourse is "sanctions") and (B) it is UNFAIR to assert that making a mistake is NOT the same thing as LYING.

Are you honest enough to admit your mistake? President Bush was!

What a worthless piece of dog vomit this is.

Go read my earlier post to see what I have to say about your false accusations and twisting of the truth. I'll give you a heads up here; you are seriously close to being slammed into the idot box.

As to your list of famous Moderates, I'll just give you a few Americans.

(FYI - Just because barf bag Rush Limbaugh tries to claim such a stupid thing on the radio, doesn't mean you should believe it nor try to use it here.)

Shall we try, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln (um, he's a rather big one I'd say), Harry Truman, Albert Einstein, and there are many more you idiot.

 

[wardmd]

Hey dogshit breath!

Get your story straight. You are an excellent twister of the truth. Here's the original first quote.

http://Off Topic Forum.com/showpost.php?p=608709&postcount=12

"...The result of non-compliance of UN resolutions is never war, but rather sanctions. Nice try. The UN does not wage war, it intervenes to stop it or prevent it..."

The assertion is that the UN does not engage in AGGRESIVE warfare. They do not attack. They defend against attack.


Here's the post where I explained the quote from the Secretary General and what it meant (for the first time)...read again for yourself.

http://Off Topic Forum.com/showpost.php?p=610172&postcount=23

"What this was in reference to was the use of ill prepared UN forces for the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone and the Angola. What he was saying was that they were woefully unprepared for the level of fighting and that next time they must be fully prepared (troops and weapons) to fight back on a defensive strategy with the same level of firepower and intensity, not to make outward aggressions as you would like to believe. You should do your research better. "

Lastly, I never said that "full combat" referred to "sanctions". You concocted that bullshit out of thin air. My statement regarding the word "full combat" is clearly quoted above.

You are a worthless piss ant trying to twist my words and I will not let you.

Listen, you little Dervish... You can TRY to twist and twirl your way out of your mistake, but that was NOT your assertion...

YOU said, "The result of non-compliance of UN resolutions is never war, but rather sanctions" (go re-read post #12). Again, "full combat" is NOT "sanctions" (game, set, match).

You are, simply, WRONG, and I nailed you on it!

 

[ToriAllen]

I'll give you a heads up here; you are seriously close to being slammed into the idot box.

Alright now. Let's keep this a fair fight.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Listen, you little Dervish... You can TRY to twist and twirl your way out of your mistake, but that was NOT your assertion...

YOU said, "The result of non-compliance of UN resolutions is never war, but rather sanctions" (go re-read post #12). Again, "full combat" is NOT "sanctions" (game, set, match).

You are, simply, WRONG, and I nailed you on it!

What a ****ing joke you are. You remind me of bible thumpers who take a verse from one book, then another from a book 10 books apart, and then magically try to equate 1 to the other. It doesnt' work that way regardless of how hard you would like it to.

The two quotes have nothing to do with one another. The first quote regarding the UN utilizing sanctions and never war, is factually correct in every regard.

The second quote which isn't even mine, regarding "full combat", referes to the battle-readiness condition of the UN peacekepping troops, not offensive warfare and I have repeatedly demonstrated this one to you. I cannot help it if you don't like the facts.

Game, set, match yourself you idiot.

I am not wrong on this one. You are a lying fabricator. A weasel.

In fact, have a nice trip to the idiot box. Feel free to express your ideas and opinions here, but when you repeatedly try to twist words around, especially words that never existed together, you are just simply lying and deserve a little time in the idiot box.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Alright now. Let's keep this a fair fight.

Exactly. Fair fight means not trying repeatedly to twist words around.

If you are going to quote, quote. Don't fabricate and especially don't do it with me.

 

[wardmd2]

Just so everyone knows how YOU attempt to end debate:

You have been banned for the following reason:
You are simply full of ****. State your opinions, but don't try to twist words asshole.

Date the ban will be lifted: 01-17-2006

Oh whaaw....crybaby. You are not prevented from posting or stating your opinions. The debate is not ended; just enhanced slightly. Suck it up tough guy. Welcome to GF.

 

[wardmd2]

Alright now. Let's keep this a fair fight.

I agree... Just a pitty that SOME PEOPLE can't accept when they are PROVEN WRONG.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

...Again, let's state the FACTS, shall we? Would you like to cite EVEN ONE of the paid articles which was factually inaccurate? (I'll give you a hint, they were ALL factually correct)...

Well, seeing as how the articles were in Arabic newspapers and printed in Arabic and as I do not read Arabic nor have access to Arabic newspapers, I can neither confirm nor deny your statements.

Obviously though, Rush Limbaugh has told you that they were "factual", and by god, you believe it.

Would you like to cite your source as to the fact that they were factual stories?

What I cannot understand is why would the US government need to pay to print the "truth"? Afterall, accourding to you, the Iraqi's love us! Surely they want to hear all of the good news!

 

[wardmd2]

Exactly. Fair fight means not trying repeatedly to twist words around.

If you are going to quote, quote. Don't fabricate and especially don't do it with me.

I fabricated NOTHING... It was YOU who made a statement which I PROVED was incorrect.

YOU are, simply, unwilling to admit your error.

So, back to the original topic... How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? Answer: No one knows - they've never done it!

 

[ToriAllen]

Exactly. Fair fight means not trying repeatedly to twist words around.

If you are going to quote, quote. Don't fabricate and especially don't do it with me.

My dear, you know I love you, but I have seen you do this same thing. You just do it in a much more poetic manor. If it is done to you, then it becomes your job to point it out effectively.

Nice to have the real CES back.

Just so everyone knows how YOU attempt to end debate:

You have been banned for the following reason:
You are simply full of ****. State your opinions, but don't try to twist words asshole.

Date the ban will be lifted: 01-17-2006

Don't let it bother you. He likes to pick on the newbies.
He has a bit of a temper, but he is fun to debate and chat with. He just forgets sometimes what it felt like to be on the receiving end of the box. Boy was he pissed when he got boxed during a debate with me. I didn

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I agree... Just a pitty that SOME PEOPLE can't accept when they are PROVEN WRONG.

Oh my...SOME PEOPLE....Ha! You couldn't prove anything I say is wrong you crybaby.

View attachment 724

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

...Don't let it bother you. He likes to pick on the newbies.
He has a bit of a temper, but he is fun to debate and chat with. He just forgets sometimes what it felt like to be on the receiving end of the box. Boy was he pissed when he got boxed during a debate with me. I didn

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I fabricated NOTHING... It was YOU who made a statement which I PROVED was incorrect.

YOU are, simply, unwilling to admit your error.

So, back to the original topic... How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? Answer: No one knows - they've never done it!

You didn't PROVE jack ****...Are you smoking crack again?

I have made no error other than to try and educate your worthless mind.

Yes, back to the topic. How many wardmd's does it take to make a valid argument? Answer: No one knows - he's never done it!

 

[ToriAllen]

Oh miracle of miracles...I see the Busy Bee has released wardmd from the dreaded YELLOW name. Oh.

Mean old CES.

Don't look at me. I'd never release a captive of another Mod. I might try to persuade the Mod to release him, though.